actually I was stopped at the red light and Drove through it (a few seconds before it would have turned green anyway) after mistaking the turning green for my green. this was compounded by the fact that the guy next ot me took off (he was turning)
its a turning light for no turn (they were in the process of building the street) the guy next to me used it to make a u turn which was legal.
It was a honest mistake. I really could care less if you see it that way or not. their were no other cars in the other direction so safety was NOT an issue.
I have a rather limite field of view so I check extensive for other cars quite often.
your idea of the whole concept of "We The People, By The People"..........
It doesn't match mine at all if that's your premise for your argument.
Somewhere in the whole concept, it was intended to protect the people too. Hence forth the law to slow those down who tend to run a higher speed and endanger others ,..............as well as a whole cornucopia of other traffic laws that have been made................this means that even though you may not believe in something, does not mean that you are allowed to not to follow the rule.
Pure and simple, Steve Martin's theory doesn't hold water either...................
" I *FORGOT* that armed robbery was against the law".......................
( maybe you would think it's alright because you forgot there for a second.)
There is , in almost all versions of general law, a statement that "ignorance is no excuse" also. And to add to that many laws are to protect the many.........not the few.
Does The constitution have something in it that means that folks that didn't know it was wrong to kill your dog can do it without consequences?
Innocent mistakes do occur. I make 'em too. But as a full grown thinking adult, I know that I stand a chance at paying for even my mistakes...........As should all of us that are considered adults.
I don't think I should be "let off" every time I'm pulled over. If in fact I was speeding, or if I thought I was at or below the speed limit, and never had my speedo checked either I should be held responsible, and am willing to handle the consequences.
Fact is, Chris, You're a pretty sharp guy to think of ways to circumvent the system. However, you actually "think" you are smarter than those who make the laws nd enforce them. If you are that smart, isn't it a bit selfish to leave the rest of us hanging out to dry while you have all the answers? Please make it so we can all just tell the judge we don't believe the law is right, and we won't pay.
I offer this post as a last entry to this thread. not to argue so much, as to ..............well make people think also.
It's not that I totally disagree with you about the Camera and such, but the idea that you're argument is kinda limp and lame when you stand it to the hammer of debate concerning laws and who makes 'em and keeps 'em.
A camera , once again , as you stated before, does not ticket you wehn the traffic camera is involved inour area. Ther is an agency that enforces the law concerning the camera's Pictures. Not a camera that sends you a citation.
If it's alright to have a Nanny cam, then it's going to be argued that all other types of suveilance are valid also.............no matter how you see it, it is the argument that ensues.
My thinking is that ALL surveillance Should be allowed if the premises are marked CLEARLY that they are under surveillance..............even at your own home. And I do agree that there are many ways to get from point A to point B. And I might take a different route if I do not wish to be photographed or videotaped.
Your idea is good...............I don't like the camera thing either. But for different reasons I think.
Now Someone please tell me I have no validity to my point of view,....................you know that's why I responded>!............LOL
Please all understand that i am Very ok with a discussion based on the "big Brother issue that this thread has turned into. I am not, however, interested in being called names if you disagree. Just tell me your point of view and try not to make out like I'm an idiot anymore than the responder.
Dammit John,...........I was trying to keep it straight.
Nobody said anything about "WHO" gets the ticket yet.
LOL
( I do agree that , the owner should be notified that his car was driven in those circumstances though. But If it is not him/her, it should be given to the driver that commited the infraction, however they can prove or disprove it. This will make it a "screw you , I own that car" world till then)
I was taking the whole Surveillance issue into consideration. You know,...........Can they really film you in a dressing room at the mall?..............or a public restroom?
There is a huge issue with making it OK to do surveillance in some situations, if not all that are not life threatening, or of national security.
you are comparing apples to oranges. with the nanny cam the parent would be the accuser and the film evidence.
pictures can lie. better yet, not tell the whole truth. if you had ONE picture of two people, one giving something to the other, both had there hands on the object, could you tell who was the giver and who was the receiver?
another (bad) example, if you where following a car through an intersection on a green and the car in front of you stopped for any reason and left you in the intersection with no way to go around and the light turned red, would you have run a red light? no, because you entered the intersection before the light changed. a camera would say you did.
pictures do not tell the truth they only tell what they capture on film. which may or may not be the truth.
with photo shop type programs and photo printers you can make a photo of anything you wish.
you are comparing apples to oranges. with the nanny cam the parent would be the accuser and the film evidence.
pictures can lie. better yet, not tell the whole truth. if you had ONE picture of two people, one giving something to the other, both had there hands on the object, could you tell who was the giver and who was the receiver?
another (bad) example, if you where following a car through an intersection on a green and the car in front of you stopped for any reason and left you in the intersection with no way to go around and the light turned red, would you have run a red light? no, because you entered the intersection before the light changed. a camera would say you did.
pictures do not tell the truth they only tell what they capture on film. which may or may not be the truth.
with photo shop type programs and photo printers you can make a photo of anything you wish.
Then I am not sure where you were born or what constitution etc.. you have read.
Below
No it was intended to protect the people from an oppressive and out of control government. sadly its not working.
I am allowed to not follow anything I want. that is the essence of free will. Now consequences may be Force upon me but that is another issue.
If it does not infringe on another's rights there should be NO LAW governing it.
Armed robbery infringes on others rights. Your example is irrelevant.
You can "make an honest mistake" and jump a light safetly and innocently. you can not accidentally and innocently robb someone while armed.
Again example irrelevant.
And when these laws are abused ?
Killing is findimentally wrong. Example irrelevant.
Not when it by the judgment of a god damned machine.
Do you think you should be given a ticket and penalized for doing 41mph in a
40mph zone ? I was. I still have the ticke stating my measured speed and the speed limit. I got a ticket because people in an area were complaining about people speeding up their street. 1 freaking mph. but at least it was by a HUMAN and not a machine.
Yes I do think I am smaller than SOME Of those that create and enforce these laws. I KNOW I am smarter than our entire congress and president in this manner. I for one would never commit treason by signing the patriot act and sorts.
again what recourse do citizens have when the law is ABUSED and oppressive and NO LONGER effective and safety minded laws are created.
Just do it. I would. I would probably have some consequence forced upon me against my will but they can not make me pay.
If a law is unjust again what recourse do we have ?
Incorrect. it is almost completel automated. they simply verify the images are clear and use the data to mail you a ticket. no human consideration is taken into account. Same with the tolls. almost completely automated.
Incorrect. a nanny cam is used by a CITIZEN to protect the CITIZENS personal interests in the CITIZENS person private home.
Not a PUBLIC camera monitoring people in PUBLIC being run by out GOVERNMENT with no real OVERSIGHT by the people being Monitored.
it is not even slightly, vaguely, or REMOTELY the same thing and I pity you if you can not see this GRAVE distinction.
And what happens when their is a camera at every street corner (like in some english towns) where there is no way to get from point a to point b. what happens when it gets pushed to the point where it is against the law to elude monitoring.
formatting link
I do not like and will be as uncooperative as I can possibly be about being monitored and judged by a machine.
I do not call people names who do not call me names. so no worries here.
I've trailered all over the country and I can say to Chris or anyone else that it is up to you to drive in a safe manner towing for the lives of everyone else on the road. I don't care if the speed limit is 70, if you can only handle the towing weight in a safe manner at 50, then that is your speed limit. If you need a longer distance to stop cause your trailer brakes are not set proper or you have to much weight, then your speed limit is slower yet and your distance between vehicles is increased another 1 or 2 seconds beyond the normal two second rule that you normally follow. If you put another life in danger because of careless or incompetent driving, it makes no difference what the speed limit is or what color the light is.
It is called profiling. Cops just want an excuse for an upclose look. You gotta get rid of all those Grateful Dead stickers and maybe shave before driving around in women's clothes.
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 21:38:15 -0400, "Chris Taylor Jr" ran around screaming and yelling:
honest mistake, my a$$...you didn't pay attention, period...there is
*NO* other explanation.....i missed a speed limit sign once...the speed limit reduced, yet i kept on rolling at the higher speed...i took my ticket and took personal responsibility for my lack of attention....personal responsibility is what the younger people today lack(yes i am aware i am not that much older than you)..no one wants to own up to a mistake, or suffer the consequences of thier actions...there aren't *any* situations where i could call running a redlight from a stop(for the light) an "honest mistake"...if you are paying attention to the light then the only reason you would even enter the intersection would be from a rear end collision, which
*would* aleive you of any wrong doing...other than that you broke the law, either by not paying attention or on purpose...not by making an "honest mistake"(which is just a cop out anyway)
you *always* demostrate your "limite field" of view for everyone on this board.. Joey
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 21:39:16 -0400, "Chris Taylor Jr" ran around screaming and yelling:
incorrect based on *YOUR* following statement:
you note that your statement says "we the people" not Chris taylor jr..if you don't like the laws, then do something about it...crying like a little girl on a usenet group is definitely non-productive in your cause... Joey
On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 13:55:22 -0400, "Chris Taylor Jr" ran around screaming and yelling:
if you read the actuall words, and understand the actual meanings, not what you *want* them to mean, then you wouldn't make such an assinine statement
running red lights do infringe on others rights...they have as much right to a reasonably safe street to drive upon as you do...the traffic laws are there to protect *you* and everyone around *you*...if someone makes an "honest mistake" by not seeing you in thier "blindspot" and sideswipes your car, i guess it is okay? i mean it is an "honest mistake"..
Scotts example is relevant, whether *you* chose to accept it or not...if you can use an excuse for one law then you can use excuses for all laws...
you may do it "safely" but it is *not* innocently...if you physically remove your foot from the brake and take off through a red light you have broken the law, period...no ifs, ands, or buts...
fundamentally wrong? come on now...we hunt animals for recreation, we as a society raise animals for the sole purpose of killing them for food...*your* BS is irrelevant.
"god damned" machines are not capable of "judgement" so your BS is irrelevant...photographic proof is a valid piece of evidence in *any* court of law...try again...
Was the speed limit posted? if you answer "yes" then you are guilty of speeding...i don't personally feel it is justified to ticket someone for going one mile per hour over the speedlimit, but the laws are the laws...we have a local "barney fife" in a small town near me that loves to ticket people for speeding, and also gets the people that slow down because of his well known "speedtrap" for driving too slow through his town...in virginia you can be ticketed for "impeding traffic" if you are traveling below the speed limit....his magical number is 3mph
take it up with the *elected officials* let your vote speak for you...
sure they can...they can make sure that *any* paycheck you get in the future is minus the amount you owe, plus interest and penalties...
take it to court...people have laws overturned when they truely are unjust or unconstitutional...if you don't want to go that route you go through your elected officials...they are elected by the people for the people(remember?)
but *you* can go to court over it...that is where the "human consideration" you so desperately seek comes in...Chris it seems you have no issues other than you want to plead your case at the time of the infraction...that is *not* always an option, even with a human officer...you get your chance in court...
you will be forced to *obey* the traffic laws like everyone else... Joey
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.