Speed cameras cause panic braking....

On Nov 7, 8:30*am, Brent > wrote:
> If I drive 80mph on an empty interstate I get ticketed for
> being 'dangerous'.

Well, you know, a speed camera might cause you to crash.

Until speed cameras are outlawed it's better for guys like you to
operate nearest the minimum speed limit, don't you think...?

<guffaw>
-----

- gpsman

On Nov 6, 11:14*pm, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 06:08:41 -0800 (PST), Harry K
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On Nov 4, 10:11*pm, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
> >> On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 19:25:07 -0600, Brent P
>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >On 2008-11-03, Jim Yanik > wrote:
>
> >> >> but get a REAL ticket from a police officer,their behavior changes
> >> >> immediately,and importantly,OTHER people see it happen and alter THEIR
> >> >> behavior.
> >> >> And with real points on the driver's license,their DL can be REVOKED if it
> >> >> happens enough.
>
> >> >I am becoming of the opinion that ticketing should _NOT_ occur unless
> >> >there was some sort of 'harm' to another. Meaning that, someone had to
> >> >take evasive action, brake, etc and so on.
>
> >> >The vast majority of moving violations seem to be things the cops
> >> >themselves do on a daily basis and have zero impact on anyone. (like
> >> >'speeding' or a rolling right on red when the cross traffic green left
> >> >turn arrows are lit)
>
> >> As a moments reflection makes clear, the ONLY reason the laws are
> >> written as they are is precisely so that cops do NOT have to be able
> >> to demonstrate there was any impact. *that's why they have gotten rid
> >> of the logical standard of "speed not reasonable and prudent" which
> >> would have required producing evidence to making "exceeding the posted
> >> speed limit is prima facsa (yeah it's spelled wrong) evidence of speed
> >> not reasonable and prudent. *That eliminates the need to demonstrate
> >> ANY harm or impact. *It's completely divorced from logic and fairness.
> >> It's also why they made most speeding a civil offense so they could
> >> dispense with most of your legal protections. *You can't even subpoena
> >> what YOU think is important to your defense, you can only get what the
> >> judge thinks you need. The same person who rules on your guilt or
> >> innocence also controls what evidence you may use to prove your
> >> innocence.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >Maybe you should advise all the states that their 'speed too fast for
> >conditions' citations are no good. *You can get a ticket doing 40 when
> >the posted is 65 when the road is iced over.
>
> >Harry K
>
> To issue a speed too fast under that statute they have to have some
> EVIDENCE that it was too fast. *My point exactly.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Except this state does not have a "statue" 'speed to fast'...it is
part of the neg drive or reck drive statutes and can be cited without
a "crash". Anyone who thinks that doing something like 70 in heavy
fog or icy roads needs more than that... Yes, I had instances of both
while I was dispatching.

Harry K

On Nov 7, 10:05*am, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 07:10:08 -0800 (PST), Harry K
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On Nov 6, 11:14*pm, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
> >> On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 06:08:41 -0800 (PST), Harry K
>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >On Nov 4, 10:11*pm, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 19:25:07 -0600, Brent P
>
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >On 2008-11-03, Jim Yanik > wrote:
>
> >> >> >> but get a REAL ticket from a police officer,their behavior changes
> >> >> >> immediately,and importantly,OTHER people see it happen and alter THEIR
> >> >> >> behavior.
> >> >> >> And with real points on the driver's license,their DL can be REVOKED if it
> >> >> >> happens enough.
>
> >> >> >I am becoming of the opinion that ticketing should _NOT_ occur unless
> >> >> >there was some sort of 'harm' to another. Meaning that, someone had to
> >> >> >take evasive action, brake, etc and so on.
>
> >> >> >The vast majority of moving violations seem to be things the cops
> >> >> >themselves do on a daily basis and have zero impact on anyone. (like
> >> >> >'speeding' or a rolling right on red when the cross traffic green left
> >> >> >turn arrows are lit)
>
> >> >> As a moments reflection makes clear, the ONLY reason the laws are
> >> >> written as they are is precisely so that cops do NOT have to be able
> >> >> to demonstrate there was any impact. *that's why they have gotten rid
> >> >> of the logical standard of "speed not reasonable and prudent" which
> >> >> would have required producing evidence to making "exceeding the posted
> >> >> speed limit is prima facsa (yeah it's spelled wrong) evidence of speed
> >> >> not reasonable and prudent. *That eliminates the need to demonstrate
> >> >> ANY harm or impact. *It's completely divorced from logic and fairness.
> >> >> It's also why they made most speeding a civil offense so they could
> >> >> dispense with most of your legal protections. *You can't even subpoena
> >> >> what YOU think is important to your defense, you can only get what the
> >> >> judge thinks you need. The same person who rules on your guilt or
> >> >> innocence also controls what evidence you may use to prove your
> >> >> innocence.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> >Maybe you should advise all the states that their 'speed too fast for
> >> >conditions' citations are no good. *You can get a ticket doing 40 when
> >> >the posted is 65 when the road is iced over.
>
> >> >Harry K
>
> >> To issue a speed too fast under that statute they have to have some
> >> EVIDENCE that it was too fast. *My point exactly.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >Except this state does not have a "statue" 'speed to fast'...it is
> >part of the neg drive or reck drive statutes and can be cited without
> >a "crash". *Anyone who thinks that doing something like 70 in heavy
> >fog or icy roads needs more than that... *Yes, I had instances of both
> >while I was dispatching.
>
> >Harry K
>
> that's still evidence based. * A cop who cited you for going to fast
> in heavy fog when there was no fog would potentially have a problem in
> court assuming it wasn't the usual kangaroo court.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well duh!

Harry K

gpsman wrote:
> Q: What prevents a driver from not panic braking at the sight of a
> speed camera...?
>
> A: Nothing.

Methinks we've discovered another of Carl Taylor's nyms.