[QUOTE]Originally posted by josh3io
[B]JRM, perhaps if you had a better understanding of California's CVC 22350 and CVC 21656 your arguments wouldn't sound so rediculous to someone who has used them as successful arguments in court.

Your ignorance is a prime example of why I do not respect most of the citizens or the laws of this country.

 

We did??????? How can these laws be a direct reflection of society when, as others have said, the majority have speeded at some point in their life? If the laws are supposed to reflect the majority opinion on whether or not the enforcement of speeding and other traffic laws should take into account the actual endangerment factor, then why don't we test the law by taking a poll? We won't because politics aren't allowed on this board (and also a poll on this board would skew the results since we are all car enthusiasts), but I guarantee you the laws don't reflect the majority opinion on this matter, and because of that, I feel like the laws are simply outdated in the way they are written up and therefore enforced. It's not fair that I've been born into a society that has outdated laws that are so hard to change.

 

Having been a biker for many-many years... I can tell you that the police LOVE to pull rice-rockets over. In fact, in my youth, the officers around town knew almost all of us BY NAME. It was silly how often you get pulled over, far-far worse than how cars are treated on the road.

I suppose they know that with a twist of the wrist and 2seconds later your breaking the law, you and obvious easy target. And using the power of a bike is hard to refuse.

Totally sucks, especially when "most" of the time, if there was an accident, the biker is going to get seriously injured and the other vehicle or thing is probably going to be fine.

-- Aaron

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by taylor01
[B]

I see.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Strike
[B]

Yes, even if the SUV is going the speed limit if he is holding up 5 vehicles behind him he should yield.

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc22350.htm
Basic Speed Law
22350. No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property.

Amended Ch. 252, Stats. 1963. Effective September 20, 1963.


This seems to justify tickets for "driving to fast for conditions" not the other way around.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JRM
Hmmmmmmmm....it sounds like you have an axe to grind with anything to do with the law.

 

I tell you what Josh, it's too bad that you have such a low and negative opinion about the country and the people you live with. You group me sterotypically with those that have done you some injustice. You don't even know me but you've already judged me and what I do. That's a racist mentality. Actually, I'm not that big and I do my job quite well. Anyway, it's not worth the pissing contest. I can only imagine your responses to most situations. Geez, who pissed in your Cheerios! As far as my conversation with you is concerned, it's over. Have a nice day!

 

Hey, I am a little confused on this "entrapment" thing. So if a guy is speeding, but the cop is hiding in some bushes and not "visible" to the guy speeding, then the cop can't give him a ticket?

I don't see why not, the guy was still speeding right? Once you speed, you are breaking the law regardless of whether or not you saw a cop standing there with a radar gun. Thats like saying if you killed someone and all the evidence points to you doing it and you even confess to it, you can't get charged because you didn't "see" in advance a cop standing there watching you do it?

Am I missing something? PLease explain..

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by redleader
[B]Hey, I am a little confused on this "entrapment" thing.