This is, to me, a clear case of entrapment. I'll be interested to see how this one plays out, but I'm pretty sure that the methods they used to catch this group is illegal.

 

I wonder if something like this ever happened to a group of S2000 owners going on a weekend drive.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sondra S2K
[B]This is, to me, a clear case of entrapment.

 

As an aside, In Toronto it is legal to pass on a solid or double line. The only catch is if you cause an accident then it is automatically your fault. Otherwise pass as you wish.

 

As I understand it, if the police set up a situation for the express intent of catching people breaking the law, then they must be in clear sight (no hiding and jumping out) and clearly marked. As these cops had a video camera waiting, it's obvious that they expected something to happen and were waiting for it.

Not long ago, the speeding on my 21 house, dead end street had gotten out of hand. It was as if people were trying to see how fast they could go before they got to the stop sign at one end or the cul de sac at the other. I offered up my garage for the cops to put a car or officer in to clock them as they drove by (several kids had almost been hit), but they said that that was considered entrapment because they weren't clearly visible.

Any attorneys here on the board care to chime in? I'm not a lawyer, I'm just speculating, so I'd be curious to hear the real answer.

 

That makes sense, although I think that since the SUV was outside then it was visible. There are a number of states that have unmarked panel vans used to catch speeders. Now, whether the VAN/SUV must say police on it is another thing.

Again, I don't know I just don't really see the harm in it. If the people of the bikes followed the law then they would not have passed the van.

Of course all of this is assuming that the VAN was not driving 10MPH on the road. It will be interesting to see what happens I agree. I think that it all hinges on whether the VAN had a direct impact on their decision to break the law.

I would be interested if there was an attorney on the board that would be able to offer an opinion.

 

The law does not deserve respect simply because it is a law...it has to have good reasoning behind it. If all laws were rational, then we would never see any cases of civil disobedience.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jay Li
[B]The law does not deserve respect simply because it is a law...it has to have good reasoning behind it.

 

JRM,

That implies that the law is ALWAYS a true and accurate reflection of the society which it is governing. I recall reading, several times (no, I do not have exact sources at hand), that something on the order of 85% of all drivers have admitted to exceeding the speed limit knowingly at some point in time. If this is really the case, then it is certainly not a case of a law that reflects the wishes and desires of the people for their society.

In a totally unrelated example, there are cases where the law makes absolutely zero sense due to changes to different parts made at different times, yet the basis of the legal code was never "cleaned-up" to deal with it. A simple example is in Illinois, where (at least at the time I was learning to drive, which was (eek!) 14 years ago) the law states that you MUST have a speed differential of 10 mph over the vehicle you are passing, and this applies for the roads that we have that have a speed limit of 55 mph and a minimum of 45 mph. According to this scenario, it is impossible to legally pass another vehicle that is legally using this roadway. Does this make sense? Is this an example of a complicated legal system that is working for the people whether we see it or not?

The real problem with the legal system that we have, with respect to traffic and traffic enforcement, is not with the laws themselves but with the enforcement of them. The truth of the matter is that in most cases, the enforcement of traffic law is for two purposes only; revenue generation, and a means for interrogating "suspicious" individuals. Where the latter is certainly a useful mechanism for law enforcement, the former is so unpredictable and unconsistent that it is a travesty to the populace. If safety and the public good were the underlying reason for all of the traffic laws, and means of enforcement, then we do have the technology to easily keep people from speeding in most situations. However that would eliminate huge revenue streams, and it would also make the populace throw a fit since it would actually interfere with their normal lives, instead of making them play a watered-down game of Russian Roulette where they don't complain too much since they rarely get caught.

Sorry for the rant here, I guess something struck a nerve here for me. Oddly enough, I never read the real circumstances surrouding the bike incident, and it seems as though I am probably not defending them, since this may actually be a case where the cops were reacting to the wishes of the locals rather than operating for revenue. In any case, this might well enough not have been an issue if both traffic laws were actually representative of the average drivers wishes/behavior and also if the enforcement was consistent.

Clark

 

Yes, the bikers were technically breaking the law, but it still seems like a clear case of entrapment to me.

Personally, I don't feel that passing on a double yellow is necessarily a big deal on a motorcycle. The lines are drawn per the hwy. depts. perception of what's safe for the lowest common denominator, i.e. a shitbox car or truck. Motorcycles can safely pass in many instances that would be difficult for cars (a) b/c of the much greater acceleration on average and (b) smaller physical size, enabling them to get around a slow moving obstacle much more easily.

I realize that my views wouldn't go far in front of a judge, but nonetheless use my discretion, and not the lines, when deciding whether to pass on a sportbike.