Never speed in Virginia... - Page 5 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

JB3 · #61 01-20-2015, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spdrun

Give you an example of where I used to live in NJ. There's a winding road through a populated area, speed limit 45. At the town line, it enters an unpopulated area (basically woods) and becomes dead straight, speed limit drops to 25. There was always a cop waiting at one of the turnouts.

Another example is the NJ Turnpike. Actual speed is close to 80 mph. Speed limit is 65. Straight, level road with separated cars-only lanes for most of its length.

I could see an argument for different bureaucracies being required to post reasonably related speed limits on the same roads when they cross authority lines. That makes sense. How much time do you have to slow down or not between the 45 and after seeing the 25 limit, and did you miss a "25 ahead" sign?

spdrun · #62 01-20-2015, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JB3

I could see an argument for different bureaucracies being required to post reasonably related speed limits on the same roads when they cross authority lines. That makes sense. How much time do you have to slow down or not between the 45 and after seeing the 25 limit, and did you miss a "25 ahead" sign?

No warning sign. I suspect deliberately so

aklim · #63 01-20-2015, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spdrun

Limit would be a literal limit. Recommended speed would be a recommended speed. Same as white vs yellow signs now.

Privacy wouldn't be an issue since most people wouldn't exceed the faster limit and thus wouldn't be photographed.

Picking more people up on warrants isn't necessarily a good thing. Having basically unlimited excuse to search (after all, sticking exactly to the limit is suspicious too) goes against the spirit of the Constitution. The police should not have an excuse to go fishing in 95% of cars if they want to. I'm all for restriction of police power, not expansion. Besides, McVeigh was picked up for no license plate, something an observant traffic cop would still see, camera enforcement or not.

Why bother with recommended limits? Take away discretion away from the cop. What the radar gun says is printed on the ticket. No ands, buts it ifs.

Sure it would. I might not want the tickets in the mail with me and some hottie being opened, for instance. I definitely don't want it to be public record.

As to the spirit of the Constitution, that is what the courts are for. What I am talking about is that if the guy has warrants on him, he could be hauled in at the stop. Fishing expedition is a whole different issue. McVeigh was stopped for the license plate which morphed into concealed weapon and into detention. Can a camera do that?

spdrun · #64 01-20-2015, 06:09 PM

(a) Police would still have the discretion to stop people from violating the higher limits or other traffic offenses. McVeigh wasn't done for speeding in any case.

(b) As far as privacy: the system could be set up to delete any photographic record after a guilty plea or conviction is recorded, the time for appeal expires, and points are registered on a license. Not hard to do.

aklim · #65 01-20-2015, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spdrun

No warning sign. I suspect deliberately so

I don't always see a warning sign. Sometimes there is a "Reduce Speed Ahead" sometimes not. My question is whether it was posted in a legal fashion or not. Tricky, maybe. Illegal, no.

aklim · #66 01-20-2015, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spdrun

(a) Police would still have the discretion to stop people from violating the higher limits or other traffic offenses. McVeigh wasn't done for speeding in any case.

(b) As far as privacy: the system could be set up to delete any photographic record after a guilty plea or conviction is recorded, the time for appeal expires, and points are registered on a license. Not hard to do.

Camera has no discretion. It just takes the pictures. 2 weeks later, assuming they can identify you, the pictures come in the mail. Also assuming they can reach you. Cop can haul you in if they find other warrants on you. Camera, no. Then there is the issue of whether you can be clearly identified or there is a dispute of whether it was really you. As an addition to the cops, sure. A replacement? Not so sure.

You sure it stays with traffic and not peeked on by another agency?

spdrun · #67 01-20-2015, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Camera has no discretion. It just takes the pictures. 2 weeks later, assuming they can identify you, the pictures come in the mail. Also assuming they can reach you. Cop can haul you in if they find other warrants on you. Camera, no. Then there is the issue of whether you can be clearly identified or there is a dispute of whether it was really you. As an addition to the cops, sure. A replacement? Not so sure.

You sure it stays with traffic and not peeked on by another agency?

Why stop at speeding? Why not run everyone for warrants at random ID checkpoints? Speeding should not provide a convenient excuse to run people for warrants since limits are set low enough to catch basically everyone.

Better a few criminals get away (yep, even McVeigh) than a wholesale excuse to run people's paperwork.

And yes, the law could be set up to keep the images only with the relevant traffic court and have retention limits on them. But I don't get you. You're OK with giving police an excuse to stop everyone basically at random and run their documents. But you're not OK with pictures being taken of speeders. It seems as if the former is a bigger privacy violation than the latter.

As far as identifying the driver, the pictures would go to the registered owner of the car who'd either have to eat the points or ID the actual driver. Big incentive not to let people who borrow your car violate the law

aklim · #68 01-20-2015, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spdrun

Why stop at speeding? Why not run everyone for warrants at random ID checkpoints?

Speeding should not provide a convenient excuse to run people for warrants since limits are set low enough to catch basically everyone.

Better a few criminals get away (yep, even McVeigh) than a wholesale excuse to run people's paperwork.

And yes, the law could be set up to keep the images only with the relevant traffic court and have retention limits on them. But I don't get you. You're OK with giving police an excuse to stop everyone basically at random and run their documents. But you're not OK with pictures being taken of speeders. It seems as if the former is a bigger privacy violation than the latter.

As far as identifying the driver, the pictures would go to the registered owner of the car who'd either have to eat the points or ID the actual driver. Big incentive not to let people who borrow your car violate the law

Seriously? They run warrants at every stop. At that rate, you can call anything they stop you for an excuse for a stop and thus an excuse for a search. After all, just because I have a DUI isn't really an excuse to search my records for anything, is it? ASSUMING your 95% figure is right, not that I have seen anything resembling your proof for that number, that is.

How did you figure that the limits were so low that it was to ensnare people? Because you think you can go faster? Unfortunately, they are set to the lowest common denominator not A. J. Foyt, which the average driver is nowhere close to being.

I agree IF it is really a wholesale excuse. A cop gets paid the same whether he pulls in someone or not. If you give him a reason not to, why would he? It's not like he is getting a cut of the ticket. Your turning up positive means he now has paperwork to do. As to McVeigh & Co, I have no doubt you'd say that even if your family were in the building or better yet, if it was you. And pigs will fly.

Nonsense. I am ok with them running for warrants when they make a legit stop and NOT simply because they can type your name into the computer. That is, unless you do have more to back up what you say than a hunch. I'm not ok with pictures being taken of speeders, people weaving in traffic or anything else since the pictures are not necessarily of you but might be of me and I might not want that on any other database.

spdrun · #69 01-20-2015, 09:27 PM

Incorrect. Close family members were working about a block from the Trade Center when 9/11 happened. Fortunately, they survived. I personally knew people who died that day as well. This did not make me FOR A SECOND support a reduction of civil liberties in order to fight future terrorist attacks. You don't fight people who want to destroy what makes a country great by destroying what makes a country great. To do so dishonors the dead.

As far as low speed limits being a pretext, there was a debate in the mid 1990s whether to raise NJ's speed limit from 55 to 65. It eventually passed. Several police chiefs went on record as saying, yes, we know everyone does 10 mph over the limit. But having a low speed limit gives us reason to have contact with them and check for warrants as well as evidence of other crimes.

Lastly, as far as discretion, I thought you were for fair enforcement of existing laws. Not random and arbitrary. A camera would be a lot more fair than a cop that can only pull over a certain number of speeders. As far as unintentional pictures of passengers, if you combine the camera with an IR sensor, it could be set up to delete all but the left-most IR source from the image before recording it.

Right-hand-drive cars are rare enough in the US for this to be a good compromise.

aklim · #70 01-20-2015, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spdrun

Incorrect. Close family members were working about a block from the Trade Center when 9/11 happened. Fortunately, they survived. I personally knew people who died that day as well.

This did not make me FOR A SECOND support a reduction of civil liberties in order to fight future terrorist attacks. You don't fight people who want to destroy what makes a country great by destroying what makes a country great. To do so dishonors the dead.

As far as low speed limits being a pretext, there was a debate in the mid 1990s whether to raise NJ's speed limit from 55 to 65. It eventually passed. Several police chiefs went on record as saying, yes, we know everyone does 10 mph over the limit. But having a low speed limit gives us reason to have contact with them and check for warrants as well as evidence of other crimes.

Lastly, as far as discretion, I thought you were for fair enforcement of existing laws. Not random and arbitrary. A camera would be a lot more fair than a cop that can only pull over a certain number of speeders. As far as unintentional pictures of passengers, if you combine the camera with an IR sensor, it could be set up to delete all but the left-most IR source from the image before recording it.

Right-hand-drive cars are rare enough in the US for this to be a good compromise.

IN is slightly different from AROUND.

The dead are dead. They don't care what you do. It is the living that are more important than the dead. I'm not sure it is a civil liberties issue as to running names when pulled over for whatever offense be it spitting on the sidewalk or mass murder. If you are saying that they are pulling people over to run names and go fishing, that is a totally different story. So far, you haven't made a case of a traffic stop for whatever reason being a fishing expedition. There are a few crooked cops that will do it, no doubt but to say the entire force is doing it is a stretch.

And those should be removed. Again, is it a nationwide issue or is it a local issue or simply a "we are trying to be tough on crime" as any police chief is going to say? I would say those are the good chiefs that should be put back on the street patrol and see how good they feel asking people to do what they advocate.

I am for fair enforcement. A camera is going to be fair. We can set it to automatically send a ticket to whatever the OCR says the license plate for say 5 over. Assuming I have a front plate and assuming you can recognize my face and prove it is me. However, I can still set the limit to 1 over and it sends a ticket to you so your thing about low limits won't work. Unless you have a camera every 100 feet, mobility becomes an issue. I can run a sting team in different locations whereas a camera is there. So as an addition to the cop patrols, yes. As a total replacement, I am not convinced. Concerning privacy, you are right. Technology CAN do it. But if you don't trust the cop to make a justifiable traffic stop, would you believe them when they say "Trust me, This picture will ONLY be used by a traffic court."?

No need. If you don't have a front license plate, you aren't getting anywhere. You need to have that plate AND my mug shot to prove the car was there and I was driving the car otherwise, you are now making me prove my innocence. "OMG! Someone drove my car without my permission!! If only I had not left the keys in the ignition!!"

spdrun · #71 01-20-2015, 10:23 PM

I'm saying they pull people over to run names and go fishing. Not everywhere, but it does happen and is advocated by some departments.

As far as cameras, they're portable these days. Ever heard of a photo-radar van? They also can be set up to catch both ends of the car, so lack of front plate doesn't matter.

And again, if the camera gets the face, they can tell who's driving. Unless you're the Stig and drive in a helmet all the time

Yeah, you can have a tinted windshield. But a tint law says that if the tint is excessive, all tickets are on the owner should take care of that.

aklim · #72 01-20-2015, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spdrun

I'm saying they pull people over to run names and go fishing. Not everywhere, but it does happen and is advocated by some departments.

As far as cameras, they're portable these days. Ever heard of a photo-radar van? They also can be set up to catch both ends of the car, so lack of front plate doesn't matter.

And again, if the camera gets the face, they can tell who's driving. Unless you're the Stig and drive in a helmet all the time

Yeah, you can have a tinted windshield. But a tint law says that if the tint is excessive, all tickets are on the owner should take care of that.

So using that logic, they can claim "I saw him weaving" or "I saw a gun" or whatever, pull him over and go fishing? What next? Yes, it does happen much like corruption will happen. Until you can remove the human from the equation, you have to make to with what you got.

How so? "It is my car but someone else was driving it." Now you go prove he did it.

IF is the operative word. Glasses and hat do a lot for to make id hard. You'd have to have a national database of driver license pictures and the computing power to make it happen. $$$$ Anything can be done if you have the money.

spdrun · #73 01-20-2015, 11:01 PM

Unless you can specifically ID the driver or the car was reported stolen, the ticket ends up being yours in that instance.

aklim · #74 01-20-2015, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spdrun

Unless you can specifically ID the driver or the car was reported stolen, the ticket ends up being yours in that instance.

And when he says "Not me", I now have to prove it is him or beat a confession out of him? In the whine's case, it is jail time. Is that or a parking ticket fair? Nope. I can pay a parking ticket easier than a fine, points and jail time. Very nice theory. Not so good when it makes me the cop that has to track down the guy and prove it is him.

MTI · #75 01-21-2015, 10:04 AM

Another classic thread . . . has anyone seen Huskyman lately?

Who Posted?
Total Posts: 74

User Name Posts
aklim 30
spdrun 17
JB3 8
Skippy 5
Txjake 3
P.C. 1
cmac2012 1
kmaysob 1
MS Fowler 1
panZZer 1