Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
 

It was 2/10/2008 22:18 and Dan C wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 21:22:01 -0500, Lee Florack wrote:
>
>>>> I contributed to a woman driving in the left lane exactly at the
>>>> posted speed limit (55) get a ticket. A NY State trouper was right
>>>> behind her. Of course lots of people were building up behind her
>>>> because no one wanted to pass the trouper. I on the other hand,
>>>> think left lane blockers to be scum. So, I sped up to 62 or so and
>>>> passed the LLB and the trouper. As soon as I passed her, the
>>>> trouper pulled her over and gave her a ticket. Did my heart good.
>
>>> How could you possibly know that he gave her a ticket? You were already
>>> in front, and moving further away. For all you know, she got a warning.
>>> This is, of course, assuming your "story" has any truth to it at all.
>
>> You won't believe it of course, but I didn't expect you would. The
>> story IS true. In any case, the first point is that she was stopped
>> because she was doing something wrong -- even though she was driving
>> exactly at the speed limit. The second point is that although I
>> passed the LLB and the trouper and was indeed driving over the speed
>> limit, I wasn't stopped -- she was. This means that the trouper
>> obviously felt that what she was doing was more dangerous than what
>> I was doing. Thirdly, he stopped her because (in part) she was in
>> the left lane and not keeping up with the flow of traffic -- even
>> though that flow exceeded the posted limit.
>
> Like I already said...., how do you know she got a ticket? You don't.
> OK, she got pulled over. That doesn't mean she got a ticket. She may
> have gotten a verbal warning. You absolutely do not *KNOW* that she got a
> ticket. Being stopped does not always result in a ticket being written.
> You didn't know that?

I see you ignored everything else I wrote.

>>>> BTW, there are very few places that actually care about reducing
>>>> speeds. There are many ways to do that other than setting stupidly
>>>> low speed limits (most roads are designed for much higher safe
>>>> speeds) and then arbitrarily handing out tickets when the city or
>>>> county coffers need a boost.
>
>>> Such as? Name a few of the "many" methods, wouldja?
>
>> First one that comes to mind is a mandatory speed governor. If the
>> governmental agencies can mandate all of the anti-pollution
>> apparatus that we have on our cars today because they're serious
>> about pollution, they certainly could add a speed governor -- if
>> they were at all serious about keeping people from speeding. They
>> aren't so they don't.
>
> Well, that's "one". I asked for a "few" of the "many". Let me ask you
> this: If such a thing was done, how long do you think it would take the
> mechanically-inclined to learn how to get around it?
>
> Try again, junior.

Junior? I'm pretty sure you'd be surprised.

Anyway, you didn't ask if I'd like it (I don't). You didn't ask if
it's work for everybody (it won't). What we have now (cops
enforcing arbitrary speed limits when they feel like it) doesn't
slow people down either. When the vast majority of drivers -- who
are otherwise law-abiding citizens -- routinely exceed the posted
limits there's something wrong with the existing laws and their
method of enforcement.

Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
 

It was 2/11/2008 09:42 and Dan C wrote:

>
> You're as clueless as the other moron.

Aren't you just a pleasant guy?

Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
 

Lee Florack <lflorack@rochester.rr.com> wrote in
news:47b0f3f6$0$6158$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:

> It was 2/11/2008 09:42 and Dan C wrote:
>
>>
>> You're as clueless as the other moron.
>
> Aren't you just a pleasant guy?

Lee,I advise using the killfile.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
 

On 2008-02-12, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
> Lee Florack <lflorack@rochester.rr.com> wrote in
> news:47b0f3f6$0$6158$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:
>
>> It was 2/11/2008 09:42 and Dan C wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> You're as clueless as the other moron.
>>
>> Aren't you just a pleasant guy?
>
> Lee,I advise using the killfile.
>

Dan's one of those highly consistent guys... He's consistently
disliked in every group that he bothers...

--
Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
"Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
time..." - Danny, American History X

Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
 

"Dan C" <youmustbejoking@lan.invalid> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.02.10.22.23.56.643678@moria.lan...
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 15:16:27 -0500, Lee Florack wrote:
///snipped///
> How could you possibly know that he gave her a ticket? You were already
> in front, and moving further away. For all you know, she got a warning.
> This is, of course, assuming your "story" has any truth to it at all.

At the very real risk of enraging "potty mouth Dan", I would ask. "How do
you know she wasn't ticketed?"...You don't. You weren't there either. Ergo,
The OPs story is no less valid than your criticism thereof... FWIW - there
are several stretches of road in Alaska, southeast out of Anchorage along
Turnagin Arm, where it is illegal to have more than five (5) vehicles backed
up behind you. Regardless of your speed, you might be cited for "impeding
the flow of traffic"... As with any traffic law or regulation, the
enforcement depends a great deal upon the given situation at the time and
whether or not the officer got any the night before.....Which brings me to
another point about driving too slowly. California Traffic Code states that
you may be ticketed for impeding the normal flow of traffic.
>
>> BTW, there are very few places that actually care about reducing
>> speeds. There are many ways to do that other than setting stupidly
>> low speed limits (most roads are designed for much higher safe
>> speeds) and then arbitrarily handing out tickets when the city or
>> county coffers need a boost.

This has been done already with some commercial vehicles. Many OTR buses and
trucks are equipped with "rev limiters" which de facto limit your speed.
However, these limiters have caused some problems and are going out of
general use. They have been replaced by GPS systems which let the company
dispatcher know at what speed the vehicle is travelling. Of course, most of
you here already know that.

Last item - Does everyone remember why the nationwide speed limit of 55mph
was put into effect? Not for safety but rather it was an energy conservation
strategy.
///snipped///

Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
 

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:14:20 -0500, Lee Florack
<lflorack@rochester.rr.com> wrote:

>It was 2/10/2008 22:18 and Dan C wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 21:22:01 -0500, Lee Florack wrote:
....
>
>Anyway, you didn't ask if I'd like it (I don't). You didn't ask if
>it's work for everybody (it won't). What we have now (cops
>enforcing arbitrary speed limits when they feel like it) doesn't
>slow people down either. When the vast majority of drivers -- who
>are otherwise law-abiding citizens -- routinely exceed the posted
>limits there's something wrong with the existing laws and their
>method of enforcement.


This is sort of correct but no need for a radar detector. I was taught
in driver education that:

1) You go at the speed that everyone else is going no matter what the
speed limit is, or you are the road hazard.

2) If people are passing you on the right means that you're in the
wrong lane.

This is simply common sense and curtesy. People going 80 when everyone
else is going 70 are going to cause problems, as are people going 55.
What you refer to as cops being arbitrary is mostly them using commmon
sense and hauling over the folks causing problems that can be fatal.

Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
 

Dave and Trudy wrote:
> "Dan C" <youmustbejoking@lan.invalid> wrote in message
> news:pan.2008.02.10.22.23.56.643678@moria.lan...
>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 15:16:27 -0500, Lee Florack wrote:
> ///snipped///
>> How could you possibly know that he gave her a ticket? You were already
>> in front, and moving further away. For all you know, she got a warning.
>> This is, of course, assuming your "story" has any truth to it at all.
>
> At the very real risk of enraging "potty mouth Dan", I would ask. "How do
> you know she wasn't ticketed?"...You don't. You weren't there either. Ergo,
> The OPs story is no less valid than your criticism thereof... FWIW - there
> are several stretches of road in Alaska, southeast out of Anchorage along
> Turnagin Arm, where it is illegal to have more than five (5) vehicles backed
> up behind you. Regardless of your speed, you might be cited for "impeding
> the flow of traffic"... As with any traffic law or regulation, the
> enforcement depends a great deal upon the given situation at the time and
> whether or not the officer got any the night before.....Which brings me to
> another point about driving too slowly. California Traffic Code states that
> you may be ticketed for impeding the normal flow of traffic.
>>> BTW, there are very few places that actually care about reducing
>>> speeds. There are many ways to do that other than setting stupidly
>>> low speed limits (most roads are designed for much higher safe
>>> speeds) and then arbitrarily handing out tickets when the city or
>>> county coffers need a boost.
>
> This has been done already with some commercial vehicles. Many OTR buses and
> trucks are equipped with "rev limiters" which de facto limit your speed.

it's not the rev limiter that restricts speed - /all/ diesels have rev
limiters, [so do all fuel injected cars], it's whether there's an actual
speed limiter. i believe, as you say, that there are some vehicles that
are restricted like articulated buses, but i don't know what that speed
is. fuel injected hondas have speed limiters, but that limit is much
higher than legal.



> However, these limiters have caused some problems and are going out of
> general use. They have been replaced by GPS systems which let the company
> dispatcher know at what speed the vehicle is travelling. Of course, most of
> you here already know that.
>
> Last item - Does everyone remember why the nationwide speed limit of 55mph
> was put into effect? Not for safety but rather it was an energy conservation
> strategy.
> ///snipped///
>
>
>

Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
 

"Dave and Trudy" <dtdodson@acsalaska.net> wrote in
news:47b14b17@news.acsalaska.net:

>
> "Dan C" <youmustbejoking@lan.invalid> wrote in message
> news:pan.2008.02.10.22.23.56.643678@moria.lan...
>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 15:16:27 -0500, Lee Florack wrote:
> ///snipped///
>> How could you possibly know that he gave her a ticket? You were
>> already in front, and moving further away. For all you know, she got
>> a warning. This is, of course, assuming your "story" has any truth to
>> it at all.
>
> At the very real risk of enraging "potty mouth Dan", I would ask. "How
> do you know she wasn't ticketed?"...You don't. You weren't there
> either. Ergo, The OPs story is no less valid than your criticism
> thereof... FWIW - there are several stretches of road in Alaska,
> southeast out of Anchorage along Turnagin Arm, where it is illegal to
> have more than five (5) vehicles backed up behind you. Regardless of
> your speed, you might be cited for "impeding the flow of traffic"...
> As with any traffic law or regulation, the enforcement depends a great
> deal upon the given situation at the time and whether or not the
> officer got any the night before.....Which brings me to another point
> about driving too slowly. California Traffic Code states that you may
> be ticketed for impeding the normal flow of traffic.
>>
>>> BTW, there are very few places that actually care about reducing
>>> speeds. There are many ways to do that other than setting stupidly
>>> low speed limits (most roads are designed for much higher safe
>>> speeds) and then arbitrarily handing out tickets when the city or
>>> county coffers need a boost.
>
> This has been done already with some commercial vehicles. Many OTR
> buses and trucks are equipped with "rev limiters" which de facto limit
> your speed. However, these limiters have caused some problems and are
> going out of general use. They have been replaced by GPS systems which
> let the company dispatcher know at what speed the vehicle is
> travelling. Of course, most of you here already know that.
>
> Last item - Does everyone remember why the nationwide speed limit of
> 55mph was put into effect? Not for safety but rather it was an energy
> conservation strategy.

The National Maximum Speed Limit,or NMSL;
it had the Unintended Consequences of making the highways more unsafe and
destroying lane discipline. it really brought out the MFFY in drivers.

Also,it's a fine example of how speed limits are not set for safe
travel,but often for other,political reasons.


> ///snipped///
>
>
>

either way,ticketed or warning,getting pulled over by a patrol car and
lectured by the officer is not enjoyable. ;-)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
 

"dgk" <dgk@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:4f63r35jbkngiaja3n7btdtlrj51o59m6f@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:14:20 -0500, Lee Florack
> <lflorack@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>It was 2/10/2008 22:18 and Dan C wrote:
>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 21:22:01 -0500, Lee Florack wrote:
> ...
>>
>>Anyway, you didn't ask if I'd like it (I don't). You didn't ask if
>>it's work for everybody (it won't). What we have now (cops
>>enforcing arbitrary speed limits when they feel like it) doesn't
>>slow people down either. When the vast majority of drivers -- who
>>are otherwise law-abiding citizens -- routinely exceed the posted
>>limits there's something wrong with the existing laws and their
>>method of enforcement.
>
>
> This is sort of correct but no need for a radar detector. I was taught
> in driver education that:
>
> 1) You go at the speed that everyone else is going no matter what the
> speed limit is, or you are the road hazard.
>
> 2) If people are passing you on the right means that you're in the
> wrong lane.
>
> This is simply common sense and curtesy. People going 80 when everyone
> else is going 70 are going to cause problems, as are people going 55.
> What you refer to as cops being arbitrary is mostly them using commmon
> sense and hauling over the folks causing problems that can be fatal.
>
>

Amen. That's one of the few bits of common sense I've seen in this thread.
Your point number one, by the way, is also what I was taught in driver
education.

Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
 

"E Meyer" <e.p.meyerNOSPAM@verizon.net> wrote in
news:KAjsj.1566$r03.737@trnddc08:

>
> "dgk" <dgk@somewhere.com> wrote in message
> news:4f63r35jbkngiaja3n7btdtlrj51o59m6f@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:14:20 -0500, Lee Florack
>> <lflorack@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>It was 2/10/2008 22:18 and Dan C wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 21:22:01 -0500, Lee Florack wrote:
>> ...
>>>
>>>Anyway, you didn't ask if I'd like it (I don't). You didn't ask if
>>>it's work for everybody (it won't). What we have now (cops
>>>enforcing arbitrary speed limits when they feel like it) doesn't
>>>slow people down either. When the vast majority of drivers -- who
>>>are otherwise law-abiding citizens -- routinely exceed the posted
>>>limits there's something wrong with the existing laws and their
>>>method of enforcement.
>>
>>
>> This is sort of correct but no need for a radar detector. I was
>> taught in driver education that:
>>
>> 1) You go at the speed that everyone else is going no matter what the
>> speed limit is, or you are the road hazard.

OR,you keep to the rightmost lane. KRETP/STKR.
>>
>> 2) If people are passing you on the right means that you're in the
>> wrong lane.

In every US state,the leftmost lane is not for cruising,it's for passing.

LANE DISCIPLINE,folks. it works on the Autobahn.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
 

In article <Xns9A42AAF331350jyanikkuanet@64.209.0.87>,
Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:

> LANE DISCIPLINE,folks. it works on the Autobahn.

Works? Hell, it's the LAW.

If you fail lane discipline on the Autobahn and are caught doing so,
your punishment makes dealing crack down on Main Street look like
nothing.

Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
 

Butch Haynes wrote:
> For the rest of the year, I'll be on the interstate for a weekly 500 mile
> round trip-- and want to get a radar detector. They seem to range from $50
> on up to$500 or more.
>
> I'm not interested in over working my credit card for "the very best" one.
> Nor do I need one that gives me the cop's name and what he had for breakfast
> when he lights me up. I just want a little advance warning of cops in the
> area if the old needle creeps up too high-- real easy to do in my '07 Accord
> EX-L Sedan 6 cyl.
>
> So where's the most bang for the buck/sweet spot to buy-- and any specific
> recommendations?
>
>

JUst buy which ever one you want and can afford.
A radar detector will not save you!
The cop, when he's running radar on you, switches it on when your about
100 yards from him, he gets your speed at that instant. Speeding then,
you better just except the ticket.

Remember :-
When you go fishing, do you catch all the fish?
Applies to Cops running Radar as well:)

Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
 

Bryan <bwskelton@verizon.net> wrote in news:6ZWsj.2317$th.1580@trnddc05:

> Butch Haynes wrote:
>> For the rest of the year, I'll be on the interstate for a weekly 500
>> mile round trip-- and want to get a radar detector. They seem to
>> range from $50 on up to$500 or more.
>>
>> I'm not interested in over working my credit card for "the very best"
>> one. Nor do I need one that gives me the cop's name and what he had
>> for breakfast when he lights me up. I just want a little advance
>> warning of cops in the area if the old needle creeps up too high--
>> real easy to do in my '07 Accord EX-L Sedan 6 cyl.
>>
>> So where's the most bang for the buck/sweet spot to buy-- and any
>> specific recommendations?
>>
>>
>
> JUst buy which ever one you want and can afford.
> A radar detector will not save you!

If you use it properly,yes it will. Not ALWAYS,but usually.

> The cop, when he's running radar on you, switches it on when your
> about 100 yards from him, he gets your speed at that instant. Speeding
> then, you better just except the ticket.

if you close to within 100 yards of a cop and are still speeding(detector
or not),you DESERVE a ticket.

the only detector I will recommend is the Valentine V-1.
I still have my Escort and Uniden detectors,in a box in the closet.
they both paid for themselves in ticket avoidances,BTW.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
 

Get the latest Valentine model. When driving it goes off all time and
'wala' there's a cop . 9 out of 10 times the cop will be using his gun
on traffic in front of you so you get a pre-emptive strike.

I hate people in the left lane who go 5miles under the posted speed
limit.
I also hate people who don't use their blinkers . IS THE ING BLINKER
SO FAR FROM YOUR LEFT HAND????? I've noticed mostly rich a-holes do it.

I once got a ticket for looking hot. Ok I made that up. Lick me