Bailif
Steve Sampson
So anyway this motorcycle cop asks me (poor civilian) for my
insurance...
PC: Can't find it Sir.
MC: No problem, here's a ticket.
PC: Finds the damn form, drives to Court.
Well Hell, I never knew this, but Oklahoma City Municipal
Court does not have a Bailif. Never did, they say.
So I have to take a day off of work, wait for my lottery
number to called (about 3:30pm probably) to show the Judge
that I have always had insurance, but couldn't find my form.
I suppose the Judge charges me $20 court costs for me to tell
him/her that.
Is it just me (being from another state) or does this seem
pretty uneconomical? Most states and Counties have a Bailif,
to which you show your ticket, your evidence, and he closes
the case. For example I got a ticket once for loud exhaust,
and showed the Bailif my receipts for new exhaust, and the
ticket, and presto, the case was closed.
It seems our Judges shouldn't have to be beaten to death by
these types of crimes. I'm sure, having gone to Law School,
that they are paid much more than a Bailif would be. It seems
only economical to institute a Bailif program in Oklahoma
City. Maybe one in each district, so you don't have to hire
a Taxi to stay downtown all day waiting to show your Insurance
slip.
I didn't realize how backwards OKC was. You should have seen
the cashiers face when I asked for the Bailif! She wrinkled
her nose and said "What's a Bailif?"
Steve
"Life is a sexually transmitted, lethal disease"
Earl Faubion
Steve Sampson <ssam...@eds.tinker.af.mil> wrote:
>So I have to take a day off of work, wait for my lottery
>number to called (about 3:30pm probably) to show the Judge
>that I have always had insurance, but couldn't find my form.
The point being you'll be sure to have it with you next time. That
sure beats losing your license because you didn't have it.
>I suppose the Judge charges me $20 court costs for me to tell
>him/her that.
Have you gone to court yet or are you just griping in advance for
having to correct a mistake of your own making?
>Is it just me (being from another state) or does this seem
>pretty uneconomical?
It's just you. Show your proof to the judge and carry your insurance
next time like everyone else. My son is also in the AF and also rides
a motorcycle and always carries his proof of insurance. And you know
why?.... so he doesn't have to go through what you are.
>It seems our Judges shouldn't have to be beaten to death by
>these types of crimes. I'm sure, having gone to Law School,
>that they are paid much more than a Bailif would be. It seems
>only economical to institute a Bailif program in Oklahoma
>City.
Mention it to the judge while you're there. I doubt he/she reads this
newsgroup.
>Maybe one in each district, so you don't have to hire
>a Taxi to stay downtown all day waiting to show your Insurance
>slip.
Why don't you just ride your bike?
>I didn't realize how backwards OKC was.
Yes, you're right.... our cops should just take your word without
requiring proof like they do in every other part of the country.
After all, people don't lie to the cops here.
>You should have seen
>the cashiers face when I asked for the Bailif!
I can imagine. It's not uncommon for them to deal with customers who
are lost.
>She wrinkled her nose and said "What's a Bailif?"
Maybe you didn't pronounce it clearly enough..... it's Bailiff. :)
Easy solution: Show up on your court date, show your proof, and be
glad they allow you to do this BEFORE they suspend your license for
driving with no insurance.
-ef-
Steve Sampson
Earl Faubion wrote:
>
> >Maybe one in each district, so you don't have to hire
> >a Taxi to stay downtown all day waiting to show your Insurance
> >slip.
>
> Why don't you just ride your bike?
Well Earl, you grumpy old cuss, That's another thing...
How come OKC doesn't have any bike-trails? How come the city is
designed for cars and trucks, but not bikes and busses?
How come OKC doesn't have free "yellow bikes" downtown? Public
Transportation really sucks. But then I also see on the car tags
form where all the money goes into the general fund.
Last time I rode my bike down Sooner Rd, I got forced off the road
twice, honked at seventeen times, told I was an "asshole" three
times (in a load voice),, flipped the bird twice.
Is this 1996? Or did I take a wrong turn...
Most states pay for their transportation with tags and vehicle
fee's. Then match that with Federal funds to develop mass-transit.
The way Oklahoma does it, it goes to Jim-Bob and Bob-Tyrone who
are the senior members of the house and their county has 6 lane
highways, while everyone else has a one-lane bridge and dirt road...
Just asking,
Steve
Q: What do you call a bike rider in OKC?
A: A Target.
Peter Laws
On Tue, 26 Nov 1996, Earl Faubion wrote:
*->Steve Sampson <ssam...@eds.tinker.af.mil> wrote:
*->
*->>So I have to take a day off of work, wait for my lottery
*->>number to called (about 3:30pm probably) to show the Judge
*->>that I have always had insurance, but couldn't find my form.
*->
*->The point being you'll be sure to have it with you next time. That
*->sure beats losing your license because you didn't have it.
Here's a guy suggesting how Oklahomans can save money and make necessary
gov't services more efficient and you bite his head off. What's your
point? Can stand "furners" who offer their new home the benefit of their
experiences?
"Sorry, that's the best whatchamahoozie we've ever seen, but since it's
Not Invented Here, we don't dare use it."
Note, too, that he's not trying to "get out" of anything, just griping
that the procedure is unnecessarily time-consuming for the legal system
itself, not to mention *him*self ...
Peter
Peter Laws
On Tue, 26 Nov 1996, Earl Faubion wrote:
*->Yes, you're right.... our cops should just take your word without
*->requiring proof like they do in every other part of the country.
^^^^^
Missed this the first time through. In Massachusetts, the Registry of
Motor Vehicles is notified the second that your liability insurance
expires. No need for the cop to even ask since the computer has the info.
Now, that's not to say that Massachussetts is an example that we'd want to
follow ... :-) Just watch your every's and never's ...
*->After all, people don't lie to the cops here.
Yeah, right.
Peter
Kim Elmore
In article <57f64k$p...@ionews.ionet.net> efau...@ionet.net (Earl Faubion) writes:
>Steve Sampson <ssam...@eds.tinker.af.mil> wrote:
>
>>So I have to take a day off of work, wait for my lottery
>
...yadah yadah yadah
SNIP
I grew up in Oklahoma and the complaints Steve makes are perfectly
justified. Oklahoma is full of Luddites who "ain' gon' change nuthin'".
I spent about teh last 15 years in Colorado and that state has examined
various methods of doing things and changed them when they could be made
more efficient. not all, mind you, and not everything was really better,
but they at least tsake a stab at it. When I left here, ABSCAM had just
broken and the corruption exposed was embarrassing. Make no mistake: I
grew up here and will always count myself among those who suuport Oklahoma,
but what was described by Steve is simply ludicrous.
And then you take off on a tirade essentially declaring this guy to
be guilty until proven innocent. If Oklahoma (or Colorado, for that
matter) were *truly* interested in making sure we all carried insurance,
they'd set up a sysyetm wherein insurance companies report directly to teh
state whether or not the insurance is valid. My insurnce company send me
new cards with the renewal notice. I could skip the renewal and carry the
cards and appear, to any cop, to meet the letter of the law. But if the
Oklahoma *really* wants us to carry insurance, they'll check at the source
and notrelay on some difficult-to-validate-in-the-field piece paper.
Steve was, somewhat sarcastically, pointing out a way that the
system could save *everyone* time and money and you landed on him with both
feet. That's not not helpful, it's not friendly (something we Okies are
s'posed to be known for) and it does absolutely *nothing* to help improve a
system that could damn well use some improvement! Continue to make your
observations and your suggestions, Steve. Not *all* of us take offence.
Kim Elmore
Edward Burr
On Tue, 26 Nov 1996 16:33:15 GMT, Earl Faubion (efau...@ionet.net) wrote:
: Steve Sampson <ssam...@eds.tinker.af.mil> wrote:
: >So I have to take a day off of work, wait for my lottery
: >number to called (about 3:30pm probably) to show the Judge
: >that I have always had insurance, but couldn't find my form.
: The point being you'll be sure to have it with you next time. That
: sure beats losing your license because you didn't have it.
I was driving in arizona a couple years ago, and got pulled over for
speeding (by the only cop, and probably the only car on the road, who
wasn't going faster than me; every other cop I saw had flown by me).
Anyway, when I pulled out my inurance, he wouldn't accept it. I had
to have proof of ownership of the car! Now, I've been told to never
keep the title in the car, and they had good reasons to back that up.
So, I didn't see how I was going to prove I owned the car. Well,
after digging through every paper in the glove box, I found a piece
he would accept: the reciept for my payment for the new year sticker
for my license plate. Being the 3rd or 4th page of a carbon copy,
the ink was barely readable, but he accepted it. I sure was happy I
had been too lazy to clean all the trash out of my glove box recently.
I got away with just a speeding ticket.
I still wonder what they would have done if I hadn't had that scrap
of paper.
I wonder what they do to a speeder driving a friend's car...
: >I suppose the Judge charges me $20 court costs for me to tell
: >him/her that.
: Have you gone to court yet or are you just griping in advance for
: having to correct a mistake of your own making?
Sounds more like he's griping at the inefficiency of the system.
: >Is it just me (being from another state) or does this seem
: >pretty uneconomical?
: It's just you. Show your proof to the judge and carry your insurance
: next time like everyone else. My son is also in the AF and also rides
: a motorcycle and always carries his proof of insurance. And you know
: why?.... so he doesn't have to go through what you are.
: >It seems our Judges shouldn't have to be beaten to death by
: >these types of crimes. I'm sure, having gone to Law School,
: >that they are paid much more than a Bailif would be. It seems
: >only economical to institute a Bailif program in Oklahoma
: >City.
: Mention it to the judge while you're there. I doubt he/she reads this
: newsgroup.
: >Maybe one in each district, so you don't have to hire
: >a Taxi to stay downtown all day waiting to show your Insurance
: >slip.
: Why don't you just ride your bike?
Here are some options:
1) he doesn't have a bike
2) it's a long way from where he lives
3) it's about 33 degrees right now
: >I didn't realize how backwards OKC was.
I've lived here all my life, occassionally traveling to other places.
Oklahoma (the entire state) is backwards compared to mot other places
I have been.
: Yes, you're right.... our cops should just take your word without
: requiring proof like they do in every other part of the country.
: After all, people don't lie to the cops here.
That's not what he was complaining about.
: >You should have seen
: >the cashiers face when I asked for the Bailif!
: I can imagine. It's not uncommon for them to deal with customers who
: are lost.
He wasn't lost; he was looking for the bailiff. Seems a reasonable
request to me. I've never had to deal with the courts here; I didn't
know we didn't have a bailiff either.
: >She wrinkled her nose and said "What's a Bailif?"
: Maybe you didn't pronounce it clearly enough..... it's Bailiff. :)
: Easy solution: Show up on your court date, show your proof, and be
: glad they allow you to do this BEFORE they suspend your license for
: driving with no insurance.
From what he said, that seemed to be the process he was doing. He
wasn't trying to get out of it, just complaining about the
inefficiency of the system.
: -ef-
--/Edward Burr/-------------------+----------------------------------
| Senior, Science Education, OU | Use of my e-mail address or URL |
| egb...@wildstar.net | is restricted. Visit my home |
| http://www.wildstar.net/~egburr | page for details. |
\ / \ /
\ Unless otherwise noted, all opinions here are solely my own./
Earl Faubion
Peter Laws <pl...@nsslsun.nssl.uoknor.edu> wrote:
>>Steve Sampson <ssam...@eds.tinker.af.mil> wrote:
>>
>>So I have to take a day off of work, wait for my lottery
>>number to called (about 3:30pm probably) to show the Judge
>>that I have always had insurance, but couldn't find my form.
>Here's a guy suggesting how Oklahomans can save money and make necessary
>gov't services more efficient and you bite his head off.
By calling it a lottery? It's sour grapes, nothing more, nothing
less. Next time he'll carry his insurance just like his Commading
Officer told him to do BEFORE he came to TAFB. He's just upset
because the ticket wasn't dismissed at the counter. Clerks (and
bailiffs) can NOT dismiss charges. Only the judge and/or prosecutor
can do that so he'll have to appear in court.
>Can stand "furners" who offer their new home the benefit of their experiences?
Can't stand whiners who blame the System when it doesn't bend over and
kiss their behinds Furthermore, if he's been tagged for no proof of
insurance before I'd think he'd have learned by now. :)
>"Sorry, that's the best whatchamahoozie we've ever seen, but since it's
>Not Invented Here, we don't dare use it."
The Courts have no record of you (or him) making such a suggestion.
How come? Could it be because the OKC Courts DO have bailiffs.
Someone hasn't done their homework I'm thinking.
>Note, too, that he's not trying to "get out" of anything, just griping
>that the procedure is unnecessarily time-consuming for the legal system
>itself, not to mention *him*self ...
That's correct.... he's whining. Next time he'll probably have his
proof of insurance handy which is the whole point is it not?
-ef-
Earl Faubion
elm...@nsslsun.nssl.uoknor.edu (Kim Elmore) wrote:
>I grew up in Oklahoma and the complaints Steve makes are perfectly
>justified.
His 'complaint' is that he got a ticket and has to go to court to get
it dismissed. That's not a complaint, it's sour grapes.
>Make no mistake: I
>grew up here and will always count myself among those who suuport Oklahoma,
>but what was described by Steve is simply ludicrous.
I agree. It's so simple to put a piece of paper in one's glove box or
wallet. How dare the courts not provide someone at all hours to
accomodate those who for whatever reason are unable to do the above.
:)
>And then you take off on a tirade essentially declaring this guy to
>be guilty until proven innocent.
If I counter, it's a tirade, but if he bitches it's a suggestion?
Where'd you flunk English?
If he's got insurance he'll get the ticket dismissed. If not he'll
pay a fine. What's wrong with that?
>If Oklahoma (or Colorado, for that
>matter) were *truly* interested in making sure we all carried insurance,
>they'd set up a sysyetm wherein insurance companies report directly to teh
>state whether or not the insurance is valid. My insurnce company send me
>new cards with the renewal notice. I could skip the renewal and carry the
>cards and appear, to any cop, to meet the letter of the law.
You're right, there are some loopholes and the current system isn't
perfect, but what we're talking about here is who didn't have that
piece of paper with him and he's sore because it's an inconvenience to
rectify things. Now who's to blame for that?
>Steve was, somewhat sarcastically, pointing out a way that the
>system could save *everyone* time and money and you landed on him with both
>feet.
If you or anyone else had bothered to check we're not talking about
reducing a fine here... we're talking about dismissing a ticket which
no baliff has the authority to do. Furthermore, if you or anyone else
had bothered to check you'd know that OKC *does* use bailiffs in their
courts. Steve's got to go to court to do what he wants done and an
appearance at the public counter does not qualify. He could get the
reduced $35 fine by showing his insurance to the clerk at the counter
but that's still going to count as a conviction which for that
particular offense means he'll lose his license as per Oklahoma law.
He's comparing mufflers to insurance. What he needs to have the
charge dismissed and a court appearance or a visit with a city
attorney is the only way to do that. Clerks at the public counter
haven't the authority to dismiss tickets.
>That's not not helpful,
Helpful is reading the back of the ticket or calling the telephone
number clearly printed thereon. Steve clearly did neither.
>it's not friendly (something we Okies are
>s'posed to be known for) and it does absolutely *nothing* to help improve a
>system that could damn well use some improvement!
The system will always be in need of improvement but let's not confuse
legitimate suggestions with a public airing of sour grapes'
complaints.
Have a Happy Thanksgiving.
-ef-
Earl Faubion
Steve Sampson <ssam...@eds.tinker.af.mil> wrote:
>> Why don't you just ride your bike?
>Well Earl, you grumpy old cuss, That's another thing...
Yep, that's me. :)
>How come OKC doesn't have any bike-trails? How come the city is
>designed for cars and trucks, but not bikes and busses?
I've asked that question myself as have several others and have never
gotten a satisfactory answer. I think it's a combination of poor
planning and being cheap.
>How come OKC doesn't have free "yellow bikes" downtown? Public
>Transportation really sucks.
As it does in most cities in this region. Our bus service is improved
over a few years ago but still sorely lacking compared to cities to
our east.
>But then I also see on the car tags
>form where all the money goes into the general fund.
Most of it does, yes, and that's another bone many people have to
pick.... our overpriced tags.
>Last time I rode my bike down Sooner Rd, I got forced off the road
>twice, honked at seventeen times, told I was an "asshole" three
>times (in a load voice),, flipped the bird twice.
Sooner Road has more than it's share of crashes for the amount of
traffic it carries. What's happened to you is not unusual. Try
Sooner Road south of I-240 and you'll probably get sucked off the road
by some OU zombie with a radar detector who thinks he's immune from
the Laws of Physics too. That stretch of highway is one of the
deadliest in the State.
>Most states pay for their transportation with tags and vehicle
>fee's. Then match that with Federal funds to develop mass-transit.
>The way Oklahoma does it, it goes to Jim-Bob and Bob-Tyrone who
>are the senior members of the house and their county has 6 lane
>highways, while everyone else has a one-lane bridge and dirt road...
Actually Oklahoma's main highways are among the best in the country
but once you get onto the seconday roads it is another story. You
must remember that Oklahoma is a young state and has an outlaw
heritage. If you're still unconvinced go visit the legislature some
day when they're in session. :)
>Q: What do you call a bike rider in OKC?
>A: A Target.
Q: What do you call a bike rider in Houston?
A: Stupid.
Your point is well taken though. Too many people here look out for
other cars and look _through_ bikes and never see them. Wear that
helmet and drive smart.
-ef-
Speaker
>>Transportation really sucks.
>As it does in most cities in this region. Our bus service is improved
>over a few years ago but still sorely lacking compared to cities to
>our east.
Just how often during the year would such bikes be useable?
Maybe what, three weeks? Then it's too hot outside, or too cold.
>Actually Oklahoma's main highways are among the best in the country
>but once you get onto the seconday roads it is another story.
I disagree.
My latest AAA magazine quoted I believe that like 60% of
Oklahoma's main highways (Interstate and what have you) are only
in fair condition.
>You
>must remember that Oklahoma is a young state and has an outlaw
>heritage. If you're still unconvinced go visit the legislature some
>day when they're in session. :)
Fine. Doesn't excuse the robbing of the road taxes, designed
to pay for roads, to go to the general fund or other items that
are specifically not roads. :-(
--
| Mark Wheatley | http://www.wildstar.net/~mwwheatl/ | mwwh...@wildstar.net |
| "It is no exaggeration to conclude that the Internet has acheived, and |
| continues to acheive, the most participatory marketplace of mass speech |
| that this country -- and indeed the world -- has yet seen." |
Greg Trotter
Earl Faubion (efau...@ionet.net) wrote:
: Your point is well taken though. Too many people here look out for
: other cars and look _through_ bikes and never see them. Wear that
: helmet and drive smart.
As a motorist, I try to be very conscious of bicycle riders. Normally,
bicycle riders and I get along fine -- except in Norman.
Now, I don't know if there's something in the water here... or if the high
number of cylists around OU just appear to make the problem more apparant.
But I do have a problem with cyclists that seem to think that the rules of
the road don't apply to them.
This is, by all means, not indicitive of everyone on a bike. But the number
of cyclists around OU that ignore traffic laws -- ignoring traffic lights
and stop signs is a BIG pet peeve -- seems to be staggering.
Am I imagining this?
- greg
--
Greg Trotter | Mail sent here is subject
Systems Support Programmer | to reproduction in Usenet.
University of Oklahoma | Check key servers or
gr...@wombat.uoknor.edu | finger for PGP key
Kim Elmore
In article <57g0g7$5...@ionews.ionet.net> efau...@ionet.net (Earl Faubion) writes:
>elm...@nsslsun.nssl.uoknor.edu (Kim Elmore) wrote:
>
...snip
>His 'complaint' is that he got a ticket and has to go to court to get
>it dismissed. That's not a complaint, it's sour grapes.
I didn't read it that way; while Steve may have been irritated
about getting the ticket, what *I* read was his irritation at the
ineeficiency of the process involved with proving to the State that he has
insurance.
>>Make no mistake: I
>>grew up here and will always count myself among those who suuport Oklahoma,
>>but what was described by Steve is simply ludicrous.
>
>I agree. It's so simple to put a piece of paper in one's glove box or
>wallet. How dare the courts not provide someone at all hours to
>accomodate those who for whatever reason are unable to do the above.
>:)
Again, I think there are two things at work here: you read that
Steve is miffed about getting a ticket because he wasn't carrying a silliy
peice of paper and I read that Steve was miffed because he had to jump
through a lot of needless hoops to show that, despite his lack of said
paper, he really does have insurance.
>>And then you take off on a tirade essentially declaring this guy to
>>be guilty until proven innocent.
>
>If I counter, it's a tirade, but if he bitches it's a suggestion?
>Where'd you flunk English?
Oklahoma, of course. :)
>If he's got insurance he'll get the ticket dismissed. If not he'll
>pay a fine. What's wrong with that?
Nothing is wrong with the result: it's the *process* that's flawed.
>You're right, there are some loopholes and the current system isn't
>perfect, but what we're talking about here is who didn't have that
>piece of paper with him and he's sore because it's an inconvenience to
>rectify things. Now who's to blame for that?
Which that? Steve is guilty of not having a piece of paper; OKC
(or is it Oklahoma? Don't cities run traffic courts?) is guilty of having
a needlessly byzantine process for addressing what distills down to an
administrative infraction.
>>Steve was, somewhat sarcastically, pointing out a way that the
>>system could save *everyone* time and money and you landed on him with both
>>feet.
>
>If you or anyone else had bothered to check we're not talking about
>reducing a fine here... we're talking about dismissing a ticket which
>no baliff has the authority to do.
But that's an arbitrary limit, is it not? Why not address this
limit and expand the bailiff's powers to deal with scenarios like this so
that 1) the city (state?) needn't tie up a *judge's* time addressing what
is an administrative problem and 2) the person caught without their paper
goes through a minimum of mess? This benefits *everyone* and, I thought,
was the gist of Steve's problem.
> Furthermore, if you or anyone else
>had bothered to check you'd know that OKC *does* use bailiffs in their
>courts. Steve's got to go to court to do what he wants done and an
>appearance at the public counter does not qualify.
Again, an arbitrary definition. Since it is arbitrary, let's
arbitrarily give bailiffs (or whatever is the appropriate Officer of the
Court) the ability to deal with this sort of administrivia? *I* think his
is the gist of Steve's post. Maybe he was kvetching about a silly piece of
paper, but he's also exposed some needlessly wasted time for overburdened
courts and ignorant/careless paperless people.
> He could get the
>reduced $35 fine by showing his insurance to the clerk at the counter
>but that's still going to count as a conviction which for that
>particular offense means he'll lose his license as per Oklahoma law.
That's the current law. Great; let's *change* it! That's the
point of this whole exercise! We can concoct various scenarios about how
to handle this (for example, first infraction handled by <whatever>,
second infraction: see the judge).
>He's comparing mufflers to insurance. What he needs to have the
>charge dismissed and a court appearance or a visit with a city
>attorney is the only way to do that. Clerks at the public counter
>haven't the authority to dismiss tickets.
Ah! The *key*! Expand the authority of the
clerks/bailiffs/whatevers! Why waste a city attorny's time with this? Why
wasTe a judge's time? If the State (or city or whichever entity) invested
some time into a bit of thought, a lot of overly frustrating things would
become less so.
>Helpful is reading the back of the ticket or calling the telephone
>number clearly printed thereon. Steve clearly did neither.
I disagree: there's no reason why a process should waste valuable
public resources *and* valuable private ones at the same time. A certain
system exists and has been shown to be needlessly wasteful. Let's not
defend it: let's address how to change it.
>>it's not friendly (something we Okies are
>>s'posed to be known for) and it does absolutely *nothing* to help improve a
>>system that could damn well use some improvement!
>
>The system will always be in need of improvement but let's not confuse
>legitimate suggestions with a public airing of sour grapes'
>complaints.
Legitimate suggestions can certainly be encapsulated within a
public airing of sour grapes. Even sour grapes can be used to improve
garden soil.
>Have a Happy Thanksgiving.
And you, too!
Kim Elmore
Kim Elmore
In article <57hjbd$7...@frazier.backbone.ou.edu> gr...@tardis.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter) writes:
...snip
>This is, by all means, not indicitive of everyone on a bike. But the number
>of cyclists around OU that ignore traffic laws -- ignoring traffic lights
>and stop signs is a BIG pet peeve -- seems to be staggering.
>
>Am I imagining this?
Nope; it was the same way in Boulder, CO. They began to address it
when cyclists started getting killed by running lights, stop signs, riding
the wromg way one one way streets, what have you. Boulder, and later,
Colorado, drafted laws that mandated stiff fines and other penalties for
cyclists that disregarded traffic signs, signals and laws. No one thought
they'd actually do it, but they did. Cops would pull cyclists over, red
lights, sirens and all. Word got out and the problems decreased
dramatically. Almost overnight, cyclists began behaving. And, think of
the incresed revenue for the State! For awhile, anyway... :)
Kim Elmore
Edward Burr
On 27 Nov 1996 14:31:09 GMT, Greg Trotter (gr...@tardis.uoknor.edu) wrote:
: This is, by all means, not indicitive of everyone on a bike. But the number
: of cyclists around OU that ignore traffic laws -- ignoring traffic lights
: and stop signs is a BIG pet peeve -- seems to be staggering.
: Am I imagining this?
: - greg
No. I've noticed this, too. Not that many of the car/truck drivers
are any better here, though they at least usually drive on the
proper side of the road.
Anyway, remember back a couple years ago when they had Lindsey under
construction from Jenkins on east? I was really hoping that they
would add a bike lane or at least a sidewalk as part of the
construction. I don't know what I was thinking; they didn't even add
an extra lane for cars, unless you want to count the mostly unmarked
shoulder that everyone uses for passing, not realizing the other cars
in that supposed lane are parked.
Edward Burr
On Wed, 27 Nov 1996 16:14:58 GMT, Peter Laws (pl...@nsslsun.nssl.uoknor.edu) wrote:
: On 27 Nov 1996, Speaker wrote:
: *-> I disagree.
: *-> My latest AAA magazine quoted I believe that like 60% of
: *->Oklahoma's main highways (Interstate and what have you) are only
: *->in fair condition.
: Please keep in mind that AAA is one of the largest lobby groups in the
: country and they have a vested interest in "downgrading" OK's roads.
Just for my curiosity, what is its vested interest in downgrading our roads?
: ...................................................................... Now,
: I do agree that fuel taxes and tolls should be used only for roads. In
: fact, I don't think there should be any subsidy from the general fund at
: all UNLESS the state is willing to subsidize other modes at the same rate.
: Other modes being mass transit, rail, bike routes ... I found it
: interesting that Istook (I think it was him) shot down a proposed light
: rail system for OKC because it "wouldn't pay it's way". Imagine if we
: applied the same standard to roads!!
: Peter
I would love a large mass transit system. The main reason I don't
use it now is because it is all but worthless. It doesn't go where
I need to go, the runs are too widely spaced. Unfortunately, until
more people start using what we have, the city/state won't consider
upgrading it. Until we have a better, more comprehensive mass
transit system, no one is willing to use it.
Once OKC and Tulsa get a good mass transit system in place, we can
consider building a rail line between OKC and Tulsa. I doubt that
will ever happen, though, because the turnpike would lose most of its
source of income.
Peter Laws
On Wed, 27 Nov 1996, Earl Faubion wrote:
*->appearance at the public counter does not qualify. He could get the
*->reduced $35 fine by showing his insurance to the clerk at the counter
*->but that's still going to count as a conviction which for that
*->particular offense means he'll lose his license as per Oklahoma law.
*->He's comparing mufflers to insurance. What he needs to have the
Huh? What? Are you serious? He will lose his license for lack of a
piece of paper? The fact that he *HAS* valid insurance has no bearing? I
thought the law supposed to "encourage" people to carry insurance, not
pieces of paper ... How stupid.
Even *Arkansas* is smarter. If you can't show proof of insurance, the cop
takes your tag and gives you a big, ugly, flourescent sticker with a 10
day expiration. If you really have insurance, you go home, get the piece
of paper, take it to the PD, they give you your tag. Sooo simple.
Peter
Peter Laws
On 27 Nov 1996, Speaker wrote:
*-> I disagree.
*-> My latest AAA magazine quoted I believe that like 60% of
*->Oklahoma's main highways (Interstate and what have you) are only
*->in fair condition.
Please keep in mind that AAA is one of the largest lobby groups in the
country and they have a vested interest in "downgrading" OK's roads. Now,
Earl Faubion
egb...@kiowa.wildstar.net (Edward Burr) wrote:
>I was driving in arizona a couple years ago, and got pulled over for
>speeding (by the only cop, and probably the only car on the road, who
>wasn't going faster than me; every other cop I saw had flown by me).
>Anyway, when I pulled out my inurance, he wouldn't accept it. I had
>to have proof of ownership of the car! Now, I've been told to never
>keep the title in the car, and they had good reasons to back that up.
When I head out of state I always carry a copy of my registration
because many states require it. Not the title mind you, just the
registration or a copy of it.
>I still wonder what they would have done if I hadn't had that scrap
>of paper.
You'd probably have been detained a little longer while they ran your
tag. Nowadays with the computer terminals some departments use that
process is much faster.
>I wonder what they do to a speeder driving a friend's car...
Verify the vehicle isn't stolen, write the ticket and you're on you
way? :)
>From what he said, that seemed to be the process he was doing. He
>wasn't trying to get out of it, just complaining about the
>inefficiency of the system.
Many years ago OKC allowed their court clerks to dismiss tickets at
the counter for things like no license, defective headlights, etc,
upon proof the problem was corrected. Then they went to the current
Court of Record system and it now has to be done by a judge or a city
attorney which means appearing in court.
-ef-
Earl Faubion
Peter Laws <pl...@nsslsun.nssl.uoknor.edu> wrote:
>Missed this the first time through. In Massachusetts, the Registry of
>Motor Vehicles is notified the second that your liability insurance
>expires. No need for the cop to even ask since the computer has the info.
Yes, that is a more efficient system and eventually most states will
utilize one like it. It's just a matter of time and money... and
politics. It's be interesting to compare Massachusetts rates of
uninsured drivers versus ours.
-ef-
Earl Faubion
mwwh...@cherokee.wildstar.net (Speaker) wrote:
>Just how often during the year would such bikes be useable?
>Maybe what, three weeks? Then it's too hot outside, or too cold.
Die hard bike riders flourish in this state.... they have to because
otherwise they'd move or give up their hobby. :)
> I disagree.
> My latest AAA magazine quoted I believe that like 60% of
>Oklahoma's main highways (Interstate and what have you) are only
>in fair condition.
My assessment was based on a poll of cross country truckers taken last
year which ranked OK among the Top 10 in the country. My own
experience driving around the state seems to agree... the main roads
are generally good while the back roads are not.
-ef-
Earl Faubion
gr...@tardis.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter) wrote:
>Now, I don't know if there's something in the water here... or if the high
>number of cylists around OU just appear to make the problem more apparant.
>But I do have a problem with cyclists that seem to think that the rules of
>the road don't apply to them.
I think this is a universal problem. Since I don't drive often in
Norman I can't compare but in OKC most bicylists seem to think they
are immune from traffic laws and they most definitely are not and
except for the children they can be cited.
-ef-
Earl Faubion
elm...@nsslsun.nssl.uoknor.edu (Kim Elmore) wrote:
>I didn't read it that way; while Steve may have been irritated
>about getting the ticket, what *I* read was his irritation at the
>ineeficiency of the process involved with proving to the State that he has
>insurance.
I read it differently but we do seem to be back on the same wavelength
now.
>>Where'd you flunk English?
>Oklahoma, of course. :)
Me too. :)
>That's the current law. Great; let's *change* it! That's the
>point of this whole exercise!
The reference was to uninsured motorists having their licenses
suspended. Getting a fine *reduction* on an insurance ticket will
still cause it to be reported to the state as a conviction which has
nasty results. Better to jump through the hoops, get it dismissed
outright (with or without court costs) and keep the record clean....
and make it a point to alwayscarry that silly piece of paper in the
future. :)
>Ah! The *key*! Expand the authority of the
>clerks/bailiffs/whatevers! Why waste a city attorny's time with this?
As explained in another post, it's the Court of Record system. I
think Tulsa and Lawton are similar while most other municipal courts
are less formal. Overall it is a good system but it does have
bottlenecks when dealing with lesser charges such as those we are
discussing.
>Let's not defend it: let's address how to change it.
I'm not defending a cumbersome system, what I apparently didn't
clarify was that a phone call in advance would have prepared him in
for what steps were necessary to deal with that particular ticket.
-ef-
Speaker
Peter Laws <pl...@nsslsun.nssl.uoknor.edu> writes:
>In
>fact, I don't think there should be any subsidy from the general fund at
>all UNLESS the state is willing to subsidize other modes at the same rate.
It's the other way around.
Gas tax funds, and other taxes collected specifically for road
use, get siphoned off for other purposes. I think it's only like 35%
of all monies collected with the intent to fund roads in Oklahoma
(at the State level) actually get there.
Edwin Adlerman
Earl Faubion wrote:
> When I head out of state I always carry a copy of my registration
> because many states require it. Not the title mind you, just the
> registration or a copy of it.
>
> >I still wonder what they would have done if I hadn't had that scrap
> >of paper.
>
> You'd probably have been detained a little longer while they ran your
> tag. Nowadays with the computer terminals some departments use that
> process is much faster.
>
> -ef-
You left out the part where the friendly officer goes on
a unconstitutional fishing expedition for drugs, in hopes of
bolstering his career and ego, and possibly scoring another
DARE-mobile for the department. But that would depend on the
color of your skin and the condition of your car, or in
police terms "whether you fit the profile of a drug courier".
I'm sure Mr. Faubion has never seen that happen in
wonderfully unbiased Oklahoma (ha!).
-ed adlerman
Ken M.
Steve Sampson wrote:
>
> So anyway this motorcycle cop asks me (poor civilian) for my
> insurance...
>
> PC: Can't find it Sir.
> MC: No problem, here's a ticket.
> PC: Finds the damn form, drives to Court.
>
> Well Hell, I never knew this, but Oklahoma City Municipal
> Court does not have a Bailif. Never did, they say.
>
> number to called (about 3:30pm probably) to show the Judge
> that I have always had insurance, but couldn't find my form.
>
> him/her that.
>
> to which you show your ticket, your evidence, and he closes
> the case. For example I got a ticket once for loud exhaust,
> and showed the Bailif my receipts for new exhaust, and the
> ticket, and presto, the case was closed.
>
> these types of crimes. I'm sure, having gone to Law School,
> that they are paid much more than a Bailif would be. It seems
> only economical to institute a Bailif program in Oklahoma
> a Taxi to stay downtown all day waiting to show your Insurance
> slip.
>
> the cashiers face when I asked for the Bailif! She wrinkled
> her nose and said "What's a Bailif?"
>
> "Life is a sexually transmitted, lethal disease"
You've been watching too many "Judge Wapner" episodes on People's
Court. You were technically charged with a criminal offense. Only
a judge or state's attorney can *dismiss* the charges.
BTW - why didn't you have your documentation with you when the
officer pulled you over?
Sorry -- but you brought it on yourself!
(Ken)
HGreen
I Bailiff for the city court here quite often. I cannot dismiss a
ticket or anything else. You can take care of this with the court
clerk, but not the bailiff. We are required to write a ticket to anyone
that doesn't have an insurance card with them when stopped. Showing
proof of the insurance later can usually be done over a fax machine.
You have 10 days to show proof, and usually the judge will dismiss the
charge. The judge doesn't have to dismiss, because the law states that
you must be able to show proof when stopped, but again the bailiff can't
do any of this.
HMG
Speaker
efau...@ionet.net (Earl Faubion) writes:
>Then they went to the current
>Court of Record system and it now has to be done by a judge or a city
>attorney which means appearing in court.
Court of Record?
Last time I heard that used was in reference to out of
which courts you could appeal a decision that might eventually wind
up at the U.S. Supreme Court. This was in High School government class
I believe and I was told that only matters judged in a "court
of record" could be appealed up that high.
Is the same term being used to refer to two entirely
different concepts? Or can a traffic ticket received in OKC possible
be the start of a U.S. Supreme Court bounf case?
Edwin Adlerman
Earl Faubion wrote:
>
> Edwin Adlerman <eadl...@ou.edu> wrote:
>
> > You left out the part where the friendly officer goes on
> > a unconstitutional fishing expedition for drugs, in hopes of
> > bolstering his career and ego, and possibly scoring another
> > DARE-mobile for the department.
>
> by reading a few lines?
Exactly. Your naivete shows. Or is that a wink to your
fellow officers I detect ????
-ed
Earl Faubion
Earl Faubion
Edwin Adlerman <eadl...@ou.edu> wrote:
>> Isn't it amazing how easy it is to discover one's priorities in life
>> by reading a few lines?
>Exactly. Your naivete shows. Or is that a wink to your
>fellow officers I detect ????
What I detect is a shameless drug troll. Have a Happy Thanksgiving
and go fishing elsewhere.
Speaker
Edwin Adlerman <eadl...@ou.edu> writes:
> You left out the part where the friendly officer goes on
> a unconstitutional fishing expedition for drugs, in hopes of
>bolstering his career and ego, and possibly scoring another
> DARE-mobile for the department.
I thought there was a recent Supreme Court ruiling that they
can search your entire car for a minor traffic violation now, or even
a suspected violuation. :-(
Edwin Adlerman
Ah, Mr. Faubion, your back to your old ways. When in doubt, accuse everyone of
being a 'drug troll' or 'stoner'. Now there's some good ol' fashion 'cop logic' which would
merely support the supposition that 'drug fishing expeditions' are not so unusual, since
you seem to default to such an attitude by rote.
Thank you for reinforcing the stereotype. You serve your brothers in blue well.
HaVe a HaPpY ThAnKsGiViNg,
-ed
Edwin Adlerman
Speaker wrote:
>
> Edwin Adlerman <eadl...@ou.edu> writes:
> > You left out the part where the friendly officer goes on
> > a unconstitutional fishing expedition for drugs, in hopes of
> >bolstering his career and ego, and possibly scoring another
> > DARE-mobile for the department.
>
> I thought there was a recent Supreme Court ruiling that they
> can search your entire car for a minor traffic violation now, or even
> a suspected violuation. :-(
Correct. It gave the right to search even under the
PRETENSE of a traffice stop. In addition, the officer is
not required to tell you that you are free to go before asking
to rifle through your belongings. So, technically it's not
unconstitutional, but I think many people would feel otherwise.
Welcome to the police state.
Resistance is futile.
You will be assimilated.
-ed
Earl Faubion
Peter Laws <pl...@nsslsun.nssl.uoknor.edu> wrote:
>Huh? What? Are you serious? He will lose his license for lack of a
>piece of paper?
He'll lose it for failing to show that he DID have insurance.
>The fact that he *HAS* valid insurance has no bearing?
Plenty if he shows it.
>I thought the law supposed to "encourage" people to carry insurance, not
>pieces of paper ... How stupid.
The paper is the 'proof.' What would you offer as an alternative?
Their word?
>Even *Arkansas* is smarter. If you can't show proof of insurance, the cop
>takes your tag and gives you a big, ugly, flourescent sticker with a 10
>day expiration. If you really have insurance, you go home, get the piece
>of paper,
(snip)
Paper? Gasp? You mean he'll lose his license (tag) for lack of a
piece of paper?
Now go back and read the line you wrote which is quoted at the
beginning of this post and tell me I'm not going blind. :)
-ef-
Earl Faubion
mwwh...@kiowa.wildstar.net (Speaker) wrote:
> Court of Record?
> Last time I heard that used was in reference to out of
>which courts you could appeal a decision that might eventually wind
>up at the U.S. Supreme Court.
Correct. Appeals from OKC Municipal Court go directly to the State
Court of Criminal Appeals for which a transcript of the original
proceedings are required. It's theoretically possible for such a case
to go all the way to the top whereas appeals from most other municipal
courts end up being retried at a higher level.
> Is the same term being used to refer to two entirely
>different concepts? Or can a traffic ticket received in OKC possible
>be the start of a U.S. Supreme Court bounf case?
Yes. Court reporters are available for all trials and defendants are
advised beforehand that if they feel they will wish to appeal an
adverse verdict they will need to advise the court so the court
reporter can record the proceedings. Without a transcript there is no
choice but to accept the verdict.
-ef-
Earl Faubion
Edwin Adlerman <ead...@tornado.gcn.ou.edu> wrote:
>Ah, Mr. Faubion, your back to your old ways. When in doubt, accuse everyone of
>being a 'drug troll' or 'stoner'.
Everyone? No. Just you. If drugs are your thing then learn how to
deal with it without blasting those who choose not to lead that kind
of life.
>Now there's some good ol' fashion 'cop logic' which would
>merely support the supposition that 'drug fishing expeditions' are not so unusual,
Because they work. I'm surprised the people who carry drugs haven't
caught on to that little fact yet. Must be an occupational hazard. :)
>Thank you for reinforcing the stereotype. You serve your brothers in blue well.
I can live with my stereotype with a clear conscience. I suggest you
learn to live with yours.
-ef-
Edwin Adlerman
Earl Faubion wrote:
>
> Edwin Adlerman <ead...@tornado.gcn.ou.edu> wrote:
> >Now there's some good ol' fashion 'cop logic' which would
> >merely support the supposition that 'drug fishing expeditions' are not so unusual,
>
> Because they work......
Straight from the horse's mouth. No doesn't everyone feel a bit safer knowing
that one of OKC's finests feels that 'fishing expeditions' are fair and successfull police
tactic.!! Keep talking Mr. Faubion, I want to here more!!! So how do pick out your
fishing targets??? Do they "LOOK SUSPICIOUS"?? I remember you once posted that
you'd pull over someone for going 1mph over the speed limit if you "felt like it" ??
Is this too part of business as usual.????
In addition Mr. Faubion, you make the fatal flaw that anyone who supports basic civil
liberties is trying to get away with something illegal. Hope that attitude doesn't come
back to haunt your future!
Keep Talking,
-ed
eadl...@ou.edu
Earl Faubion wrote:
>
> Edwin Adlerman <eadl...@ou.edu> wrote:
>
> >In addition Mr. Faubion, you make the fatal flaw that anyone who
supports basic civil
> >liberties is trying to get away with something illegal. Hope that
attitude doesn't come
> >back to haunt your future!
>
> reply is expected.
>
> -ef-
Huh? Fatal flaw in logic! From the dictionary definition
"highly significant" (F&W, 1968), i.e. the 'death' of your
logical train of thought.
E.g., as in the logic:
1.) person objects to random 'fishing expeditions' for
drugs.
2.) person is therefore on drugs.
You see???? Sorry for ambiguous wording.
-ed
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Earl Faubion
Earl Faubion
eadl...@ou.edu wrote:
>Huh? Fatal flaw in logic!
Huh? That's not how it came across. But I am pleased to read your
clarification.
-ef-
Charles Younger
Peter Laws wrote:
>
> On 27 Nov 1996, Speaker wrote:
>
> *-> I disagree.
> *->Oklahoma's main highways (Interstate and what have you) are only
> *->in fair condition.
>
> Please keep in mind that AAA is one of the largest lobby groups in the
> country and they have a vested interest in "downgrading" OK's roads. Now,
> fact, I don't think there should be any subsidy from the general fund at
> all UNLESS the state is willing to subsidize other modes at the same rate.
>
> interesting that Istook (I think it was him) shot down a proposed light
> rail system for OKC because it "wouldn't pay it's way". Imagine if we
> applied the same standard to roads!!
Yep that was Ernie, but what can one expect from a good non-drinking
Mormon boy whose 2nd largest campaign contribution came from the
Wholesale Beer PAC. Maybe if OKC would serve beer on the light rail he
would change his (oh god I almost wrote "mind") vote.
>
> Peter
Edwin Adlerman
PrimeTimeLive ?? I missed it, but it supposedly dealt with
this subject.......
-ed
Ken M.
Edwin Adlerman wrote:
>
> Straight from the horse's mouth. No doesn't everyone feel a bit safer
> knowing that one of OKC's finests feels that 'fishing expeditions' are
> fair and successfull police tactic.!! Keep talking Mr. Faubion, I want
> to here more!!! So how do pick out your fishing targets??? Do they
> "LOOK SUSPICIOUS"?? I remember you once posted that you'd pull over
> someone for going 1mph over the speed limit if you "felt like it" ??
> Is this too part of business as usual.????
>
> In addition Mr. Faubion, you make the fatal flaw that anyone who
> supports basic civil liberties is trying to get away with something
> illegal. Hope that attitude doesn't come back to haunt your future!
>
> Keep Talking,
>
> -ed
Now -- that does sound like a threat -- and you sound like an asshole
who has a conflict with authority! Grow up!
(Ken)
Steve Sampson
Ken M. wrote:
>
> Steve Sampson wrote:
> >
> > So anyway this motorcycle cop asks me (poor civilian) for my
> > insurance...
...
>
> You've been watching too many "Judge Wapner" episodes on People's
> Court. You were technically charged with a criminal offense. Only
> a judge or state's attorney can *dismiss* the charges.
>
> BTW - why didn't you have your documentation with you when the
> officer pulled you over?
>
> Sorry -- but you brought it on yourself!
>
> (Ken)
Thanks Ken. It's interesting that you support this high cost legal
system. Personally, I'm taxed at 21% of my income, so I find it kind
of absurd that OKC spends so much money and man-hours on this very simple
problem. But I guess it's only money, and maybe the cost is worth it
to you folks.
If you travel over to Midwest City, you will find their laws are shaped
around a more economical system. They value their Judges time.
Your comment about me watching too much TV is wrong. I don't watch
trials on TV. I've never been interested in law. Evidently no one else
in town is interested either, as this system has every indication of
a time in the past when horses were the common mode of transportation,
and the Judge didn't have anything to do anyway. A situation that
doesn't exist today.
Yes, it's true I am guilty of not having proof of insurance. It is also
true I brought it on myself. I'm glad this point causes you such great
excitement. The proof of insurance was safely in my home on the coffee
table, having received it from my insurance agent in the mail. Hope this
satisfies your curiosity?
Now back to the question...
Laws are written.
Laws can be re-written.
Laws are flexible.
Laws are not inflexible.
Using the above, we see that Laws are not inflexible, and can be re-written.
Changing a law must address the reason it was written in the first place.
We want people to drive with insurance. Fine, there's a million ways to do
this. One law is no better than another. We also want the laws to be
economical. It isn't right to take people money and just throw it away on
poor laws. The money I lose sitting in court all day is no skin off my nose.
It just means I'll have less to give to charity. The $20 the city gets
will buy nothing. It won't even pay for the judges time.
Steve
Earl Faubion
Steve Sampson <ssam...@eds.tinker.af.mil> wrote:
>If you travel over to Midwest City, you will find their laws are shaped
>around a more economical system. They value their Judges time.
I don't think MWC has a Court of Record system as does OKC so this is
an apples/oranges comparison. The Court of Record system works well
for larger courts while the older system works well for the smaller
ones. Both have advantages and disadvantages.
-ef-
Gary McManus
"Fatal flaw" sounds like a threat??? Yeah, right. I'd say some of us
need to chill just a little. Mistaking a commonly used phrase like
"fatal flaw" for a threat is kinda' reaching for something to get pissed
at.
p.s. I'd kill for a Coke right now...who's gonna call the police???
Gary McManus
Peter Laws
On Fri, 29 Nov 1996, Earl Faubion wrote:
*->Peter Laws <pl...@nsslsun.nssl.uoknor.edu> wrote:
*->
*->>Huh? What? Are you serious? He will lose his license for lack of a
^^^^^^^
*->Paper? Gasp? You mean he'll lose his license (tag) for lack of a
^^^^^^^=^^^^^
Ohhh, you mean he loses his TAG. I equate license with the "Driver
License" that the state issues to "qualified" drivers, since that's what
it says on said document.
Peter
Peter Laws
On 27 Nov 1996, Edward Burr wrote:
*->: country and they have a vested interest in "downgrading" OK's roads.
*->
*->Just for my curiosity, what is its vested interest in downgrading our roads?
Sorry, I misspoke. I should have said something along the lines of "they
have a vested interest in making our roads seem worse than they are so
they can get more money spent on them" ...
*->I would love a large mass transit system. The main reason I don't
*->use it now is because it is all but worthless. It doesn't go where
Right. Me too. One hour headways (in Norman) don't make for convenient
commuting. Loop-like routes that only run in one direction don't help
either.
Add to that the fact that the roads are "free" (read: subsidized) and you
get half full busses (on good days).
*->Once OKC and Tulsa get a good mass transit system in place, we can
*->consider building a rail line between OKC and Tulsa. I doubt that
One is not necessary for the other, of course. There are rail lines
between OKC and TUL, as you know, that are already capable of suporting
passenger rail. Convincing Amtrak to run service is another thing, but
entirely possible if the state was willing to kick in $$ ...
*->will ever happen, though, because the turnpike would lose most of its
*->source of income.
Can someone provide a reference for whether or not the Turnpikes make or
lose money. Not anecdotal, real numbers. My guess is that they lose
(most do) ...
Peter
Greg Trotter
Edward Burr (egb...@kiowa.wildstar.net) wrote:
:
: Once OKC and Tulsa get a good mass transit system in place, we can
: consider building a rail line between OKC and Tulsa. I doubt that
: will ever happen, though, because the turnpike would lose most of its
: source of income.
Perhaps. But it seems to me that a prerequisite for an effective mass
transit system is clogged roads. Even with the occaisional (even regular)
jams that OKC has, it just doesn't compare to larger cities.
When I go to visit friends in NW OKC, it takes me about 30-35 minutes to
get there from Norman when traffic is flowing smoothly. The biggest delay
I've ever had is 15 minutes during rush hour with wrecks and other mishaps.
The point is, people have to have a reason to want to ride public
transportation. The three most common reasons are:
1) Cars are too expensive (common in developing countries)
2) Roads are too jammed (common in large US cities -- particularly on the
coasts)
3) Gas is too expensive
Even with gas prices going up, we in Oklahoma still have among the lowest
petroleum prices. None of those three reasons apply to us -- and until they
do, mass transit will not be popular.
If it took me two hours to drive to Edmond, I would seriously consider
mass transit. If it was economical for me to take a bus to OKC, I might
(the fare costs more than the gas I burn).
- greg
--
Greg Trotter | Mail sent here is subject
Systems Support Programmer | to reproduction in Usenet.
University of Oklahoma | Check key servers or
gr...@wombat.uoknor.edu | finger for PGP key
Peter Laws
ich...@galstar.com (Igor Chudov) writes:
>do they have commercial bus lines between tulsa and OKC?
Sure, but they hardly compare to train travel. It's sad that so few people
today have had the pleasure of riding trains today that they assume that
they are like busses ... They're not - Amtrak on a bad day is better
than any bus.
--
Peter Laws / pl...@wildstar.net / N5UWY
Peter Laws
mwwh...@apache.wildstar.net (Speaker) writes:
>pl...@cherokee.wildstar.net (Peter Laws) writes:
>>Sure, but they hardly compare to train travel.
> I didn't think you could take a train from OKC to Tulsa. I
>didn't think that passenger trains ran anywhere in Oklahoma except
>for some speciality, short distance ones somewhere for tourist stuff.
You can't. The original thread was about rail service between. TUL and OKC. Come
to think of it, we actually started by talking about roads, which was a
spin off of the Bailiffs thread ...
The state *is* working on a study to restore the Lone Star which started
in either St Louis or KC and ended up in Dallas or Ft Worth, hitting OKC
in between as well as restarting tri-daily OKC-TUL service ... The only
way Amtrak will do it is if OK kicks in some $$$.
Speaker
I didn't think you could take a train from OKC to Tulsa. I
didn't think that passenger trains ran anywhere in Oklahoma except
for some speciality, short distance ones somewhere for tourist stuff.
--
Speaker
pl...@cherokee.wildstar.net (Peter Laws) writes:
>The state *is* working on a study to restore the Lone Star which started
>in either St Louis or KC and ended up in Dallas or Ft Worth, hitting OKC
>in between as well as restarting tri-daily OKC-TUL service ... The only
>way Amtrak will do it is if OK kicks in some $$$.
Ah. Money in addition to the tax dollars already taken from
Oklahoma for transportation, given to the Federal government, and used
to subsidise mass transport and rail in other cities, specifically in
the NE part of the U.S.
(yes, this is a partial troll :-))