| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
February 11th 05, 10:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
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. Vinnie S. |
|
#2
February 14th 05, 01:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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" |
|
#3
February 14th 05, 04:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#4
February 15th 05, 02:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#6
February 15th 05, 04:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#7
February 15th 05, 06:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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" |
|
#8
February 15th 05, 04:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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" |
|
#9
February 15th 05, 04:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#10
February 15th 05, 05:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Type "miserable failure" at a Google search and see what the first hit is... LMFAO | Shortwave | |||
| Icom R8500 failure | Shortwave | |||
| Have you had an FT-817 finals failure? | Equipment | |||
| Have you had an FT-817 finals failure? | Equipment | |||
| A Moral Failure | Shortwave | |||
Hybrid Mode
