Gerry Mac
Well-Known Member
Damn, I wish I had thought of this. I love it.
Gerry
Gerry
Seatbelt Enforcement
- Thread starter Mark K 2
- Start date
Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:
Kevin Palmer
Well-Known Member
There is no privacy issue when it is a in "PLAIN VIEW" issue/concern.
Driving is a privilege, not a right. Because of that, the laws are MUCH different.
If I can see you doing an illegal act in your home while standing outside your fence, it will stand up in court due to PLAIN VIEW type laws.
Not suggesting it is fair or that you like or openly accept this mentality.. Just telling you the way it is.
Driving is a privilege, not a right. Because of that, the laws are MUCH different.
If I can see you doing an illegal act in your home while standing outside your fence, it will stand up in court due to PLAIN VIEW type laws.
Not suggesting it is fair or that you like or openly accept this mentality.. Just telling you the way it is.
Law or not, I wear a seatbelt for my safety. If the law was that seat belts were optional, I would continue to wear them.
You choosing not to wear them does not impact my life at all. If you care about your family, you would wear your seatbelt.
(I am using the word "you". I am not directing this to anyone. This is just a general comment)
Tom
You choosing not to wear them does not impact my life at all. If you care about your family, you would wear your seatbelt.
(I am using the word "you". I am not directing this to anyone. This is just a general comment)
Tom
Bill Barber
Well-Known Member
Rich L
Speed traps are all the rage, and legal in my state because of LIDAR.
The LIDAR LEO pings you, than radios ahead to the ticket writer up the road.
You cannot leagally beat LIDAR.
Speed traps are all the rage, and legal in my state because of LIDAR.
The LIDAR LEO pings you, than radios ahead to the ticket writer up the road.
You cannot leagally beat LIDAR.
Bill,
Of course you know California has some very strange laws, so I'm not sure anyone knows whats legal or illegal there. In my opinion, If the LIDAR is taking pictures, then it's probably legal. If the LIDAR does not take pictures, I would think it would be difficult to prove which specific vehilce was speeding?
Some states are using various forms of photo/radar and send you a ticket with a copy of the photo in the mail. Germany has been doing that for over 40 years now. The same applies to Red Light Cameras. The city of Waco Texas just signed a contract with a company that makes and monitors these cameras and are installing them a various locations around the city. The citiy wanted to be sure that the cameras could not be programmed to do any other kind of spying except to monitor and photo vehicles running a red light.
Of course you know California has some very strange laws, so I'm not sure anyone knows whats legal or illegal there. In my opinion, If the LIDAR is taking pictures, then it's probably legal. If the LIDAR does not take pictures, I would think it would be difficult to prove which specific vehilce was speeding?
Some states are using various forms of photo/radar and send you a ticket with a copy of the photo in the mail. Germany has been doing that for over 40 years now. The same applies to Red Light Cameras. The city of Waco Texas just signed a contract with a company that makes and monitors these cameras and are installing them a various locations around the city. The citiy wanted to be sure that the cameras could not be programmed to do any other kind of spying except to monitor and photo vehicles running a red light.
Kevin Lang
Well-Known Member
Well, that's impossible. Sure it makes all the people who would protest the traffic cameras feel better though.
Red light cameras are a joke. Some of the ones around me go off on people who stop on the white stop line as the light goes from yellow to red, which is legal. However, due to "wasted administrative time", the State and County have seriously considered billing anyone whose picture is taken, even if it is due to camera error.
Red light cameras rank up there with K-9 in terms of direct law enforcement laziness--instead of having cops do their job, let's have a camera take pictures and send a dog to take down assailants, while the police do God-knows-what back at the ranch.
Oh, and how do pictures prove that you're speeding? How can you look at a picture and know "Yep, that car was speeding"?
Dan Long
Well-Known Member
KL, how can you say K-9's show laziness? They are a tool used by officers that requires countless hours of training and discipline. The benefits of using them are huge! The amount of busts made that wouldn't have happened without them, not to mention the number of lives they've saved or at least kept out of harm. They're not using them because they're too lazy to chase a perp. If you look at most K-9 handlers, they'll be in better shape than 95% of the other officers. Its a highly sought after and respected duty position in the law enforcement profession, and typically the standards required of the officers are very high.
Kevin Lang
Well-Known Member
Very easily :bwahaha: :bwahaha: :banana:
(That's the old classic I shoulda posted from the git-go as I'm not trying to start a debate, since I'm stalwart in my opinions, and while beating a dead horse makes the meat tender, horse is still too stringy for me)
Last edited by a moderator:
gary s
Well-Known Member
kl,
why sooooo anti-authority ?
you must be every law enforcement officers chuckle when you are pulled over :bwahaha:
why sooooo anti-authority ?
you must be every law enforcement officers chuckle when you are pulled over :bwahaha:
Mark K 2
Well-Known Member
In Wisconsin, if a suspect harms or kills a police dog, they get charged as if they did the same to a human police officer.
There's a guy in the Wisconsin state prison serving 30 years for serving poisoned meat to an off-duty police dog.
You'd be surprised how many idiots try to hit or kick the police dog that's chomped down on their arm. That gets them a battery to a police officer charge.
There's a guy in the Wisconsin state prison serving 30 years for serving poisoned meat to an off-duty police dog.
You'd be surprised how many idiots try to hit or kick the police dog that's chomped down on their arm. That gets them a battery to a police officer charge.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dan Long
Well-Known Member
I saw your original reply but didn't have a chance to post earlier.... if you're dead set on your image of K-9 officers and how they work, then so be it. Speaking from first-hand knowledge of the department I worked for, and knowing many K-9 officers and the requirements to even apply for the position, it doesn't fit.
The work these dogs do is awesome, who gives a rat's a$$ if some punk gets bit? If he hadn't committed a crime and run from the police, he wouldn't be in that situation. Also, the dogs aren't going to be sent after a 13 year old kid who stole a CD, there is discretion on when they are used for take downs.
The work these dogs do is awesome, who gives a rat's a$$ if some punk gets bit? If he hadn't committed a crime and run from the police, he wouldn't be in that situation. Also, the dogs aren't going to be sent after a 13 year old kid who stole a CD, there is discretion on when they are used for take downs.
Kevin Lang
Well-Known Member
Nah, I don't like speed traps (who does?) and I hate the idea of K-9 for offense, but otherwise I respect our police. Not as much as miltary members, but they're still putting themselves on the line. Besides, I also work for the Government, so it'd be too hypocritical to hate them for that reason.
Like I originally said, dogs being used for their superior sense of smell is a-ok. Dogs being used for takedowns is not. All a dog can do is run and bite...and once it has bit, it's pretty much useless. A police officer could do much more, and being busted with a dog wound is far less dignifying than getting shot or even just getting your a$$ beat down by the cops.
The dog has the same protection as cops...you could have a real field day with that lol.
Suffice it to say that there'll be one less dawg in the world when they're sic'd on me.
I would prefer to get apprehended by a police dog over a human cop. Dogs don't lie, cops do.
Tom
TrainTrac
Well-Known Member
:back2topic:
Mandatory seat belt laws, like most speed limit laws, are nothing more than an easy source of revenue for gov't. And seat belt laws, like helmet laws, are just more examples of the cradle-to-grave, nanny state mentality. I don't need gov't to force me at gunpoint to wear a seat belt in my vehicle or a helmet when riding. I am smart enough to make that choice on my own, thank you very much.:angry:
And those who choose to not wear a seat belt or helmet should be free to make that choice also.
Mandatory seat belt laws, like most speed limit laws, are nothing more than an easy source of revenue for gov't. And seat belt laws, like helmet laws, are just more examples of the cradle-to-grave, nanny state mentality. I don't need gov't to force me at gunpoint to wear a seat belt in my vehicle or a helmet when riding. I am smart enough to make that choice on my own, thank you very much.:angry:
And those who choose to not wear a seat belt or helmet should be free to make that choice also.
Last edited by a moderator:
Kevin Lang
Well-Known Member
TrainTrac, freedom is too dangerous for us citizens to have, don't you remember?
...and our Esteemed leader said we weren't smart enough for freedom.
Public schools make us read books about the virtues of Freedom and the evils of a Nanny State, yet public school graduates reflect the opposite. I don't get it.
After MD's cigarette tax fiasco, I could suspect MN's government budgeted for having money from a certain number of seatbelt law violators, and now that they aren't reaping in the profit, they're having to go on the prowl with this sting operation.
(Caymen, won't the dog only come after you if the cop instructs him to?)
...and our Esteemed leader said we weren't smart enough for freedom.
Public schools make us read books about the virtues of Freedom and the evils of a Nanny State, yet public school graduates reflect the opposite. I don't get it.
After MD's cigarette tax fiasco, I could suspect MN's government budgeted for having money from a certain number of seatbelt law violators, and now that they aren't reaping in the profit, they're having to go on the prowl with this sting operation.
(Caymen, won't the dog only come after you if the cop instructs him to?)
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
TrainTrac said:
Should those people also pay higher premiums for life and health insurance?
TJR
Should those people also pay higher premiums for life and health insurance?
TJR
TrainTrac
Well-Known Member
Perhaps. But that's not an easy thing to regulate. If there's a question on an insurance application asking whether or not you wear a seat belt or helmet, what idiot is going say "Why, no. I never wear those silly things!"?
Might be better to allow the insurance companies to void the life/health insurance policy and refuse payment if death/injuries are determined to be a result of not wearing a seat belt or helmet.
When I was in the Navy, regulations required active duty Sailors to always wear a seat belt in a car; helmet, long sleeves, long pants, hard-soled shoes, gloves, reflective vest, and eye protection, both on and off base, and both on duty and on leave/liberty. If a Sailor suffered injuries/fatality in an accident and was found to have not been in compliance with the aforementioned regulations, then the Navy wouldn't pay the medical bills, nor pay out the Serviceman's Group Life Insurance (SGLI) benefit.
Might be better to allow the insurance companies to void the life/health insurance policy and refuse payment if death/injuries are determined to be a result of not wearing a seat belt or helmet.
When I was in the Navy, regulations required active duty Sailors to always wear a seat belt in a car; helmet, long sleeves, long pants, hard-soled shoes, gloves, reflective vest, and eye protection, both on and off base, and both on duty and on leave/liberty. If a Sailor suffered injuries/fatality in an accident and was found to have not been in compliance with the aforementioned regulations, then the Navy wouldn't pay the medical bills, nor pay out the Serviceman's Group Life Insurance (SGLI) benefit.
Bill Barber
Well-Known Member
75 % of major injurys caused by not wearing helmits or seat belts,happen to people that have NO health Insurance.
They need to be culled from the Gene pool.
They need to be culled from the Gene pool.
TrainTrac
Well-Known Member
Darwin's Theory at work, eh?
Kevin Lang
Well-Known Member
Geez, why didn't the Navy just put you in a bubble suit?
The reflective vest is really over the top...
TJR, was that a bating question? For you, who advocates Captialism repeatedly, to make some all-encompassing proposition of regulating people on principle is out of character.
The reflective vest is really over the top...
What kind of question is that TJR? The insurance companies would have their actuaries analyze the risk, and if the market is behooved by charging these people more, it will.
TJR, was that a bating question? For you, who advocates Captialism repeatedly, to make some all-encompassing proposition of regulating people on principle is out of character.
