weltyrp@rpics.UUCP (Richard Welty) (08/21/85)
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?!? I have always been under the impression that the FCC act of the 1930's guarenteed the right of american citizens to receive any RF signal broadcast. This obviously includes signals from radar guns. I really don't object to cops trying to catch speeders, but I am in favor of reasonably traffic laws, and I consider the double nickel to be an arbitrary and low limit unrelated to the design speed limits of the highways. Most statistical studies showing a decrease in highway fatalities related to 55 are flawed in design. Most of them attempt to correlate a lower speed limit with traffic fatalities, when they SHOULD attempt to correlate the average speeds that are occuring. In fact, the average speed on the Interstate system since 55 was introduced has only gone down about 2 miles/hour. As soon as I have $15 to spare, I plan to join the "citizens coalition for rational traffic laws", a well organized lobbying group opposed to 55. I would urge anyone else opposed to 55 to do likewise ... -- Rich Welty (I am both a part-time grad student at RPI and a full-time employee of a local CAE firm, and opinions expressed herein have nothing to do with anything at all) CSNet: weltyrp@rpi ArpaNet: weltyrp.rpi@csnet-relay UUCP: seismo!rpics!weltyrp