(Brent P) writes:

> In article >, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
> > There are at least three good questions that I've seen about the
> > chase, only one of which was addressed in the decision:
> >
> > 1) artifically low speed limits to raise revenue. Completely
> > irrelevant to the case, sorry. I don't care if the limit was 15
> > (we have 15mph school zones on 40mph roads around here), when the
> > lights come on, you stop.
>
> You've missed the point entirely. Proper speed limits means only stopping
> those drivers who should be targeted for enforcement. Less stops mean
> fewer chases. Same with picking people up at their homes if they have a
> warrant instead of waiting for them to be pulled over. It's also better for
> the people because then cops just can't pick and choose anyone to stop.
> (either being in violation of the speed limit or driving unusually slow)

No, I haven't. I'm actually a big fan of engineering the road to
encourage driving at a safe speed, and then setting a speed limit
based on actual usage (so only the nuts are driving over the limit).

That is completely irrelevant in whether the police were justified in
ending this chase as they did, which is what the suit was about.

> > If you're on a suspended license (the
> > kid in the case was), you make damn sure you don't do anything
> > to get stopped for
>
> Driving to the letter law attracts police attention, especially on
> friday and saturday nights.

I've only been stopped half a dozen times in my driving career (which
extends several decades), and I've never been at the speed limit when
it's happened. The cops may watch you more closely (I was once
followed for over five miles in my Charger), but a kid in a Cadillac
driving the speed limit isn't going to be stopped. Certainly not as
readily as one driving 18 over the limit. I notice, incidentally,
that you edited out the note that the best way to avoid getting
stopped while on a suspended license is to not be driving at all.