jay@allegra.UUCP (Jay Hyman) (08/07/85)
In article <1081@homxa.UUCP> gritz@homxa.UUCP (R.SHARPLES) writes: > > Radar guns should be unconstiutional but the case has never made it to the > Supreme Court. ... Most > motorists obey the speed limit (more than half), a few speed (less than > half, the %s don't matter). However, the police indiscriminately use > electronic surveillance devices to sample the speed of all cars. They then > apprehend the drivers who are exceeding the limit. Give me a break! I am not a big fan of radar guns myself, but I'm ready to admit that's because I'm afraid of getting speeding tickets. I don't believe that anyone who really obeyed the speed laws would agree that radar guns are unconstitutional or feel his privacy invaded. These laws exist for a purpose, and their enforcement helps keep our roads somewhat safe. I feel threatened when someone whizzes by at 80 MPH and cuts in front of me; I *want* someone to be there to catch these guys. I've heard liberatarian arguments from people who believe that almost all laws should be abolished; I don't think that intent can be read into our constitution's concept of freedom. If we disallow radar guns, how should speed laws be enforced (for all of our safety)? By helicopter?! (I couldn't believe it when I first saw those signs on the parkway.) jay hyman (allegra!jay)
stewart@ihlpl.UUCP (R. J. Stewart) (08/07/85)
>> Radar guns should be unconstiutional but the case has never made it to the >> Supreme Court. ... Most >> motorists obey the speed limit (more than half), a few speed (less than >> half, the %s don't matter). However, the police indiscriminately use >> electronic surveillance devices to sample the speed of all cars. They then >> apprehend the drivers who are exceeding the limit. > ... > If we disallow radar guns, how should speed laws be enforced (for all > of our safety)? By helicopter?! (I couldn't believe it when I first > saw those signs on the parkway.) I don't know what signs there are on "the parkway", but helicopters are a perfectly good way to enforce speeding laws. Many areas of the country have special markings on the pavement; officers in aircraft can calculate a car's speed by seeing how long it takes to cross two markings. An alternative to this is the old-fashioned way of following a suspected speeder in a car, matching speeds. However, I don't see what the point is in objecting to radar as "electronic surveillance". Does this mean that police ought to be prohibited from observing you with anything other than their natural senses? Consider the following cases: - Should police be prohibited from using air surveillance to catch speeders, since they need a stopwatch to accurately obtain times between markers. Is it different if the stopwatch is mechanical instead of electronic? - Should speed-matching be prohibited, since a car is at least partly electrical? What if they have one of the new electronic dashboards? - Should police be able to use binoculars or cameras to obtain evidence? After all, light is the same as radar, only in a different part of the spectrum. I hope the original poster can clarify their position, giving more specifics about their objection to radar. Bob Stewart ihtnt!stewart
gritz@homxa.UUCP (R.SHARPLES) (08/07/85)
As the original poster someone asked me to clarify my position in my posting on radar surveillance. My point is not that police should not apprehend speeders, I am all for safe highways. My point is that the use of radar guns to catch speeders is basically unwarrented search, from which we have constitutional protection. The police are "searching" every car, sometimes even before they can see the car, to determine its speed. They have no "probable cause" in most cases, certainly in the cases where they cannot see the car (or clearly determine which car in a pack produced the reading) and yet they are still searching. It is very easy to overlook this infringement of our rights because radar is so unobtrusive; but so are wiretaps! The police would probably aprehend many dangerous criminals if they used equipment to eves-drop on conversations in Times Square, but you can bet they need a warrant or at least "probable cause" to do that. How hard would it be to get a warrent to eves-drop on every conversation in Times Square? It is bad enough to let the govt. get away with this, but now NJ wants to outlaw our only defense against this! That's like the govt. outlawing devices that detect wire taps. Does that sound constitutional?!? Russ Sharples homxa!gritz
parnass@ihu1h.UUCP (Bob Parnass, AJ9S) (08/08/85)
x > My point is not that police should not apprehend speeders, I am all for > safe highways. My point is that the use of radar guns to catch speeders > is basically unwarrented search, from which we have constitutional protection. > The police are "searching" every car, sometimes even before they can see the > car, to determine its speed. They have no "probable cause" in most cases > .... and yet they are still searching. You are confusing "searching" with observing. > It is very easy to overlook this infringement of our rights because radar > is so unobtrusive; but so are wiretaps! RADAR and wiretaps are unrelated. People using a conven- tional telephone have "a reasonable expectation of privacy." Not so driving down a public road. Illinois law treats having a driver's license as a privilege, not a right. -- =============================================================================== Bob Parnass, Bell Telephone Laboratories - ihnp4!ihu1h!parnass - (312)979-5414
bob@ulose.UUCP ( Bob Bismuth ) (08/09/85)
> > > > Radar guns should be unconstiutional but the case has never made it to the > > Supreme Court. ... Most > > If we disallow radar guns, how should speed laws be enforced (for all > of our safety)? By helicopter?! (I couldn't believe it when I first > saw those signs on the parkway.) > > jay hyman (allegra!jay) For your reference, hand held radar guns cannot be used in the UK for the purpose of speed limit enforcement. The only radar which may be used MUST be mounted either on a stationary vehicle or on a tripod stand. This resulted from the police using a radar gun (made I believe in the US) on a car which was not exceeding the local speed limit. If memory serves me correctly, the driver was charged with exceeding the limit by over 20 mph, as indicated on the radar gun. Unfortunately for the police, the driver was a research scientist at the Royal Radar Establishment and had been testing hand held guns for the government. He went to court and was able to conclusively prove that it was impossible to obtain a reliable speed indication of a stationary object, let alone a moving object. For that reason I would agree with the original article's position that radar guns should not be allowed. I do however, agree that saying the use of radar infringes constitutional rights is pushing things a bit far ... There are other ways of measuring speed and I belive that the British police rely more on vehicle timing between designated landmarks. This is usually done by two vehicles using a radio link and occasionally by aircraft. I can't help humourously wondering if timing my course between landmarks would cause some people to claim my constitutional rights had been infringed ... :>) -- bob (decvax!ulose!bob)
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (08/09/85)
> > I don't know what signs there are on "the parkway", but helicopters are > a perfectly good way to enforce speeding laws. Many areas of the > country have special markings on the pavement; officers in aircraft can > calculate a car's speed by seeing how long it takes to cross two > markings. An alternative to this is the old-fashioned way of following > a suspected speeder in a car, matching speeds. I can think of one good reason not to use helicopters, the suckers are expensive to operate for this kind of frivolous activity.
ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (08/12/85)
> > If we disallow radar guns, how should speed laws be enforced (for all > of our safety)? By helicopter?! (I couldn't believe it when I first > saw those signs on the parkway.) > > jay hyman (allegra!jay) The California Highway Patrol does not use radar. They also don't seem to have much trouble catching speeders. Their normal method is to make high-speed sweeps through freeway traffic, flagging anyone they can't pass easily.
eli@cvl.UUCP (Eli Liang) (08/12/85)
> As the original poster someone asked me to clarify my position in my > posting on radar surveillance. > > My point is not that police should not apprehend speeders, I am all for > safe highways. My point is that the use of radar guns to catch speeders > is basically unwarrented search, from which we have constitutional protection. > The police are "searching" every car, sometimes even before they can see the > car, to determine its speed. They have no "probable cause" in most cases, > certainly in the cases where they cannot see the car (or clearly determine which > car in a pack produced the reading) and yet they are still searching. > > It is very easy to overlook this infringement of our rights because radar > is so unobtrusive; but so are wiretaps! The police would probably aprehend > many dangerous criminals if they used equipment to eves-drop on conversations > in Times Square, but you can bet they need a warrant or at least "probable > cause" to do that. How hard would it be to get a warrent to eves-drop on > every conversation in Times Square? > > It is bad enough to let the govt. get away with this, but now NJ wants to > outlaw our only defense against this! That's like the govt. outlawing > devices that detect wire taps. Does that sound constitutional?!? > > Russ Sharples > homxa!gritz As I recall, there is some state in which police aren't allowed to use radar for that very reason. In fact they don't even time cars between lines from the air. What they do do is fly (in helicopters?) low at some speed leaving a shadow on the highway and watch for cars that move faster than these shadows. I heard this from a random source so I could be all B.S. -eli -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Eli Liang --- University of Maryland Computer Vision Lab, (301) 454-4526 ARPA: liang@cvl, liang@lemuria, eli@mit-mc, eli@mit-prep CSNET: liang@cvl UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!cvl!liang
peter@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (08/12/85)
> agree that radar guns are unconstitutional or feel his privacy > invaded. These laws exist for a purpose, and their enforcement helps > keep our roads somewhat safe. I feel threatened when someone whizzes > by at 80 MPH and cuts in front of me; I *want* someone to be there to > catch these guys. I've heard liberatarian arguments from people who > believe that almost all laws should be abolished; I don't think that > intent can be read into our constitution's concept of freedom. Yes, speed limits need to be enforced. They also need to be raised. 55 MPH, for god's sake? Or 30MPH on a 4-lane boulevard surrounded by at least 100 yards of open feild on either side? How about an across- the-board increas of 25% for all non-residential streets? If someone is doing 80 MPH the police don't need a radar gun to catch them. If they're doing 3MPH over the limit (a friend of mine was gotten by this one on a feeder road, for god's sake!) the police shouldn't be after them. Radar guns give the police too much ability to go after borderline cases. -- Peter da Silva (the mad Australian) UUCP: ...!shell!neuro1!{hyd-ptd,baylor,datafac}!peter MCI: PDASILVA; CIS: 70216,1076
draughn@iitcs.UUCP (Mark Draughn) (08/13/85)
My gripe about radar surveillance is that it makes speed laws disproportionately
enforcible. With the common use of traffic radar it has become possible for
a government to make large amounts of money from the enforcement of speed laws.
This makes it easy for me to question the sincerity of a legislator who
proposes tougher speed laws.
Another example of this is occuring in Chicago. A while back there was some
discussion of de-criminalizing parking violations in the hope that more people
would pay their fines. Hmmmm... This turns illegal parking into merely
high-priced parking.
It isn't hard to imagine this happening with speed laws. People
would be billed for speeding, without having marks placed on their record.
This way people would be able to speed if they were willing to pay the price.
Hmmmm... If I had a hot car I might be willing to spend maybe $500 in tickets
if it meant I could REALLY lead-foot it on the highways...
Actually, there is little incentive doing this because most people pay fines
on speeding because of the more stringent regulations regarding moving
violations. On the other hand, in many places it is possible to ask for
supervision in which you pay the fine, but it doesn't make a black mark
on your record.
It's hard for a state or a county or a city to make money off of drunk driving
convictions, or off of a real driver education program that does more than
tell students to drive slow and don't change lanes. Either of these measures
would do a better job of making the roads safe than an orgy of speeding
tickets does.
Mark Draughnhrs@homxb.UUCP (H.SILBIGER) (08/14/85)
While I am a fundamentalist on the constitution and the bill of rights, I don't see why the use of radar guns is any different from the use of stopwatches, motion detectors, and calibrated speedometers. The fact that every car's speed is measured is also not relevant. A police officer may be at a stop sign, and watch evrey car that passes. If a car comes by ansd does not stop, a ticket is issued. Would you claim that this is also unconstitutional? This situation is totally analogous to setting the radar gun to give an alert when a car exceeds 55 mph on a 55 mph limit road. As far as posession of a radar detector being illegal, in spite of the seller's claim that it is to be used for the prevention of disease only (sorry, that was another product) for the alerting of inadvertant speeding only, that is just so much verbiage. The fact is that if you don't exceed the speed limit, you don't need a detector. In NJ and most states it is illegal to possess burglary tools. The reason is that they are for committing burglaries, an illegal act. It seems to me that possessing a radar detector is for committing speeding. I do not own a radar detector, because I think it would encourage me to speed. I do use a cruise control. I do move with traffic when most of it is exceeding the 55 mph limit, to do otherwise would be foolish and unsafe. I am not in favor of a law banning radar detectors. These can easily be concealed, making it difficult to enforce, Such laws only encourage breaking them, and probably would not reduce speeding. Herman Silbiger ihnp4!homxb!hrs
levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) (08/15/85)
A lot of people write in to say, in essence, that even if they are not speeding the radar detector can help them avoid a ticket. My question to these people is: how? What does one do when hearing it sound off (presuming that the speed is already <= the max)? Brake and go ultra-slow to make it obvious that one is not speeding? Sounds dangerous to do--you may catch your neighbor to the rear by surprise and get your tail bashed in. Please explain what these defensive maneuvers are supposed to be. Thank you. -- ------------------------------- Disclaimer: The views contained herein are | dan levy | yvel nad | my own and are not at all those of my em- | an engihacker @ | ployer, my pets, my plants, my boss, or the | at&t computer systems division | s.a. of any computer upon which I may hack. | skokie, illinois | | "go for it" | Path: ..!ihnp4!ttrdc!levy -------------------------------- or: ..!ihnp4!iheds!ttbcad!levy
bwm@ccice1.UUCP (Bradford W. Miller) (08/15/85)
In article <4131@alice.UUCP> ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) writes: >The California Highway Patrol does not use radar. >They also don't seem to have much trouble catching speeders. > >Their normal method is to make high-speed sweeps through freeway >traffic, flagging anyone they can't pass easily. I wish they'd try that in New York. A cop can't speed either unless he is in pursuit. (it would make getting out of tickets a lot easier). Brad Miller -- ..[cbrma, ccivax, ccicpg, rayssd, ritcv, rlgvax, rochester]!ccice5!ccice1!bwm
elric@proper.UUCP (elric) (08/15/85)
In article <> gritz@homxa.UUCP (R.SHARPLES) writes: >My point is not that police should not apprehend speeders, I am all for >safe highways. My point is that the use of radar guns to catch speeders >is basically unwarrented search, from which we have constitutional protection. >It is bad enough to let the govt. get away with this, but now NJ wants to >outlaw our only defense against this! That's like the govt. outlawing >devices that detect wire taps. Does that sound constitutional?!? Russ has a good point. Another this is that the possesion of a radar detect does not harm anyone. It is a victemless crime. Having a radar detector does not make it impossible to catch you, it only protects your privecy. Also radar guns are very unrelyable. elric
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (08/16/85)
> >traffic, flagging anyone they can't pass easily. > > I wish they'd try that in New York. A cop can't speed either unless > he is in pursuit. (it would make getting out of tickets a lot easier). > In Maryland, emergency vehicles such as police and fire are not supposed to ever exceed five miles over the speed limit. However, it is almost certain that some state trouper's intercepter car, will pass me on the shoulder, while I'm heading up I-95 at 80 miles an hour in my ambulance. -Ron
connolly@steinmetz.UUCP (C. Ian Connolly) (08/16/85)
> - Should police be prohibited from using air surveillance to catch > speeders, since they need a stopwatch to accurately obtain times > between markers. Is it different if the stopwatch is mechanical > instead of electronic? If I remember correctly, police radars have a fair amount of error. This is why, for example, NY State cops almost always set their radars for 65 mph. This is far enough above the speed limit to compensate for the radar error. It would be interesting to compare the error obtained from timing via aircraft with radar error. Does anybody have more info on this? -- C. Ian Connolly, WA2IFI - USENET: ...edison!steinmetz!connolly , , ARPANET: connolly@ge-crd An rud a bhionn, bionn.
meister@linus.UUCP (Phillip W. Servita) (08/20/85)
> >In NJ and most states it is illegal to possess burglary tools. >The reason is that they are for committing burglaries, an >illegal act. It seems to me that possessing a radar detector >is for committing speeding. > chapter 266, Massachusetts General Code: (emphasis mine) " Whoevever makes or mends, or begins to make or mend, or knowingly has in his possession, an engine, machine, tool, or implement adapted and designed for cutting through, forcing and breaking open a building, room, vault, safe, or depository, IN ORDER TO STEAL THEREFROM MONEY OR OTHER PROPERTY, OR TO COMMIT ANY OTHER CRIME, knowing the same to be adapted and designed to for the purpose aforesaid, WITH INTENT TO USE OR EMPLOY OR ALLOW THE SAME TO BE USED OR EMPLOYED FOR SUCH PURPOSE, or whoever knowingly has in his possession a master key designed to fit more than one motor vehicle, WITH INTENT TO USE OR EMPLOY THE SAME TO STEAL A MOTOR VEHICLE OR OTHER PROPERTY THEREFROM, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than ten years or by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars and imprisonment in jail for not more than two and one half years." Maine also has pretty much the exact wording above, as does NY. Cant speak for NJ, as ive never looked it up, but i suspect it is also worded as above. -phil
elric@proper.UUCP (elric) (08/20/85)
In article <> levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) writes: >the radar detector can help them avoid a ticket. My question to these people >is: how? What does one do when hearing it sound off (presuming that the speed >is already <= the max)? Brake and go ultra-slow to make it obvious that one is Well, I don't even own a car, but I feel that: 1) If the gov't can watch me with a radar gun, then I have a right to know. 2) The potential to comit a crime should not be a crime. My owning a radar detect does not hurt me or the guy behind me. 3) The national 55mph speed limit was forced down the states throats by the federal gov't. (States that don't enforce the 55mph limit don't get any highway $$$ from uncle. Even those that $$$$ came from the taxpayers of that state. So I'm not speed because the 55mph is illegal. It says in the consitution that the Federal Gov't is not to interfear in the laws of the states. --- Disclaimer The above may or may not be the veiws of Lunatic Labs. We don't know. --- Elric of Imrryr
mhs@enmasse.UUCP (Mike Schloss) (08/21/85)
> A lot of people write in to say, in essence, that even if they are not > speeding the radar detector can help them avoid a ticket. My question to > these people is: how? What does one do when hearing it sound off (presuming > that the speed is already <= the max)? Brake and go ultra-slow to make it > obvious that one is not speeding? Sounds dangerous to do--you may catch your > neighbor to the rear by surprise and get your tail bashed in. Please explain > what these defensive maneuvers are supposed to be. Thank you. The idea behind a radar detector is that you get a warning about police with radar before the police with radar get a warning about you. This is supposed to happen anywhere from 1/4 to 1/2 mile before you are in radar range. This should give you plenty of time to just tap your brakes to alert the guy behind you and then take your foot off the gas. The 15 -> 30 seconds time you get should be ample to coast down to a semi-legal speed (unless your car has a drag coeffecient of 0.00). Mike
bwm@ccice1.UUCP (Bradford W. Miller) (08/22/85)
In article <249@steinmetz.UUCP> connolly@steinmetz.UUCP (C. Ian Connolly) writes: >If I remember correctly, police radars have a fair amount of error. This >is why, for example, NY State cops almost always set their radars for 65 >mph. This is far enough above the speed limit to compensate for the radar >error. It would be interesting to compare the error obtained from timing >via aircraft with radar error. Does anybody have more info on this? NY cops don't set their limit to 65 because of error (which is < 1% on most devices), but because they don't want to have to stop everyone on the road! The AVERAGE speed on interstates in NY is 60ish. Brad Miller -- ..[cbrma, ccivax, ccicpg, rayssd, ritcv, rlgvax, rochester]!ccice5!ccice1!bwm
phl@drusd.UUCP (LavettePH) (08/22/85)
A PSB scanner is far more effective than any radar detector. The police, whether city, sheriff's dept or state, call in a description of the car, violation and the location where the vehicle has been stopped. You usually have this info minutes and miles before you get to the area where a speed trap is being operated and it makes no difference what kind of device is being used. (Radar,laser,stopwatch) Knowing where the traps are you can not only avoid rear-ending somebody with a detector who has only seconds to react to a detector's alarm but you also get advance warning of fire and ambulance crews making hot runs in your area. In a sense the scanner is a *safety* device as opposed to being an electronic countermeasure to thwart the government's revenue gathering efforts. ;-) - Phil
fnf@unisoft.UUCP (08/22/85)
In article <155@iitcs.UUCP> draughn@iitcs.UUCP (Mark draughn) writes: >... >It isn't hard to imagine this happening with speed laws. People >would be billed for speeding, without having marks placed on their record. >This way people would be able to speed if they were willing to pay the price. Actually, in Arizona this is already the case if you are caught going 55-65 in a 55 MPH zone. The maximum fine is $15, for "waste of a critical resource (gasoline)" as I recall, with no "points" on your driving record. -Fred =========================================================================== Fred Fish UniSoft Systems Inc, 739 Allston Way, Berkeley, CA 94710 USA {ucbvax,dual}!unisoft!fnf (415) 644 1230 TWX 11 910 366-2145 ===========================================================================
carl@aoa.UUCP (Carl Witthoft) (08/23/85)
In article <229@proper.UUCP> elric@proper.UUCP (Elric of Imrryr) writes: >3) The national 55mph speed limit was forced down the states throats by the federal gov't. (States that don't enforce >the 55mph limit don't get any highway $$$ from uncle. Even those that $$$$ came >from the taxpayers of that state. >So I'm not speed because the 55mph is illegal. It says in the consitution that >the Federal Gov't is not to interfear in the laws of the states. > Once again, someone who knows nothing of constitutional law (and apparently also is unconvinced by the relationship beteween speed limit and highway deaths) is flaming all over this newsgroup. I'm also amused (??) by the conflicting desire for "states' rights" and free dollars from the feds. Please, guys, cant we keep this group clear of junk and stick to questions of law and answers from J.D.'s who may have an idea of the truth? (not a lawyer) Darwin's Dad (Carl Witthoft) ...!{decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!aoa!carl @ Adaptive Optics Assoc., 54 Cambridgepark Dr. Cambridge, MA 02140 617-864-0201 "Put me in, Coach. I'm ready to play today. Look at me! I can be centerfield."
mis@mtunh.UUCP (Meyer Steinberg) (08/23/85)
Police scanners are illegal in many states including NY and NJ to be used in a moving vehicle. (You can use one in your house). Meyer Steinberg
mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) (08/23/85)
> [Discussion of radar detectors as burglar's tools] > The analogy of radar detectors (or even jammers) as burglar's tools seems weak for two reasons: 1. Burglar's tools are implements that actually assist in the perpetration of an offense. By contrast, you have already committed the offense while speeding; the detector or jammer merely assists you in escaping apprehension. 2. Penal statutes are to be STRICTLY CONSTRUED. You can't make an effective legal argument in criminal court based on an analogy to another penal law -- prohibitions must be specific and enumerated sufficiently for someone to know whether they are committing an offense. For example, I recall a California case from law school where a convicted felon on parole was up for parole revocation for possessing a firearm. What exactly he had was not reported, but all the trial transcript reported was that he had a "gun". The police officer who testified at the trial was deceased and not available at the hearing. Since the official definition of "firearm" in the appropriate section of the penal code did not include the word "gun" (it talked about pistols and rifles and shotguns, etc.) the firearm charge was dismissed and the felon walked. Michael C. Berch mcb@lll-tis-b.ARPA {akgua,allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,dual,ihnp4,sun}!idi!styx!mcb
elric@proper.UUCP (elric) (08/24/85)
In article <> meister@linus.UUCP (Philip W. Servita) writes: >chapter 266, Massachusetts General Code: (emphasis mine) ... > > room, vault, safe, or depository, IN ORDER TO STEAL THEREFROM MONEY OR > OTHER PROPERTY, OR TO COMMIT ANY OTHER CRIME, knowing the same to be > adapted and designed to for the purpose aforesaid, WITH INTENT TO USE > OR EMPLOY OR ALLOW THE SAME TO BE USED OR EMPLOYED FOR SUCH PURPOSE, > or whoever knowingly has in his possession a master key designed to > fit more than one motor vehicle, WITH INTENT TO USE OR EMPLOY THE SAME > TO STEAL A MOTOR VEHICLE OR OTHER PROPERTY THEREFROM, shall be A main problem with those laws is that the the courts must prove INTENT. Which is not easy, useless they catch you robbing a house. I can own a lock pick set, as long as I don't say I'm going to break into a house. So, the courts would actuley have to catch you speeding with you detector on to prove intent to aviod getting stopped (resiting arrest?) Elric of Imrryr
rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) (08/25/85)
In article <553@unisoft.UUCP> fnf@unisoft.UUCP (Fred Fish) writes: >In article <155@iitcs.UUCP> draughn@iitcs.UUCP (Mark draughn) writes: >>... >>It isn't hard to imagine this happening with speed laws. People >>would be billed for speeding, without having marks placed on their record. >>This way people would be able to speed if they were willing to pay the price. > >Actually, in Arizona this is already the case if you are caught going 55-65 >in a 55 MPH zone. The maximum fine is $15, for "waste of a critical >resource (gasoline)" as I recall, with no "points" on your driving record. > >-Fred Are you sure that is still so? Nevada had something similar for speeding below 70 MPH, but the feds stepped in and said that Nevada was not enforcing the 'spirit of the law' and that highway funds would be withheld if they did not impose 'meaningful' penalties. I for one find it highly amusing that the feds can be so damn picky, petty, and by-the-book about everything they do and then have the gall to tell someone else that what they are interested in is the 'spirit of the law'. -- The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3313 (Cornet 291) alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd mgnetp ]!burl!rcj ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua masscomp ]!clyde!rcj
rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) (08/25/85)
In article <10690@styx.UUCP> mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) writes: > offense. For example, I recall a California case from law school > where a convicted felon on parole was up for parole revocation for > possessing a firearm. What exactly he had was not reported, but all > the trial transcript reported was that he had a "gun". The police > officer who testified at the trial was deceased and not available > at the hearing. Since the official definition of "firearm" in the > appropriate section of the penal code did not include the word > "gun" (it talked about pistols and rifles and shotguns, etc.) > the firearm charge was dismissed and the felon walked. With this kind of stuff going on, how can ANYONE with any conscience at all become a trial lawyer? I am reminded of the Dustin Hoffman (?Al Pacino?) movie "And Justice for All", where an attorney (certain of his client's guilt) gets his client off of a murder charge on a technicality of the magnitude mentioned above -- and the client goes out and kills a little girl the next night. Shudder!! -- The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3313 (Cornet 291) alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd mgnetp ]!burl!rcj ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua masscomp ]!clyde!rcj
arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%CGL) (08/26/85)
In article <229@proper.UUCP> elric@proper.UUCP (Elric of Imrryr) writes: >3) The national 55mph speed limit was forced down the states throats by >the federal gov't. (States that don't enforce the 55mph limit don't get >any highway $$$ from uncle. Even those that $$$$ came from the >taxpayers of that state. So I'm not speed because the 55mph is >illegal. It says in the consitution that the Federal Gov't is not to >interfear in the laws of the states. [all grammar and spelling from the original] The Constitution says nothing of the sort. It states (10th Ammendment) "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The U.S. Government has the constitutional authority to allocate funds to the states, and if it chooses to put restrictions on those funds they have that right (modulo many questions of violation of personal and state's rights), since the Constitution gives the Congress the authority to allocate funds. And states are free to refuse the funds because they don't like the restrictions (or for any other reason, like, say, that they don't like the color of the money :-). This is no different from the U.S. offering money to any public institution with the proviso that the instution not discriminate on the basis of sex (which is not an explicitly guaranteed constitutional right). If the goverment gives money away, it has the right to ensure that the money is used in what it deems is a proper way, and, currently, it considers that building and maintaining highways were gas is wasted by driving over 55mph is not proper. (This is NOT an invitation to debate if they are CORRECT; they have the constiutional right to do so, correct or not.) Of course, this says nothing about interfering with state law, since no state has had its law superceded by federal law; they all voluntarily changed it in order to continue reaping the benefit of federal money. [certainly irrelevant discussion on hierarchy of national vs. state law follows, and can be ignored by people only interested in issues of 55mph] As far as interfering with state law goes, the national goverment has the constitutional right to make laws which superceded not only state legislation, but state constitutions as well. The Voting Rights Act is a supreme example of this. It can only do so in areas where its legislative authority is clear in the Constitution, such as in interstate commerce, the guaranteeing of republican goverment to the states, etc. But within those areas, if it chooses to legislate, its word is law in all states. In fact, if its legislation is comprehensive enough, states can not even make more restrictive legislation. This would only apply to 55mph if the Congress had passed a maximum speed limit law which set the maximum speed directly. All they did was set a condition for receipt of federal money. Ken Arnold
mcb@styx.UUCP (Michael C. Berch) (08/26/85)
> In article <260@aoa.UUCP> carl@aoa (Carl Witthoft) writes: > Once again, someone who knows nothing of constitutional law (and apparently > also is unconvinced by the relationship beteween speed limit and highway > deaths) is flaming all over this newsgroup. I'm also amused (??) by the > conflicting desire for "states' rights" and free dollars from the feds. > Please, guys, cant we keep this group clear of junk and stick to questions > of law and answers from J.D.'s who may have an idea of the truth? > ... While the original posting by Elric about how the 55 mph limit was forced down the states' throats may not have been edited and polished, it certainly was factual. The 55 limit is not popular in state legislatures, who are under pressure from trucking groups and others to repeal it, but the financial pressure of losing highway funds holds sway. Many of us J.D.'s found this use of federal power offensive, if not unconstitutional, and in fact a Municipal Court judge in central California somewhere (Santa Cruz??) so held in a speeding case. Now I'm pretty sure he's going to get reversed, if he hasn't been already, but there's nothing like a little judicial common sense. By the way, there's nothing "free" about that highway money from the federal government. You *do* pay taxes, don't you? :-) Michael C. Berch, J.D. mcb@lll-tis-b.ARPA {akgua,allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,dual,ihnp4,sun}!idi!styx!mcb
chu@lasspvax.UUCP (Clare Chu) (08/28/85)
In article <553@unisoft.UUCP> fnf@unisoft.UUCP (Fred Fish) writes: > >Actually, in Arizona this is already the case if you are caught going 55-65 >in a 55 MPH zone. The maximum fine is $15, for "waste of a critical >resource (gasoline)" as I recall, with no "points" on your driving record. > >-Fred Correct me if I'm wrong but I heard that some of today's cars get better mileage at 70 mph. (16-valve 4 cyl engine???) Clare
chris@scgvaxd.UUCP (Chris Yoder) (08/28/85)
[Go ahead bug, make my day.] In article <260@aoa.UUCP> carl@aoa.UUCP (Carl Witthoft) writes: >Once again, someone who knows nothing of constitutional law (and apparently >also is unconvinced by the relationship beteween speed limit and highway >deaths) is flaming all over this newsgroup. I'm also amused (??) by the >conflicting desire for "states' rights" and free dollars from the feds. > ***** Flame warning ***** Grrrr. I was going to stay out of this one. I was going to leave well enough alone, but I can no longer. Extreemely minor flame: There is no such thing as "free dollars" form the feds. That money ultimately comes from you and me (actually, from any work that we do). The main reason that I am opposed to the 55 speed limit is because 90% of the people that I know don't obey it (even those that say they do, get on the freeway and do at least 60). I grew up driving under this totally arbitrary limit (it does not reflect the speed at which one can safely drive the road), and thus since the only safe way to drive on the freeway is to move along with the flow (I've yet to drive in a state where that is less than 60-65, and yes, I've driven in > 50% of the states) I become conditioned to exceeding the speed limit by 10 or so mph. I also get the feeling that driving at these speeds is no great wrong because *everybody* does it! This has the effect that now when I get on a surface street, I speed by 10 or so mph because it's "OK" to do so on the highway, even though it may not be anywhere near safe. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the 55 speed limit *teaches* people to break laws, *teaches* them to drive unsafely (on surface streets al least), and keeps police away from protecting our lives and property from violent crime. One might even stretch the point to say that since people get used to breaking an "obviously" stupid law, that they won't feel the restriction not to break other laws since they feel that that law is stupid and *everybody* breaks laws that they think are stupid. The 55 mph speed limit also teaches people to think of the police as thier enemies, not as thier protectors, since one always has to be on the lookout for them when they are driving (and I drive more than I have crimes commited against me). I realize that this could be used as an argument to increase the enforcement of the 55 mph speed limit, but that would only increase the antagonistic relationship between Joe Citizen and the police. NOTE: All of the above is spoken from the psychological impact of actually driving on the highways and byways of this country, not on any numerical data. -- -- Chris Yoder UUCP --- {allegra|ihnp4}!scgvaxd!engvax!chris <Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they're not out to get you...> { The opinions here are representative of Huge Aircrash, not me and *especially* not of my poor little keyboard. 8-)= }
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (08/30/85)
In article <393@scgvaxd.UUCP> chris@scgvaxd.UUCP (Chris Yoder) writes: > > The main reason that I am opposed to the 55 speed limit is because 90% of >the people that I know don't obey it (even those that say they do, get on >the freeway and do at least 60). I grew up driving under this totally >arbitrary limit (it does not reflect the speed at which one can safely drive >the road), and thus since the only safe way to drive on the freeway is to >move along with the flow (I've yet to drive in a state where that is less >than 60-65, and yes, I've driven in > 50% of the states) I become >conditioned to exceeding the speed limit by 10 or so mph. I also get the >feeling that driving at these speeds is no great wrong because *everybody* >does it! > The fallacy with this is the assumption that people obeyed the higher speed limits before the change! I am(just barely) old enough to remember. Compliance was *no* *greater* under the old 70-75 mph speed limit than it is now. People used to drive 80-85mph, the same ~10 mph over that they drive now! Even my father, a very law abiding citizen, regularly drove 5 miles over the limit, even when the limit was 75. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa
carl@aoa.UUCP (Carl Witthoft) (09/03/85)
>In article <260@aoa.UUCP> carl@aoa.UUCP (Carl Witthoft) writes: >>Once again, someone who knows nothing of constitutional law (and apparently >>also is unconvinced by the relationship beteween speed limit and highway >>deaths) is flaming all over this newsgroup. I'm also amused (??) by the >>conflicting desire for "states' rights" and free dollars from the feds. >> > Grrrr. I was going to stay out of this one. I was going to leave well >enough alone, but I can no longer. Extreemely minor flame: There is no such >thing as "free dollars" form the feds. That money ultimately comes from you >and me (actually, from any work that we do). Of course it does. Would you prefer secession?> > The main reason that I am opposed to the 55 speed limit is because 90% of >the people that I know don't obey it (even those that say they do, get on >the freeway and do at least 60). I grew up driving under this totally >arbitrary limit (it does not reflect the speed at which one can safely drive >the road), and thus since the only safe way to drive on the freeway is to >move along with the flow (I've yet to drive in a state where that is less >than 60-65, and yes, I've driven in > 50% of the states) I become >conditioned to exceeding the speed limit by 10 or so mph. I also get the How old are you? Us greyhairs (I'm 30) can well remember when the speed limit was 70, and the traffic averaged 75-80. Thus your complaint about speeding is well-intentioned but invalid. Darwin's Dad (Carl Witthoft) ...!{decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!aoa!carl @ Adaptive Optics Assoc., 54 Cambridgepark Dr. Cambridge, MA 02140 617-864-0201 " Buffet-Crampon R-13 , VanDoren B-45, and VanDoren Fortes ."
buls@dataio.UUCP (Rick Buls) (09/05/85)
In article <695@psivax.UUCP> friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) writes: >In article <393@scgvaxd.UUCP> chris@scgvaxd.UUCP (Chris Yoder) writes: >> >> The main reason that I am opposed to the 55 speed limit is because 90% of >>the people that I know don't obey it (even those that say they do, get on >>the freeway and do at least 60). I become >>conditioned to exceeding the speed limit by 10 or so mph. I also get the >>feeling that driving at these speeds is no great wrong because *everybody* >>does it! >> > The fallacy with this is the assumption that people obeyed the >higher speed limits before the change! I am(just barely) old enough to >remember. Compliance was *no* *greater* under the old 70-75 mph speed >limit than it is now. People used to drive 80-85mph, the same ~10 mph >over that they drive now! Even my father, a very law abiding citizen, >regularly drove 5 miles over the limit, even when the limit was 75. >-- > Sarima (Stanley Friesen) > The fallacy with this is the assumption that there were speed limits in all the states. :-) Being from the great state of Montana, There were No daytime speed limit when I learned to drive(pre 1974). So it was imposible to exceed the limit on the highways. The state of Nevada had no limits either. So I for one never exceeded the speed limit before 1974, My only ticket was in 1974 for going 62 in a 55 zone. I was in Kansas. As for the 55, what was a 7 hour drive back "home" is now a 11 hour marithon over a 4 lane deserted mass of concrete and asphalt. I always think of all the gas the 55 is saving when I'm in the traffic to and from work(going at 35 to dead stop). There is more gas burned on a weekday morning from 6AM til 10AM in the same city of Seattle than is burned all day in the whole state of Montana. And the drivers here in Seattle would love it if they could speed up to 55. -- Rick Buls (Data I/O; Redmond, Wa) uw-beaver!entropy!dataio!buls