|
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 14:45:50 -0800, Paul Johnson
wrote: Dave Hall wrote: Most car speedometers are not so accurate that a 1 MPH difference is all that hard to believe. Just putting one size larger tires on your car can make that difference. Well, you're supposed to get your instruments recalibrated after changing tire size. Yes, you probably should. But periodic speedometer calibration is not on the list of "maintenance" items in the owner's manuals, nor is it required as a part of (At least in my state) annual inspection. I'm not even sure if anyone (other than the dealer) can even perform such a service. It's clearly not something they advertise. But differences as much as 5 MPH can happen depending on tire pressure and road conditions...I've yet to see a speedometer read the right speed driving on Oregon's notoriously rutted freeways in the rain (probably because you're forced to hydroplane along the lane, which is why the locals *will* get aggressive towards tailgaters, though the Californians usually don't get it until they slam into a wall or the car ahead of them approaching slower traffic hiding in the road spray of the vehicle ahead because they're following too close). People have fought a speeding ticket on this basis and have won. That's part of the reason why Pa. gives some leeway. Most cops don't want to have to appear in traffic court when the chances are good the case could get thrown out. However, it's a lot harder to make a case for speedometer inaccuracies when you're 10 MPH or more over. I used to have to deal with police a lot when I was a security officer, and at one site, the worksite's driveway was a common spot for police to set up speed traps. The cops don't even bother radar cars until they see someone moving considerably faster than surrounding traffic, radar the overspeed vehicle for evidence, and just use the posted speed as something to estimate a fine from. That's pretty much what they do here as well. In the state of Pa., RADAR is only allowed to be used by the state police (You actually have to be "certified" to use it). The locals use VASCAR, which is why there are so many white painted lines across the road (Which also gives alert drivers a heads-up as to where the speed traps will usually be). They seem to radar everyone in areas where there are actual speed limits when I see a speed trap in a limit zone. Though I never see anybody pulled over, everybody just slows down for the speed limit and then drops the hammer down when it goes back to a posted speed a few miles down the road. That's the whole basis of the "Smokey Reports" that run across the CB. At first the cops were ****ed at this method of circumventing the law (As they are with flashing headlights). Now the cops use it to their advantage. Sometimes they park an unmanned car near a busy highway and let the CB'ers pass the word, and everyone slows down, which is all they wanted anyway. Dave "Sandbagger" |
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 16:39:56 -0500, Vinnie S.
wrote: On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 07:56:05 -0500, Dave Hall wrote: On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:25:37 -0800, Paul Johnson wrote: Vinnie S. wrote: So is driving 56 mph in a 55. But I am sure you have never done that. Hypocracy at it's finest. Depends on the state. Most states give you 10% leeway for differences in speedometer calibration. Oregon doesn't have speed limits in most places, opting for a less strictly enforced posted speed (difference is the posted speed signs say SPEED, whereas hard limits say SPEED LIMIT). In either case, if conditions are bad, you can get a speeding ticket for going slower than the posted speed (ie, doing 50 in a 60 zone on ice). In Pa. they are required to give 5 MPH to take care of "Speedometer" and speed measuring inaccuracies. In addition, just to avoid court challenges to the precise accuracy of the speed measuring equipment (Usually VASCAR on non-state patrolled roads, and RADAR on state police patrolled roads), most of the cops I know tell me that they unofficially give people 9 MPH over the posted limit before they start pulling people over. Of course there might be a new hard-assed rookie who might not be so "kind"....... My brother in law is a cop. It's at the descretion of the cop. Since most often this is a revenue generating system. The judge and cop are on the same municipal team. If they want to beat you at 1 mph, they will. The reason they give 10mph extra, is because everyone goes over the speed limit. They would be up to their ears in court. So they take the abusers. But I highly doubt it's the inaccuracies of the equipment or speedometers, because like you said, some states have zero tolerance. So don't think you can claim the equipment is inaccurate in one state, and perfect in another. I really think it's just the descretion of the cop. Well, in all honesty, it mostly is at the cop's discretion, and they know that if they want to really bust someone's stones for 1 or 2 MPH over, they stand a good chance of losing in court. RADAR has been taken to court before (I remember a somewhat famous one involved pointing a RADAR gun at a tree and recording over 100 MPH). Traffic volume, calibration certification, humidity, weather, terrain and a host of other conditions can affect the accuracy. If you are someone who does his homework, and presents this in court, most judges will throw it out for such a small number. VASCAR since it is a manual timing device, can be even more prone to inaccuracies. It's more of an unwritten rule in Pa., that they "give" you 5 MPH, but all of the cops I know pretty much told me the same thing, and that is that they don't start pulling people over until they hit 10 MPH over. I'm sure it's different in other states. Dave "Sandbagger" |
On 11 Feb 2005 10:19:21 -0800, "No I Am Not Him"
wrote: Lancer wrote: On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:49:12 -0500, Vinnie S. wrote: On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 01:46:42 GMT, Lancer wrote: http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj Dave I am hearing CBers on AM in the 10 meter cw band right now. Thanks for helping another unlicensed outlaw get his peaked up tweaked up illegal rig on the air to join them. Putz. You're welcome. Dave, Tell the moron I am not on 10 meters. I don't stoop to his level. Vinnie S. And by that you mean you are just an illegal outlaw on the 11 meter band? Illegal is illegal isn't it? So is driving 56 mph in a 55. But I am sure you have never done that. Hypocracy at it's finest. Vinnie S. Oh, because someone else breaks a "law" you are entiltled to break any "Law" you see fit. Grow up Vinnie, quit trying to rationalize your behavior. He's being supported in his rationalization by Dave "the outlaw elmer" Hall. No, the person who usually equates speeding with freebanding would be Twistedhed. Dave "Sandbagger" |
David T. Hall wrote:
In Pa. they are required to give 5 MPH to take care of "Speedometer" and speed measuring inaccuracies I am glad you availed yourself the facts of the matter and reclarified your bull**** above with: Well, in all honesty, it mostly is at the cop's discretion, It's more of an unwritten rule in Pa., that they "give" you 5 MPH, That's a far cry from you claiming it was a "requirement" the Pa. police *give* you the extra speed of a few miles per hour. Nevertheless, you illustrate once again you speak of things you know nothing of (the law) and do not need Frank to make you reverse your earlier position. Since you realized your error, there is no need to provide you with the Pa. vehicle code. Flip-flop. |
Dave Hall wrote:
Yes, you probably should. But periodic speedometer calibration is not on the list of "maintenance" items in the owner's manuals, nor is it required as a part of (At least in my state) annual inspection. I'm not even sure if anyone (other than the dealer) can even perform such a service. It's clearly not something they advertise. Any custom shop or instrument shop can recalibrate your speedometer for hardly more than pocket change. There's really no excuse for not getting it done. That's pretty much what they do here as well. In the state of Pa., RADAR is only allowed to be used by the state police (You actually have to be "certified" to use it). The locals use VASCAR, which is why there are so many white painted lines across the road (Which also gives alert drivers a heads-up as to where the speed traps will usually be). Lucky you. All departments use laser here. Your detector won't go off until the cop is actually checking your speed (in which it's too late). My theory is, if you're driving too fast to see the speed trap, you're driving too fast to spot a real hazard at that speed. Nothing like having rush-hour traffic shut down because some jackass driving 60 in dense fog creams a deer on the freeway. That's the whole basis of the "Smokey Reports" that run across the CB. Yeah, I'm usually the one spotting them, I know how they work. 8:O) Sometimes they park an unmanned car near a busy highway and let the CB'ers pass the word, and everyone slows down, which is all they wanted anyway. You must have an amazingly rich police department if they're able to have expensive surplus equipment to play games with like that. -- Paul Johnson http://ursine.ca/~baloo/ |
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 11:38:22 -0800, Paul Johnson
wrote: Dave Hall wrote: Yes, you probably should. But periodic speedometer calibration is not on the list of "maintenance" items in the owner's manuals, nor is it required as a part of (At least in my state) annual inspection. I'm not even sure if anyone (other than the dealer) can even perform such a service. It's clearly not something they advertise. Any custom shop or instrument shop can recalibrate your speedometer for hardly more than pocket change. There's really no excuse for not getting it done. Just for kicks and grins, when I was at the local auto parts/garage the other day, I asked in a matter-of-fact way if they did speedo cal's. The guy looked at me like I grew a second head. Yes, I imagine there are shops who can handle this. But with the newer OBD-II ECM system on modern cars, the speedo is often a little more complex than a simple mechanical pointer. Other than the few specialty shops and the dealer, I doubt if the typical generic garages that most people go to can handle it. Most people avoid the dealer once their warranties expires as they're generally more expensive than the local garage. It's just not something that anyone talks about. That's pretty much what they do here as well. In the state of Pa., RADAR is only allowed to be used by the state police (You actually have to be "certified" to use it). The locals use VASCAR, which is why there are so many white painted lines across the road (Which also gives alert drivers a heads-up as to where the speed traps will usually be). Lucky you. All departments use laser here. Your detector won't go off until the cop is actually checking your speed (in which it's too late). Detectors are ineffective against VASCAR as there is no "beam". It's simple mechanical timing. But the manual nature of this technique is what opens the door to inaccuracy claims when someone is cited for going a scant 1 MPH over. http://www.vascarplus.com/Pages/How_it_works.htm My theory is, if you're driving too fast to see the speed trap, you're driving too fast to spot a real hazard at that speed. Nothing like having rush-hour traffic shut down because some jackass driving 60 in dense fog creams a deer on the freeway. I hear that. That's the whole basis of the "Smokey Reports" that run across the CB. Yeah, I'm usually the one spotting them, I know how they work. 8:O) Sometimes they park an unmanned car near a busy highway and let the CB'ers pass the word, and everyone slows down, which is all they wanted anyway. You must have an amazingly rich police department if they're able to have expensive surplus equipment to play games with like that. It all depends on your perspective. If that parked car prevents accidents, the money saved on emergency response services more than makes up for the loss of an "active" patrol car. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 09:12:12 -0500, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: From: (Dave*Hall) On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 10:12:10 -0500, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: David T. Hall wrote: In Pa. they are required to give 5 MPH to take care of "Speedometer" and speed measuring inaccuracies I am glad you availed yourself the facts of the matter and reclarified your bull**** above with: Well, in all honesty, it mostly is at the cop's discretion, It's more of an unwritten rule in Pa., that they "give" you 5 MPH, That's a far cry from you claiming it was a "requirement" the Pa. police *give* you the extra speed of a few miles per hour. Nevertheless, you illustrate once again you speak of things you know nothing of (the law) and do not need Frank to make you reverse your earlier position. Since you realized your error, there is no need to provide you with the Pa. vehicle code. Flip-flop. You're right. I shouldn't have deviated from my original stance since, as it turns out, I was right about it. See: http://members.aol.com/StatutesP1/75PA3368.html Pay particular attention to 3368 (c) number 4., which states: "No person may be convicted upon evidence obtained through the use of devices authorized by paragraphs (2) and (3) unless the speed recorded is six or more miles per hour in excess of the legal speed limit. Furthermore, no person may be convicted upon evidence obtained through the use of devices authorized by paragraph (3) in an area where the legal speed limit is less than 55 miles per hour if the speed recorded is less than ten miles per hour in excess of the legal speed limit. This paragraph shall not apply to evidence obtained through the use of devices authorized by paragraph (3) within a school zone" So what were you saying about knowing the law? Dave "Sandbagger" True to form, you Ahhh,,,,unable to defend the topic, junior does what all unskilled and uneducated louts do,,,they attack the chatter. Dave, you have always been a lid and have one hell of a time debating void of emotion. Get educated, junior. show up to pick yet another bowl of nits. So sorry you feel persecuted again, Junior, yet, illustrating your self-contradictory claims has a rather unnerving effect on you. Call it whatever your bruised ego dictates, you talk sideways. It is an unwritten "requirement" in order to avoid the pain of fighting in court. What insight,,,,if it's "unwritten", it doesn't exist as a requirement, Dave, no matter WHAT you try to explain you "mean" by it. The courts have a history of throwing out (snip) Not relevant. Your claim that is was a requirement degraded to your current claim it is now a "unwritten" requirement, yet, according to you, 'friends' of yours are cops who affirmed both your claims. Well, Dave, you are full of **** again. I posed your question to several LEOs in a traffic forum and you are wrong. Need the URL? Care to join me where you can be educated by actual Pa. leos? speed citations for small amounts, due to the potential for inaccuracies in both the car speedometer and the speed measuring devices. The success rate for having these fines "stick" increases greatly when the amounts exceed 5 MPH over. And has nothing to do with any "unwritten requirement". If it is unwritten, it can not be a requirement LEOs must follow. I've gotten the same story from several different cops who work in different precincts and the state police. LOL,,sure, sure, just like those you claimed agreed with you that roger beeps are illegal, only you menstruate when asked to actually provide for such a claim. No, you haven't been told that by any Pa. cop, and the LEO forum serves to illustrate your degeneration caused by pathological lies. David T. Hall Jr n3cvj "Sandbagger" |
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 10:29:58 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:
That's a far cry from you claiming it was a "requirement" the Pa. police *give* you the extra speed of a few miles per hour. Nevertheless, you illustrate once again you speak of things you know nothing of (the law) and do not need Frank to make you reverse your earlier position. Since you realized your error, there is no need to provide you with the Pa. vehicle code. Flip-flop. You're right. I shouldn't have deviated from my original stance since, as it turns out, I was right about it. See: http://members.aol.com/StatutesP1/75PA3368.html Pay particular attention to 3368 (c) number 4., which states: "No person may be convicted upon evidence obtained through the use of devices authorized by paragraphs (2) and (3) unless the speed recorded is six or more miles per hour in excess of the legal speed limit. Furthermore, no person may be convicted upon evidence obtained through the use of devices authorized by paragraph (3) in an area where the legal speed limit is less than 55 miles per hour if the speed recorded is less than ten miles per hour in excess of the legal speed limit. This paragraph shall not apply to evidence obtained through the use of devices authorized by paragraph (3) within a school zone" So what were you saying about knowing the law? Ouch. Vinnie S. |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 09:12:12 -0500, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: From: (Dave=A0Hall) On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 10:12:10 -0500, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: David T. Hall wrote: In Pa. they are required to give 5 MPH to take care of "Speedometer" and speed measuring inaccuracies I am glad you availed yourself the facts of the matter and reclarified your bull**** above with: Well, in all honesty, it mostly is at the cop's discretion, It's more of an unwritten rule in Pa., that they "give" you 5 MPH, That's a far cry from you claiming it was a "requirement" the Pa. police *give* you the extra speed of a few miles per hour. Nevertheless, you illustrate once again you speak of things you know nothing of (the law) and do not need Frank to make you reverse your earlier position. Since you realized your error, there is no need to provide you with the Pa. vehicle code. Flip-flop. You're right. Most people are when disagreeing you. I shouldn't have deviated from my original stance since, as it turns out, I was right about it. See: http://members.aol.com/StatutesP1/75PA3368 .html Pay particular attention to 3368 (c) number 4., which states: "No person may be convicted upon evidence obtained through the use of devices authorized by paragraphs (2) and (3) unless the speed recorded is six or more miles per hour in excess of the legal speed limit. Why did you snip the obvious? I'll tell you why, it directly contradicts what you claimed. Furthermore, no person may be convicted upon evidence obtained through the use of devices authorized by paragraph (3) in an area where the legal speed limit is less than 55 miles per hour if the speed recorded is less than ten miles per hour in excess of the legal speed limit. This paragraph shall not apply to evidence obtained through the use of devices authorized by paragraph (3) within a school zone" That there is no rule, unwritten or written that requires the officer to ignore a speeder. To wit...the portion you conveniently snipped shows how your claim is not across the board and is an exception, as it pertains ONLY when traveling in areas with posted speeds LESS than 55, whereas the the posted interstate (65 MPH) speeds, of which Pa. finally raised from 55 not too long ago, are the speed LIMITS imposed by the state of Pennsylvania. Once again, so you are no longer confounded and suffering and blaming me for your ignorance,, Pa. has no rule OR law, that requires a LEO to give a window of 5 mph (or ANY speed) to speeders in excess of the state speed limit, which happens to be 65 MPH. So what were you saying about knowing the law? David T Hall Jr. "Sandbagger" Just that you have a devil of a time comprehending it and blame others for your ignorance. |
From: (Vinnie=A0S.)
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 10:29:58 -0500, Dave Hall wrote: That's a far cry from you claiming it was a "requirement" the Pa. police *give* you the extra speed of a few miles per hour. Nevertheless, you illustrate once again you speak of things you know nothing of (the law) and do not need Frank to make you reverse your earlier position. Since you realized your error, there is no need to provide you with the Pa. vehicle code. Flip-flop. You're right. I shouldn't have deviated from my original stance since, as it turns out, I was right about it. See: http://members.aol.com/StatutesP1/75PA3368.html Pay particular attention to 3368 (c) number 4., which states: "No person may be convicted upon evidence obtained through the use of devices authorized by paragraphs (2) and (3) unless the speed recorded is six or more miles per hour in excess of the legal speed limit. Furthermore, no person may be convicted upon evidence obtained through the use of devices authorized by paragraph (3) in an area where the legal speed limit is less than 55 miles per hour if the speed recorded is less than ten miles per hour in excess of the legal speed limit. This paragraph shall not apply to evidence obtained through the use of devices authorized by paragraph (3) within a school zone" So what were you saying about knowing the law? That your position still doesn't understand that Pa has no law or rule, written or otherwise, requiring officers to give you a window of ANY speed when in excess of the state speed limit. (Ouch.) (Vinnie S.) Ha! Vinnie is feeling your pain. |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 09:12:12 -0500, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: True to form, you Ahhh,,,,unable to defend the topic, junior does what all unskilled and uneducated louts do,,,they attack the chatter. Dave, you have always been a lid and have one hell of a time debating void of emotion. Get educated, junior. show up to pick yet another bowl of nits. So sorry you feel persecuted again, Junior, yet, illustrating your self-contradictory claims has a rather unnerving effect on you. Call it whatever your bruised ego dictates, you talk sideways. Nonetheless, you are picking nits. As you always do. Pay attention. Pointing to your inability to discuss a topic without focusing on the poster is presenting an obstacle you have yet to overcome. Such is the way with those suffering massive communication deficits. - Not relevant. Your claim that is was a requirement degraded to your current claim it is now a "unwritten" requirement, yet, according to you, 'friends' of yours are cops who affirmed both your claims. Well, Dave, you are full of **** again. I posed your question to several LEOs in a traffic forum and you are wrong. Need the URL? Care to join me where you can be educated by actual Pa. leos? That's interesting. Your adoration with me has made you go through the trouble of actually seeking out and finding these mythical LEO's, just to pose this question. Adoration is you invoking my name over the weekend no less than seven times when speaking to other newsgroupies about topics of which you are unable to focus. As you stated last week, you "prefer" to focus on the chatter as opposed to the topic. You would "rather" talk about me as opposed to radio, as I fascinate you, so. Adoration, indeed. Which you did and got a reply back in less than a day. Wow. Actually, I think it came the same day. I'm sure this "group" in the same place as that fictitious military group that you tried to snow Frank with. But of course, This is the same manner in which you are "sure" roger beeps are illegal, and that other people among these pages suport such a learned ignorant contention. But sure, go ahead and give it to me. Tell ya' what, Dave..just to keep you honest (and screaming like a school girl), I'm going to give it to anyone in this group that emails me and requests it. Of course, you are free to provide for your claim first, and I will provide for my claim, secondly, to you. I know you have problems with proper etiquette and communications, but that is the manner in whcih society operates. Stomping your foot and throwing tantrums about "twisted did this to me" and "twisted did that to me" don't cut it, junior. You want claims provided for when you demand, provide for your own claims you amde first. If nothing else, it'll be good for a laugh or two. Not nearly as good as the one that all of amateur radio is enjoying with you maintaining roger beeps are illegal and that others agree with you...only, you are struggling with providing for a single person who agrees with you. _ No, you haven't been told that by any Pa. cop, and the LEO forum serves to illustrate your degeneration caused by pathological lies. Prove it. You initiated this "prove it" game, you provide for your claim, first. Provide the URL. Prediction: nothing will result. You know yourself, well, Dave, now if only you could learn to like yourself, you may have a chance at living like normal society does. David T Hall Jr. N3CVJ "Sandbagger" |
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:10:52 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote: But sure, go ahead and give it to me. Tell ya' what, Dave..just to keep you honest (and screaming like a school girl), I'm going to give it to anyone in this group that emails me and requests it. Ha ha ha!! Ho Ho Ho!!! ROTFLMAO!!!!! You are so predictable. Dave "Sandbagger" |
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 11:53:23 -0500, (Twistedhed)
wrote: Most people are when disagreeing you. I shouldn't have deviated from my original stance since, as it turns out, I was right about it. See: http://members.aol.com/StatutesP1/75PA3368.html Pay particular attention to 3368 (c) number 4., which states: "No person may be convicted upon evidence obtained through the use of devices authorized by paragraphs (2) and (3) unless the speed recorded is six or more miles per hour in excess of the legal speed limit. Why did you snip the obvious? I'll tell you why, it directly contradicts what you claimed. I snipped nothing from that passage. Read it again S-L-O-W-L-Y.. Furthermore, no person may be convicted upon evidence obtained through the use of devices authorized by paragraph (3) in an area where the legal speed limit is less than 55 miles per hour if the speed recorded is less than ten miles per hour in excess of the legal speed limit. This paragraph shall not apply to evidence obtained through the use of devices authorized by paragraph (3) within a school zone" That there is no rule, unwritten or written that requires the officer to ignore a speeder. To wit...the portion you conveniently snipped shows how your claim is not across the board and is an exception, as it pertains ONLY when traveling in areas with posted speeds LESS than 55, whereas the the posted interstate (65 MPH) speeds, of which Pa. finally raised from 55 not too long ago, are the speed LIMITS imposed by the state of Pennsylvania. There are still many limited access roads which are posted at 55. In fact, the majority of places where they allow 65 are those areas where the highway is not in a "congested" (meaning densely populated) area. In most others, it's still 55. Now, Read the statute again, slowly this time: "No person may be convicted upon evidence obtained through the use of devices authorized by paragraphs (2) and (3) unless the speed recorded is six or more miles per hour in excess of the legal speed limit." That applies to all speeds. The following paragraph applies specifically to speeds below 55: "Furthermore, no person may be convicted upon evidence obtained through the use of devices authorized by paragraph (3) in an area where the legal speed limit is less than 55 miles per hour if the speed recorded is less than ten miles per hour in excess of the legal speed limit." Which means (for the cognitively impaired), that when using a method other than RADAR (Which usually means VASCAR) on a road where the posted speed is less than 55, they must give you 10 MPH leeway, or an additional 5 MPH over what the previous paragraph called for.. The minimum that they have to give you on any road and with any speed measuring device is 5 MPH. On certain other roads and with non-RADAR speed devices, they have to give MORE. The only exception to this rule is: "This paragraph shall not apply to evidence obtained through the use of devices authorized by paragraph (3) within a school zone" A school zone is the only place where they can pop you for less than 5 MPH over. Pa. has no rule OR law, that requires a LEO to give a window of 5 mph (or ANY speed) to speeders in excess of the state speed limit, which happens to be 65 MPH. I just posted it. If you can't comprehend it, that (as usual) is your comprehensive deficiency showing. Now go ahead and try to spin the school zone angle in another feeble attempt to prove me wrong. Don't fret though. The statistical probability is that you'll eventually find something you can ding me with someday. It's just that today isn't it. Now where is that LEO group? Dave "Sandbagger" |
|
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 13:23:07 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in : On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 11:53:23 -0500, (Twistedhed) wrote: Most people are when disagreeing you. I shouldn't have deviated from my original stance since, as it turns out, I was right about it. See: http://members.aol.com/StatutesP1/75PA3368.html Pay particular attention to 3368 (c) number 4., which states: "No person may be convicted upon evidence obtained through the use of devices authorized by paragraphs (2) and (3) unless the speed recorded is six or more miles per hour in excess of the legal speed limit. Why did you snip the obvious? I'll tell you why, it directly contradicts what you claimed. I snipped nothing from that passage. You certainly did. You snipped paragraph (1), which authorizes the use of "a mechanical or electrical speed timing device", devices that are -not- limited by paragraph (4). IOW, if the cop -can- bust for doing 56 in a 55 zone if he uses a mechanical speed timing device (e.g, the speedometer in his own vehicle). So what were you saying about knowing the law? ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 13:23:07 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in : snip I snipped nothing from that passage. After reading it again I noticed that you also snipped part D from that subsection, which requires proper calibration of all speed timing devices, and declares that proof of such calibration "shall be competent and prima facie evidence of those facts in every proceeding in which a violation of this title is charged". So if there the device has been calibrated as required under that part, there can be no legal challenge of its accuracy. This is in direct contradiction to your claim that "The courts have a history of throwing out speed citations for small amounts, due to the potential for inaccuracies in both the car speedometer and the speed measuring devices." Maybe -you- should read it again.....S-L-O-W-L-Y. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 14:50:23 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote: I snipped nothing from that passage. You certainly did. You snipped paragraph (1), which authorizes the use of "a mechanical or electrical speed timing device", devices that are -not- limited by paragraph (4). IOW, if the cop -can- bust for doing 56 in a 55 zone if he uses a mechanical speed timing device (e.g, the speedometer in his own vehicle). Again, I snipped nothing from the passage that I was excerpting to make my point. I provided the link to the whole statute, but I only copied paragraph 4, since that is the one which pertains to this whole subject. For the sake of brevity and bandwidth, I chose not to copy the WHOLE thing. That's why I also posted the link. If, as you are implying, I was attempting subterfuge, would I have provided the link? So what were you saying about knowing the law? I can at least READ it. Dave "Sandbagger" |
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:06:54 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote: On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 13:23:07 -0500, Dave Hall wrote in : snip I snipped nothing from that passage. After reading it again I noticed that you also snipped part D from that subsection, which requires proper calibration of all speed timing devices, and declares that proof of such calibration "shall be competent and prima facie evidence of those facts in every proceeding in which a violation of this title is charged". So if there the device has been calibrated as required under that part, there can be no legal challenge of its accuracy. The reason why this part is included is precisely as a result of such legal challenges. People still challenge this though, as you might be surprised at how many police departments allow their speedo cal's to expire. For this reason, most of the cops that I know do not use moving speedo timing as a means to catch speeders. They'd much rather "stake out" a particular road and time people as they pass by. The degree of violation is such that even when required to give 10 MPH (Paragraph 3 devices) they still nab a good deal of speeders. This is in direct contradiction to your claim that "The courts have a history of throwing out speed citations for small amounts, due to the potential for inaccuracies in both the car speedometer and the speed measuring devices." There's no contradiction. The fact that part "D" was created was a result of that history of court challenges. I never said that every challenge wins or that the percentages of those challenges who won today is any greater than they were 20 years ago. But that "history" does exist. Sigh. Tweedle-dum goes down for the count with his foot firmly planted in his mouth, and in comes you to take up the cause. Did you two sign some sort of a pact? Are you now attempting to "spin" this as well? The law is clear. In certain circumstances, the state of Pa. requires that LEO's give AT LEAST a 5 MPH grace when running speed traps. The greatest majority of speed traps are conducted with devices that fall within the guidelines of paragraphs 2 and 3, and this rule clearly applies Are you through picking nits? Dave "Sandbagger" |
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 06:47:21 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in : On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 14:50:23 -0800, Frank Gilliland wrote: I snipped nothing from that passage. You certainly did. You snipped paragraph (1), which authorizes the use of "a mechanical or electrical speed timing device", devices that are -not- limited by paragraph (4). IOW, if the cop -can- bust for doing 56 in a 55 zone if he uses a mechanical speed timing device (e.g, the speedometer in his own vehicle). Again, I snipped nothing from the passage that I was excerpting to make my point. I provided the link to the whole statute, but I only copied paragraph 4, since that is the one which pertains to this whole subject. For the sake of brevity and bandwidth, I chose not to copy the WHOLE thing. That's why I also posted the link. If, as you are implying, I was attempting subterfuge, would I have provided the link? Sure, on the assumption that if you provide the link, people will assume that you provided all relevant information from the source. You didn't. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 07:01:57 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in : On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:06:54 -0800, Frank Gilliland wrote: On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 13:23:07 -0500, Dave Hall wrote in : snip I snipped nothing from that passage. After reading it again I noticed that you also snipped part D from that subsection, which requires proper calibration of all speed timing devices, and declares that proof of such calibration "shall be competent and prima facie evidence of those facts in every proceeding in which a violation of this title is charged". So if there the device has been calibrated as required under that part, there can be no legal challenge of its accuracy. The reason why this part is included is precisely as a result of such legal challenges. People still challenge this though, as you might be surprised at how many police departments allow their speedo cal's to expire. For this reason, most of the cops that I know do not use moving speedo timing as a means to catch speeders. They'd much rather "stake out" a particular road and time people as they pass by. The degree of violation is such that even when required to give 10 MPH (Paragraph 3 devices) they still nab a good deal of speeders. This is in direct contradiction to your claim that "The courts have a history of throwing out speed citations for small amounts, due to the potential for inaccuracies in both the car speedometer and the speed measuring devices." There's no contradiction. The fact that part "D" was created was a result of that history of court challenges. I never said that every challenge wins or that the percentages of those challenges who won today is any greater than they were 20 years ago. But that "history" does exist. What a pile of hogwash. Sigh. Tweedle-dum goes down for the count with his foot firmly planted in his mouth, and in comes you to take up the cause. Did you two sign some sort of a pact? Are you now attempting to "spin" this as well? The law is clear. In certain circumstances, the state of Pa. requires that LEO's give AT LEAST a 5 MPH grace when running speed traps. The greatest majority of speed traps are conducted with devices that fall within the guidelines of paragraphs 2 and 3, and this rule clearly applies Are you through picking nits? That depends: are you through quoting law out of context? ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 08:07:45 -0600, itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote: Vinnie S. Ouch , Exactly Pennsy isn't big on speed enforcement anyhow. Pennsy is not a radar stste by any means most towns dont even have them they use the time and distance (vascar) method. which is why they probably have 6 mph relief That's because in Pa, only the state police can be certified to use RADAR. Local cops have to rely on other methods like VASCAR. Dave "Sandbagger" |
"itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge" wrote in message ... Vinnie S. wrote in : On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 10:29:58 -0500, Dave Hall wrote: That's a far cry from you claiming it was a "requirement" the Pa. police *give* you the extra speed of a few miles per hour. Nevertheless, you illustrate once again you speak of things you know nothing of (the law) and do not need Frank to make you reverse your earlier position. Since you realized your error, there is no need to provide you with the Pa. vehicle code. Flip-flop. You're right. I shouldn't have deviated from my original stance since, as it turns out, I was right about it. See: http://members.aol.com/StatutesP1/75PA3368.html Pay particular attention to 3368 (c) number 4., which states: "No person may be convicted upon evidence obtained through the use of devices authorized by paragraphs (2) and (3) unless the speed recorded is six or more miles per hour in excess of the legal speed limit. Furthermore, no person may be convicted upon evidence obtained through the use of devices authorized by paragraph (3) in an area where the legal speed limit is less than 55 miles per hour if the speed recorded is less than ten miles per hour in excess of the legal speed limit. This paragraph shall not apply to evidence obtained through the use of devices authorized by paragraph (3) within a school zone" So what were you saying about knowing the law? Ouch. Vinnie S. Ouch , Exactly Pennsy isn't big on speed enforcement anyhow. Pennsy is not a radar stste by any means most towns dont even have them they use the time and distance (vascar) method. which is why they probably have 6 mph relief Yeah, that basic math stuff is tuff for some. |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 11:53:23 -0500, as it turns out, I was right about it. See: http://members.aol.com/StatutesP1/75PA3368.html Pay particular attention to 3368 (c) number 4., which states: "No person may be convicted upon evidence obtained through the use of devices authorized by paragraphs (2) and (3) unless the speed recorded is six or more miles per hour in excess of the legal speed limit. Furthermore, no person may be convicted upon evidence obtained through the use of devices authorized by paragraph (3) in an area where the legal speed limit is less than 55 miles per hour if the speed recorded is less than ten miles per hour in excess of the legal speed limit. This paragraph shall not apply to evidence obtained through the use of devices authorized by paragraph (3) within a school zone" - There is no rule, unwritten or written that requires the officer to ignore a speeder. To wit...the portion you conveniently snipped shows how your claim is not across the board and is an exception, as it pertains ONLY when traveling in areas with posted speeds LESS than 55, whereas the the posted interstate (65 MPH) speeds, of which Pa. finally raised from 55 not too long ago, are the speed LIMITS imposed by the state of Pennsylvania. There are still many limited access roads which are posted at 55. You're roving. There are also many local and city roads where the speed is 35. Not relevant to the maximum speed limit imposed by the state. In fact, the majority of places where they allow 65 are those areas where the highway is not in a "congested" (meaning densely populated) area. Regardless, you are citing the exception. Once again, you can cite no rule requiring the officer to give a window of ANY speed in regards to the states maximum imposed speed limit. In most others, it's still 55. On the interstates in Pa, the maximum speed is 65 MPH. See above. Now, Read the statute again, slowly this time: =A0 =A0"No person may be convicted upon evidence obtained through the use of devices authorized by paragraphs (2) and (3) unless the speed recorded is six or more miles per hour in excess of the legal speed limit." That applies to all speeds. It doesn't. It applies only as described below. The following paragraph applies specifically to speeds below 55: The "following" paragraph was part of the one you presented, in fact, directly followed the last sentence above. "Furthermore, no person may be convicted upon evidence obtained through the use of devices authorized by paragraph (3) in an area where the legal speed limit is less than 55 miles per hour if the speed recorded is less than ten miles per hour in excess of the legal speed limit." Which means (for the cognitively impaired), that when using a method other than RADAR (Which usually means VASCAR) on a road where the posted speed is less than 55, they must give you 10 MPH leeway, That's NOT what it says. Here is the interpretation for you, Dave,,,,where the POSTED speed limit is 55 or LESS is the ONLY manner where it applies.it is a specific exception. Once again, the maximum posted speed limit on Pa interstates is 65. There is NO law or rule, or even "unwritten" as you claim, that REQUIRES the officer to GIVE any leeway at all. additional 5 MPH over what the previous paragraph called for.. The minimum that they have to give you on any road and with any speed measuring device is 5 MPH. Not ANY road, Dave, ONLY those roads where ythe posted speed is LESS than 55, which rules out the number one place the STATE police are using radar,,,the interstates where the speed is ..taadaaa..65. On certain other roads and with non-RADAR speed devices, they have to give MORE. The only exception to this rule is: "This paragraph shall not apply to evidence obtained through the use of devices authorized by paragraph (3) within a school zone" A school zone is the only place where they can pop you for less than 5 MPH over. Wrong, The interstate is where they ARE popping people, and the number one place the State Police patrol (who, incidentally, are the only cops in Pa permitted to use such devices), where the maximum posted speed is....again,,,65. _ Pa. has no rule OR law, that requires a LEO to give a window of 5 mph (or ANY speed) to speeders in excess of the state speed limit, which happens to be 65 MPH. I just posted it. And you are still wrong. If you can't comprehend it, that (as usual) is your comprehensive deficiency showing. Just like you maintain roger beeps are illegal, and claimed that others believed that as well, you were unable to cite a single person that maintained such. Again, cite a single person that misinterprets this to read as you claim...just one. Now go ahead and try to spin the school zone angle in another feeble attempt to prove me wrong. Feeble is your insult above whenever you realize you are wrong. In fact, the moment youbegin to comprehend you are wrong, you attack the person pointing out your incompetence. The pattern is the same all through your posting history,,,once you are shown your errors, you insult the person you are debating and try to drop the topic and make your topic of the person. In fact, you have admitted on several occasion, you like nothing more than to make me your topic. Don't fret though. The statistical probability is that you'll eventually find something you can ding me with someday. It's just that today isn't it. "Ding" you? My goodness, David, you have been made to "ding" yourself so many times, not one person can hold a straight face when you accuse others of trying to "ding" you. You manage that all by your lonesome. Now where is that LEO group? Where's one of those folks you claimed agreed with you that roger beeps are illegal? When asked to cite one, you retreated faster than greased lightning and haven't touched the subject again. Of course, nobody expected you to cite anyone, Dave, as NO ONE agrees with ypu..no one! Tell ya' what, Davie, since I'm a nice guy and feeling generous and you're an angry guy feeling bad ..,,cite someone that agrees with you on your claim regarding the 55 law in your state as pertaining to your claims that a Pa State Cop ( as only State Cops in Pa have radar) is REQUIRED to give a window to ALL speeders, and I'll post the URL right here. Take all the time you need. David T. Hall Jr. N3CVJ "Sandbagger" |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 11:56:27 -0500, (Twistedhed) wrote: (Ouch.) (Vinnie S.) Ha! Vinnie is feeling your pain. Actually that pain is from your foot being firmly implanted in your mouth (yet again). Are you claiming Vinnie is now Twist? Or Twist is Vinny? How does your claim relate to Vinny saying "ouch"? Ah, never mind, you are struggling with everyone you speak to these days in here to explain what you "really mean",,, Where's that LEO group twist? Asking for me to provide for a claim when you refuse to provide for your own illustrates your hypocrisy, but then again, so do the majority of your posts. Let's try again,,you made a claim, others agreed with you that roger beeps are illegal, yet only you can see these imaginary playmates you invoke. Yet, you call others crazy and attack every single person with whom you disagree. You have inner demons, David Jr. Please don't take them out on what's left of your family, anymore. David Hall Jr. N3CVJ "Sandbagger" |
|
NNTP-Posting-Date: =A0=A0 Wed, Feb 16, 2005, 8:07am (EST-1) Group:
=A0=A0 rec.radio.cb Subject: =A0=A0 Help on SSB failure From: =A0=A0 itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge User-Agent: =A0=A0 Xnews/06.08.25 X-No-Archive: =A0=A0 yes Date: =A0=A0 Wed, Feb 16, 2005, 8:07am (EST-1) X-Trace: =A0=A0 sv3-TShFVDFyBPhfsxWyQKsHuDYfpH8p66U95WsAM9zN3ZjEjB1c3+ PVlF4BZUBzgUASXUsIeP= TYxb8p0fM!KdKDcYIRstG9mKBLqA07AsiQMHbhqWOH6LGJH+Zr tjyfDkZzfEzRt/pELkbty0Mk= gSLg X-Complaints-To: =A0=A0 X-DMCA-Complaints-To: =A0=A0 X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: =A0=A0 Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: =A0=A0 Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: =A0=A0 1.3.23 Vinnie S. wrote in : On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 10:29:58 -0500, Dave Hall wrote: That's a far cry from you claiming it was a "requirement" the Pa. police *give* you the extra speed of a few miles per hour. Nevertheless, you illustrate once again you speak of things you know nothing of (the law) and do not need Frank to make you reverse your earlier position. Since you realized your error, there is no need to provide you with the Pa. vehicle code. Flip-flop. You're right. I shouldn't have deviated from my original stance since, as it turns out, I was right about it. See: http://members.aol.com/StatutesP1/75PA3368.html Pay particular attention to 3368 (c) number 4., which states: "No person may be convicted upon evidence obtained through the use of devices authorized by paragraphs (2) and (3) unless the speed recorded is six or more miles per hour in excess of the legal speed limit. Furthermore, no person may be convicted upon evidence obtained through the use of devices authorized by paragraph (3) in an area where the legal speed limit is less than 55 miles per hour if the speed recorded is less than ten miles per hour in excess of the legal speed limit. This paragraph shall not apply to evidence obtained through the use of devices authorized by paragraph (3) within a school zone" So what were you saying about knowing the law? (Ouch. Vinnie S.) Ouch , Exactly Yea, al that fanny patting you do with him...hehe. Pennsy isn't big on speed enforcement anyhow. An interesting opinion which no one cares *what* you may mean by it, so save trying to explain whta you "meant" by it at a later date. Pennsy is not a radar stste by any means You are completely daft. Every single State Police Officer with a patrol unit is equipped with them. most towns dont even have them Gee,,,that's because only State Cops are permitted to have them in Pa. they use the time and distance (vascar) method. which is why they probably have 6 mph relief Ony the State Cops *don't* have any required "mph relief" in regards to the State's maximum posted speed limits on te interstates,,you know,,the place where the State Cops patrol. Oh,,and there will not be any "required mph relief" no matter *what* name you choose to post under, Dave. |
From: pam
(itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge) (Twistedhed) wrote in news:9248-421229BB-449 @storefull-3253.bay.webtv.net: That your position still doesn't understand that Pa has no law or rule, written or otherwise, requiring officers to give you a window of ANY speed when in excess of the state speed limit. They most certainly do, all states have a window, it is actually for equipment error etc. Show the statute. If a speed limit is posted at 35 they will not write you until you pass the prescribed min over the limit, Show the statute. some officers will be more leinent, Now you are speaking discretion and not a rule. Which is it you are claiming? but the letter is none write you for going 1 mph over speed limit. That's bull****. Give the cop a difficult time after he pulled you over for going a few miles over the speed limit and see if you don't get a ticket. The outcome of your court appearance is irelevant at this point. If a RULE existed, as you claim, that he (th cop) may NOT write you up for such, you wouldn't be pulled over in the first place. They know the reliability and accuracy of the radar wont hold up in court. Actually, the technology today is very accurate and can pinpoint a single car in a bunch of traffic, In addition, the radar guns are required to be recalibrated EVERY shift in Pa. If the radars accuracy is +/- 2 mph they wont/cant write you at 1 mph over. pretty basic concept. There you go again. Your posting name changes but your echo is undeniable. |
My goodness,,the concept is simple, Davie. Helicopter watches traffic
below..clocks how long it takes cars to get from point A (marked by paint on highway) to point B (also marked by paint on highway). Taaa daa..VASCAR. |
|
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 07:32:28 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in : On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 17:40:48 -0500, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: There is no rule, unwritten or written that requires the officer to ignore a speeder. To wit...the portion you conveniently snipped shows how your claim is not across the board and is an exception, as it pertains ONLY when traveling in areas with posted speeds LESS than 55, whereas the the posted interstate (65 MPH) speeds, of which Pa. finally raised from 55 not too long ago, are the speed LIMITS imposed by the state of Pennsylvania. There are still many limited access roads which are posted at 55. You're roving. There are also many local and city roads where the speed is 35. Not relevant to the maximum speed limit imposed by the state. In fact, the majority of places where they allow 65 are those areas where the highway is not in a "congested" (meaning densely populated) area. Regardless, you are citing the exception. Once again, you can cite no rule requiring the officer to give a window of ANY speed in regards to the states maximum imposed speed limit. In most others, it's still 55. On the interstates in Pa, the maximum speed is 65 MPH. See above. Not on all of them. I live and travel them on a daily basis. You can expect me to tell you how the fish are running inTampa Bay so don't you try to tell me about the roads in my state. You know nothing about it. That's NOT what it says. Here is the interpretation for you, Dave,,,,where the POSTED speed limit is 55 or LESS is the ONLY manner where it applies.it is a specific exception. Once again, the maximum posted speed limit on Pa interstates is 65. There is NO law or rule, or even "unwritten" as you claim, that REQUIRES the officer to GIVE any leeway at all. Read it again. I realize that comprehension has always been your weak spot, but try separating the paragraph into parts. The first part: "No person may be convicted upon evidence obtained through the use of devices authorized by paragraphs (2) and (3) unless the speed recorded is six or more miles per hour in excess of the legal speed limit." Nowhere in that sentence is there a specific speed limit listed. That means that this applies to 65 MPH roads and using RADAR. This statute states that LEO must give a 5 MPH grace. How much more clear can it be? The next part is a FURTHER restriction: "Furthermore, no person may be convicted upon evidence obtained through the use of devices authorized by paragraph (3) in an area where the legal speed limit is less than 55 miles per hour if the speed recorded is less than ten miles per hour in excess of the legal speed limit." This part specifically refers to the conditions that (a) the road is posted at less than 55, and (b) are using devices authorized in paragraph 3 (normally VASCAR). In this case they have to give you a 10 MPH grace. "This paragraph shall not apply to evidence obtained through the use of devices authorized by paragraph (3) within a school zone." This is the only exception to the rule. But nowhere does it state that any grace is given when the speed measuring device is mechanical or electrical, as per paragraph (1). So if they are using a paragraph (1) device then they CAN bust you for doing 56 in a 55 zone. Once again, you demonstrate, to people with normal comprehensive ability, that you can't understand what you read. It's no wonder you jump to the wrong conclusions over and over again in the scant 4 years that you have been polluting this newsgroup. Your pattern of habitual incomprehension is all the more apparent if one walks through Google for a few minutes. PKB. This is my last word on the subject. Only because you have been proven wrong and you can't admit it. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
From: pam
(itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge) (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote in news:6287-4213D1C6-678 @storefull-3258.bay.webtv.net: My goodness,,the concept is simple, Davie. Helicopter watches traffic below..clocks how long it takes cars to get from point A (marked by paint on highway) to point B (also marked by paint on highway). Taaa daa..VASCAR. They very rarely use a helicopter for traffic enforcement Perhaps in your neck of the woods, they do not, but in the larger cities and metropolis', they most certainly do. vascar is ran in the police cars. And from the air. They dont have the budget for using helicopters for speed enforcement. Which State Police budget are you referring? |
From: pam
(itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge) (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote in news:6288-4213CF9E-244 @storefull-3258.bay.webtv.net: Pennsy is not a radar stste by any means You are completely daft. Every single State Police Officer with a patrol unit is equipped with them. You are completly a fool, The state Police are the only ones who use radar in the state, no town's or cities or municipalties, deputies none use radar. That means it is not a radar state. By whose definition? Yours? It's wrong. A non-radar state would mean just what the phrase connotates: the state is void of radar. |
From: pam
(itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge) (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote in news:6288-4213CF9E-244 @storefull-3258.bay.webtv.net: most towns dont even have them Gee,,,that's because only State Cops are permitted to have them in Pa. Gee, then that makes pennsy not really a radar state LMAO,,,"Here comes Davie with his heart in his hand he's a one boy band and he's off to the rodeo...." Here you are redefining what you "really" meant. Now you are back-pedaling with "Pa is not REALLY a radar state". LMAO, Again,,if it was a non-radar state, radar would not be implemented by the authorities. In fact, you are the only one I have ever heard ue the term "non-radar" state when the state does in fact, use radar. Can you cite a single source where you took this phrase from? Perhaps a link or provide for it? Of course you can't, Dave, it;s why you are lending support to yourself. and you were bleeding all over yourself on point in a previous post. I love pointing things out like this...once again, you are the only one not comprehending the gaping wounds responsible for all the blood you attribute to others are all yours....just like your false and unprovoked insults and accusations against all who disagree with you, your projection is classic these days, Dave. |
From: pam
(itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge) (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote in news:6288-4213D105-245 @storefull-3258.bay.webtv.net: If a speed limit is posted at 35 they will not write you until you pass the prescribed min over the limit, - Show the statute. They cant write you at 35 you are not going over the speed limit you assclown, Please leave your mother out of the conversation and allow her to rest in peace. You worked so hard over the years, please don't sink back into depression requiring those meds, again. have and the can't write you until you are over the radars accuracy. Try and get your thoughts together *before* attempting to communicate. You will be surprised how easy people can understand you once you learn how and you will no longer be reduced to blaming others for your personal hells. |
From: pam
(itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge) (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote in news:6288-4213D105-245 @storefull-3258.bay.webtv.net: They most certainly do, all states have a window, it is actually for equipment error etc. Show the statute. Call a Lawyer in Penns and ask him about the case law on moving radar in the common wealth of Pa A lawyer interprets the law, they do not make it, so, keeping with that original thought, YOU call the lawyer, as you are the only one suffering great communication problems, evidenced by your need to contact the fcc when everyone else already knows roger beeps are legal. Besides, only you need another to explain and interpret communication law to you, so there is no reasonable manner one can expect you to know much about anything, based specifically on your past and presented ignorance and unprovoked malice. You're a lid, David. |
From: pam
(itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge) (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote in news:6288-4213D105- : They most certainly do, all states have a window, it is actually for equipment error etc. Show the statute. Pennsylvania has a wierd exception for Speed limits. Code =A7 3362 Maximum speed limits. (b) Posting of speed limit.-- 1. No maximum speed limit established under subsection (a)(1), (1.2) or (3) shall be effective unless posted on fixed or variable official traffic-control devices erected in accordance with regulations adopted by the department which regulations shall require posting at the beginning and end of each speed zone and at intervals not greater than one-half mile. 2. No maximum speed limit established under subsection (a)(1.1) shall be effective unless posted on fixed or variable official traffic-control devices erected after each interchange on the portion of highway on which the speed limit is in effect and wherever else the department shall determine. Basically if the sign is not posted under the conditions above. NO SPEED LIMIT IS IN EFFECT. Many people do not know about this loophole. Interesting. Its not relevant to the position N3CVJ maintains (that all Pa State Cops must give a window to ALL speeders) but interesting nonetheless. |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 17:40:48 -0500, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: There is no rule, unwritten or written that requires the officer to ignore a speeder. To wit...the portion you conveniently snipped shows how your claim is not across the board and is an exception, as it pertains ONLY when traveling in areas with posted speeds LESS than 55, whereas the the posted interstate (65 MPH) speeds, of which Pa. finally raised from 55 not too long ago, are the speed LIMITS imposed by the state of Pennsylvania. There are still many limited access roads which are posted at 55. You're roving. There are also many local and city roads where the speed is 35. Not relevant to the maximum speed limit imposed by the state. In fact, the majority of places where they allow 65 are those areas where the highway is not in a "congested" (meaning densely populated) area. Regardless, you are citing the exception. Once again, you can cite no rule requiring the officer to give a window of ANY speed in regards to the states maximum imposed speed limit. In most others, it's still 55. On the interstates in Pa, the maximum speed is 65 MPH. See above. Not on all of them. Yes, on ALL of them. If you are going to try and say portions of the interstates have reduced speeds and try and invoke this as your point of reasoning for saying "not all of them", you really have issues and can't stand to be shown you are wrong. ALL interstates have reduced speeds in some areas. I live and travel them on a daily basis. (snip) Your personal experiences are null, void, and irrelevant to the facts. You not only proved this with your claim that you "USED forensics" in your reasoning and repair approach to radios, but affirmed it by setting forth the amount of time you spent in radio as some sort of self-styled litmus test when comparing yourself and knowledge to other ops, then turned around and not only made the claim that roger beeps were illegal, but willfully, stubbornly, and defiantly clung to such ignorance, even when taught better by several other hammies. You can expect me to tell you how the fish are running inTampa Bay so don't you try to tell me about the roads in my state. You know nothing about it. Crystal: BALL,,,there's so many things Dave needs to know,,,Crystal-Ball - That's NOT what it says. Here is the interpretation for you, Dave,,,,where the POSTED speed limit is 55 or LESS is the ONLY manner where it applies.it is a specific exception. Once again, the maximum posted speed limit on Pa interstates is 65. There is NO law or rule, or even "unwritten" as you claim, that REQUIRES the officer to GIVE any leeway at all. Read it again. I realize that comprehension has always been your weak spot, but try separating the paragraph into parts. The first part: "No person may be convicted upon evidence obtained through the use of devices authorized by paragraphs (2) and (3) unless the speed recorded is six or more miles per hour in excess of the legal speed limit." Nowhere in that sentence is there a specific speed limit listed. That means that this applies to 65 MPH roads and using RADAR. This statute states that LEO must give a 5 MPH grace. How much more clear can it be? The next part is a FURTHER restriction: Restriction to WHAT? There must be a prior item in order for it to be FURTHER, and the prior item is exactly what it relates. "Furthermore, no person may be convicted upon evidence obtained through the use of devices authorized by paragraph (3) in an area where the legal speed limit is less than 55 miles per hour if the speed recorded is less than ten miles per hour in excess of the legal speed limit." This part specifically refers to the conditions that (a) the road is posted at less than 55, and (b) are using devices authorized in paragraph 3 (normally VASCAR). In this case they have to give you a 10 MPH grace. No argument. Try and remain relevant, Davie. One would think that after each and every person reminding you to stay on topic, you would get an inkling. "This paragraph shall not apply to evidence obtained through the use of devices authorized by paragraph (3) within a school zone." Once again, you demonstrate, to people with normal comprehensive ability, that you can't understand what you read. Normal people do not insist roger beeps are illegal after being taught better. Normal people do not prefer to focus on the personal lives of usenet posters, as you claimed you prefer to do. Normal people do ot accuse all they disagree of taking sides with others and conspiring against them. Normal people do not accuse any and all criticism of coming from conspiratorial plotters. It's no wonder you jump to the wrong conclusions over and over again in the scant 4 years that you have been polluting this newsgroup. Your heart is on your sleeve through no fault of your own. Your pattern of habitual incomprehension is all the more apparent if one walks through Google for a few minutes. Ahh,,the inability to exert control to the point you can remain focused has always haunted you. Get some help, Davie, as your predilection of the nuances of poster's lives has consumed you beyond what you can even comprehend. This is my last word on the subject. Well, that IS you pattern throughout google posg history. When it sinks in to your angry and misguided soul that you are wrong on a matter, you abandon the subject like you do your custody issue. If you won't take Pa. law as evidence Oh, everyone takes the law as evidence, Davie, trouble is, your communication deficits prevent you from processing logic and the law, resulting in claims like "Roger beeps are illegal" based on your inability to locate absence of proof. that a minimum of a 5 MPH grace exists, then that's not my problem. I've been driving for 29 years now (snip) Again, your personal experiences mean nothing. Hell, you hold the time spent in radio as some sort of weird and twisted badge of honor and have said as much all throughout your permitted usenet life among our fine group, but it hasn;t prevented you from the ignorance that haunts you daily and manifests itself in bizarre and unexplained quotes from yourself such as "roger beeps are illegal" . I know several cops who confirm this. I could name them, but it wouldn't prove anything since you don't know them. Then why bring up the issue? Oh, that's right, because your desperation dictates you need all the false support you can lend yourself at times like this. I could just as easily make up names. ..well go ahead, because these imaginary playmates that you told the group not only exist, but agree with you that roger beeps are illegal, should certainly have names. David T. Hall Jr. N3CVJ "Sandbagger" |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:29 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com