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.

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 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 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 =----

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
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.

Of course,,,he originally snipped "nothing", but here we go on cue,
David coming back after his claim to redefine what he "really meant. So,
even though he said he snipped nothing, yet he did, he comes back with
"Well, what I 'really meant' was".....



. 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.

And neatly contradicts your falwed interpretation of the law.

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.

And misintepret the majority of it.

David T. Hall Jr.

N3CVJ

"Sandbagger"

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 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 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 =----

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"