Originally Posted by davestlouis

Let me throw something else into the mix here...around St. Louis at least I see cops speeding all the time. St. Louis County lets a lot of their guys take their cars home, so you will see a County Brownie taking his kids to soccer games and whatnot on Saturday clearly going over the limit, wearing shorts and a t-shirt with no lights, so he's not on duty.

If we as civilians are supposed to obey traffic laws, and believe that enforcement of said laws is a public safety issue and not revenue enhancement, why don't the officers who are sworn to uphold the laws, obey these laws?

This is something that has bugged me for years, but I really don't know what to do about it...shrug it off, I guess.

Originally Posted by AustinsCE

They did it, nothing happened, thus it can be said it wasnt dangerous because nothing happened.

Originally Posted by BENZ-LGB

Canada took over New York, eh?

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

Yep.........didn't you hear that on CNN today?

Originally Posted by BENZ-LGB

Canada took over New York, eh?

Originally Posted by BENZ-LGB

That would piss me off too.

Especially since you are paying for it with your hard earned tax dollars.

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton

Provided that nothing happens, you believe that anyone can violate any vehicle and traffic law..........at any time.

And, no, they don't teach English in Canada. I've got that on a good authority.

And I'm the one who's retarded??

Originally Posted by BENZ-LGB

California Labor Code, Sec. 6404.5 provides, in relevant parts, as follows:

Legislative findings and declarations; Prohibition of smoking in the workplace; Exceptions for specified periods:

(a) The Legislature finds and declares that regulation of smoking in the workplace is a matter of statewide interest and concern. It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this section to prohibit the smoking of tobacco products in all (100 percent of) enclosed places of employment in this state, as covered by this section, thereby eliminating the need of local governments to enact workplace smoking restrictions within their respective jurisdictions. It is further the intent of the Legislature to create a uniform statewide standard to restrict and prohibit the smoking of tobacco products in enclosed places of employment, as specified in this section, in order to reduce employee exposure to environmental tobacco smoke to a level that will prevent anything other than insignificantly harmful effects to exposed employees, and also to eliminate the confusion and hardship that can result from enactment or enforcement of disparate local workplace smoking restrictions. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, it is the intent of the Legislature that any area not defined as a "place of employment" pursuant to subdivision (d) or in which the smoking of tobacco products is not regulated pursuant to subdivision (e) shall be subject to local regulation of smoking of tobacco products.

(b) No employer shall knowingly or intentionally permit, and no person shall engage in, the smoking of tobacco products in an enclosed space at a place of employment. "Enclosed space" includes lobbies, lounges, waiting areas, elevators, stairwells, and restrooms that are a structural part of the building and not specifically defined in subdivision (d).

(c) For purposes of this section, an employer who permits any nonemployee access to his or her place of employment on a regular basis has not acted knowingly or intentionally in violation of this section if he or she has taken the following reasonable steps to prevent smoking by a nonemployee:

(1) Posted clear and prominent signs, as follows:

(A) Where smoking is prohibited throughout the building or structure, a sign stating "No smoking" shall be posted at each entrance to the building or structure.

(B) Where smoking is permitted in designated areas of the building or structure, a sign stating "Smoking is prohibited except in designated areas" shall be posted at each entrance to the building or structure.

(2) Has requested, when appropriate, that a nonemployee who is smoking refrain from smoking in the enclosed workplace.

For purposes of this subdivision, "reasonable steps" does not include (A) the physical ejection of a nonemployee from the place of employment or (B) any requirement for making a request to a nonemployee to refrain from smoking, under circumstances involving a risk of physical harm to the employer or any employee.

(d) For purposes of this section, "place of employment" does not include any of the following:

[Note: A list of exceptions are listed, I didn't want to write all of them down. Subparagrpah (5), below would seem to be the one exception relevant to this discussion.]

... .

(5) Cabs of motortrucks, as defined in Section 410 of the Vehicle Code, or truck tractors, as defined in Section 655 of the Vehicle Code, if no nonsmoking employees are present.

In his post trukinik wrote that he was alone in the truck's cab. So the exception above would apply to his case.

Plus, absent a moving violation, the chippie wouldn't pull him over just for smoking a cigarette while alone in the cab of his truck.

Originally Posted by PaulC

Austin, good luck on your upcoming bar exam.

Originally Posted by truckinik

Yes, but it doesn't say anything about the fact that the "State" if you want to call it that, (It's actually a small comunist country) cannot stand trucks to begin with and goes out of their way to harass us for no reason all the time.
Just the same as your B.S. vehicle emissions, they have their own set of truck rules. You also never considered the fact that when a cop tickets a trucker who lives 3400 miles away, it is almost sure to stick. This is simply because he knows, the trucker will not be able to show up for court, if he is to plea "Not Guilty" and try to fight it. It was a guaranteed $177.00 for the state, when he issued the ticket. He knew I wouldn't fight it. It is a "No Points" violation, and typically most drivers won't fight anything like that. If it isn't going to show on my license anyways, they know that I'll just grit my teeth, and mail them the money. I wasn't about to get a court date, and plea "Not Guilty" and try to go through the troubles of getting a paid load out there, simply to get a parking ticket in the city, when I show up for court, and try to get it knocked down. They know it isn't something worth pursueing.
As for the truck maximum speed. It will in fact, go a lot faster than one of you thinks it will. I've had this truck clocked at 122 mph, I recently sent in a speedo-pic also, so look it up. The dash gauge only tops out at 90, but she was clocked by a friend/ State trooper in Ct. on the Mt.Carmel Connector in Hamden, Ct. in August of 2006. I also had E-109, (one of my others) clocked on the same night, at 131 mph. I had a driver get a ticket, doing 130 in that truck a month later, for which he was fired for. I fired him, for a number of other reasons also, but he had a lot of tickets and had been warned about what would happen if he got one more. The driver in that truck now is female from Michigan, who is not the kind of driver you see going more than maybe 80, at the most. If that Dodge, is really that slow, than something is wrong with it. I don't know the gear ratio you've got in it, but my trucks are running: 3.58's, 3.36's 3.31's, 3.08's, and 2.73's. All are running either a 13 speed, a 15 speed, or an 18 speed. All have either detroit, or Cummins engines, and are producig anywhere from 515hp, (stock) 600hp(stock) or up to 750hp with the mods to these two trucks. Stock, like the rest of the fleet are, they'll run 110-115 all day long with no problems. You don't see trucks running at these speeds often for a few reasons.
1) The driver, is worried about his CDL..
2) The driver is not in a serious rush because he's given more than enough time to deliver the load to the customer.
3) The truck is "Governed" by the company who owns it.electronicallyor in the computer, or with a mechanical divice.. (I do not govern mine, and generally trust my drivers a lot to use their own judgement)
4) A lot of drivers are not confident enough, and don't feel comfortable at more than the average speed limit anyways. (I've actually had to call my drivers, and tell them to pick up their speed, to get to a customer with an expedite load.)
5) The driver is just afraid he/she will kill somebody...
6)The tires are not made to handle speeds like that for prolonged periods. (I'll run all day at 122, or 130mph, but I know the chance I take, and am willing to risk it, ahead of time)

Originally Posted by truckinik

Yes, but it doesn't say anything about the fact that the "State" if you want to call it that, (It's actually a small comunist country) cannot stand trucks to begin with and goes out of their way to harass us for no reason all the time.

Originally Posted by BENZ-LGB

I have lived in a small communist country and California and I can assure you that Califoria, in spite of what some people would like to think, is far from being a small communist country.