Lancer wrote:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:49:12 -0500, Vinnie S.
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 01:46:42 GMT, Lancer wrote:

http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

Dave I am hearing CBers on AM in the 10 meter cw band right now.

Thanks for helping another unlicensed outlaw get his peaked up
tweaked up
illegal rig on the air to join them. Putz.


You're welcome.


Dave,

Tell the moron I am not on 10 meters. I don't stoop to his level.

Vinnie S.

And by that you mean you are just an illegal outlaw on the 11 meter
band? Illegal is illegal isn't it?


So is driving 56 mph in a 55. But I am sure you have never done
that. Hypocracy
at it's finest.

Vinnie S.

Oh, because someone else breaks a "law" you are entiltled to break
any
"Law" you see fit. Grow up Vinnie, quit trying to rationalize your
behavior.

He's being supported in his rationalization by Dave "the outlaw elmer"
Hall.

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 13:05:12 GMT, Lancer wrote:



And by that you mean you are just an illegal outlaw on the 11 meter
band? Illegal is illegal isn't it?


So is driving 56 mph in a 55. But I am sure you have never done that. Hypocracy
at it's finest.

Vinnie S.

Oh, because someone else breaks a "law" you are entiltled to break any
"Law" you see fit. Grow up Vinnie, quit trying to rationalize your
behavior.


Oh, you you admit breaking the law? I knew you were a hypocrite. Looks like you
are the one that needs to rationalize.

Vinnie S.

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 16:15:01 -0500, Vinnie S.
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 13:05:12 GMT, Lancer wrote:



And by that you mean you are just an illegal outlaw on the 11 meter
band? Illegal is illegal isn't it?


So is driving 56 mph in a 55. But I am sure you have never done that. Hypocracy
at it's finest.

Vinnie S.

Oh, because someone else breaks a "law" you are entiltled to break any
"Law" you see fit. Grow up Vinnie, quit trying to rationalize your
behavior.


Oh, you you admit breaking the law? I knew you were a hypocrite. Looks like you
are the one that needs to rationalize.

Vinnie S.

where did he admit he broke the law?

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 15:24:31 -0600, Johnny Cash wrote:

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 16:15:01 -0500, Vinnie S.
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 13:05:12 GMT, Lancer wrote:



And by that you mean you are just an illegal outlaw on the 11 meter
band? Illegal is illegal isn't it?


So is driving 56 mph in a 55. But I am sure you have never done that. Hypocracy
at it's finest.

Vinnie S.

Oh, because someone else breaks a "law" you are entiltled to break any
"Law" you see fit. Grow up Vinnie, quit trying to rationalize your
behavior.


Oh, you you admit breaking the law? I knew you were a hypocrite. Looks like you
are the one that needs to rationalize.

Vinnie S.

where did he admit he broke the law?

When he said, "Oh, because someone else breaks a "law" you are entiltled to
break any "Law" you see fit. Sounds pretty much like he has broken it to me. And
I would pretty much bet that he has sped at least once in his life, and gone
over the limit. That pretty much makes him an "outlaw".

Vinnie S.

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 07:56:05 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:25:37 -0800, Paul Johnson
wrote:

Vinnie S. wrote:

So is driving 56 mph in a 55. But I am sure you have never done that.
Hypocracy at it's finest.

Depends on the state. Most states give you 10% leeway for differences in
speedometer calibration. Oregon doesn't have speed limits in most places,
opting for a less strictly enforced posted speed (difference is the posted
speed signs say SPEED, whereas hard limits say SPEED LIMIT). In either
case, if conditions are bad, you can get a speeding ticket for going slower
than the posted speed (ie, doing 50 in a 60 zone on ice).

In Pa. they are required to give 5 MPH to take care of "Speedometer"
and speed measuring inaccuracies. In addition, just to avoid court
challenges to the precise accuracy of the speed measuring equipment
(Usually VASCAR on non-state patrolled roads, and RADAR on state
police patrolled roads), most of the cops I know tell me that they
unofficially give people 9 MPH over the posted limit before they start
pulling people over. Of course there might be a new hard-assed rookie
who might not be so "kind".......


My brother in law is a cop. It's at the descretion of the cop. Since most often
this is a revenue generating system. The judge and cop are on the same municipal
team. If they want to beat you at 1 mph, they will. The reason they give 10mph
extra, is because everyone goes over the speed limit. They would be up to their
ears in court. So they take the abusers. But I highly doubt it's the
inaccuracies of the equipment or speedometers, because like you said, some
states have zero tolerance. So don't think you can claim the equipment is
inaccurate in one state, and perfect in another. I really think it's just the
descretion of the cop.

Vinnie S.

Vinnie S. wrote:

No they don't. The speed limits signs or laws do not say 55 or 65, +/-
10%.

That is nothing more than the descretion of the cop that tickets you.

Go read ORS chapter 810 sometime. It's up on leg.state.or.us. It does work
that way in Oregon. And as said before, save for a few miles of interstate
or a few well-travelled blocks of narrow secondary streets, Oregon has
never had speed limits. Posted speeds, yes, in which you're allowed to
drive faster if conditions warrant (on a clear, sunny day with dry pavement
and light traffic with a posted speed of 70, a cop pulling you over for
doing 85 will have a hard time getting a conviction in court unless it was
a LIMIT 70 and not a SPEED 70 sign and the cops know this).

Oregon and Washington both give 10% margins for differences in speedometer
calibration because very rarely are speedometers spot on. You could easily
be doing 59 with your speedometer reading 55. The speedometer in my 1995.5
Kia Sportage reads 62 when it's doing 60, my roommate's 2000 Ford Ranger
reads 57 at 60 MPH. If you got a ticket for doing 1 MPH over the speed
limit, and you didn't fight it in court, you're a moron, here's your sign.

--
Paul Johnson

http://ursine.ca/~baloo/

Dave Hall wrote:

Most car speedometers are not so accurate that a 1 MPH difference is
all that hard to believe. Just putting one size larger tires on your
car can make that difference.

Well, you're supposed to get your instruments recalibrated after changing
tire size. But differences as much as 5 MPH can happen depending on tire
pressure and road conditions...I've yet to see a speedometer read the right
speed driving on Oregon's notoriously rutted freeways in the rain (probably
because you're forced to hydroplane along the lane, which is why the locals
*will* get aggressive towards tailgaters, though the Californians usually
don't get it until they slam into a wall or the car ahead of them
approaching slower traffic hiding in the road spray of the vehicle ahead
because they're following too close).

People have fought a speeding ticket on this basis and have won.
That's part of the reason why Pa. gives some leeway. Most cops don't
want to have to appear in traffic court when the chances are good the
case could get thrown out. However, it's a lot harder to make a case
for speedometer inaccuracies when you're 10 MPH or more over.

I used to have to deal with police a lot when I was a security officer, and
at one site, the worksite's driveway was a common spot for police to set up
speed traps. The cops don't even bother radar cars until they see someone
moving considerably faster than surrounding traffic, radar the overspeed
vehicle for evidence, and just use the posted speed as something to
estimate a fine from.

They seem to radar everyone in areas where there are actual speed limits
when I see a speed trap in a limit zone. Though I never see anybody pulled
over, everybody just slows down for the speed limit and then drops the
hammer down when it goes back to a posted speed a few miles down the road.

I drive 100 km/h on the freeway even if the posted speed is considerably
lower if the conditions allow, and the cops working the speed trips don't
even look twice and keep looking for someone *really* speeding. Only time
I drive slower than 100 km/h on the freeway is in Salem where there *is* a
speed limit of 60 MPH (about 90 or so km/h), and on I-5, I-405 and US-30 in
downtown Portland, which has a posted speed of 50 but is usually insane to
try for more than 40, and the worst traffic accident in Oregon history was
caused by some ****head Californian who drove his bigrig at 60 MPH into 14
cars stopped in a traffic jam on I-405 while talking on a cellphone and
trying to pick up a CD off the floorpan. That Californian won't be going
back to California anytime soon, he's a prisoner in Salem now for his
criminally stupid behavior.

--
Paul Johnson

http://ursine.ca/~baloo/

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 14:29:17 -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:

Vinnie S. wrote:

No they don't. The speed limits signs or laws do not say 55 or 65, +/-
10%.

That is nothing more than the descretion of the cop that tickets you.

Go read ORS chapter 810 sometime. It's up on leg.state.or.us. It does work
that way in Oregon. And as said before, save for a few miles of interstate
or a few well-travelled blocks of narrow secondary streets, Oregon has
never had speed limits. Posted speeds, yes, in which you're allowed to
drive faster if conditions warrant (on a clear, sunny day with dry pavement
and light traffic with a posted speed of 70, a cop pulling you over for
doing 85 will have a hard time getting a conviction in court unless it was
a LIMIT 70 and not a SPEED 70 sign and the cops know this).

Oregon and Washington both give 10% margins for differences in speedometer
calibration because very rarely are speedometers spot on. You could easily
be doing 59 with your speedometer reading 55. The speedometer in my 1995.5
Kia Sportage reads 62 when it's doing 60, my roommate's 2000 Ford Ranger
reads 57 at 60 MPH. If you got a ticket for doing 1 MPH over the speed
limit, and you didn't fight it in court, you're a moron, here's your sign.


Paul,

I don't know about Oregon, but I know NJ. I have never heard of such a thing.
And I have been to traffic court on at least 3 occasions. On one occasion, some
motorist used the calibration defense. They about laughed him out of the court,
and said they would bring in the cop with the certs. He ended up pleaing to a
lower moving violation qwith no points. Believe it or not, they actually plea
bargain here for traffic court. They want the dollar amount fine, and ill lower
the violation so it doesn't kill you for insurance.

As far as my personal experience, I was given a ticket around 1991 for 59 in a
55. I pleaded guilty to a reduce "driving too slow", which carried the same
fine, but no points. The other carried 2 points. So you manual is of no use to
me or motorists in NJ.

And the only reason I fought 3 tickets, was because I was told you can get the
points knocked down in court. The officers will actually tell you that. But if
you just pay it, you get the points.

I did go to trial one of those 3 times (bargained the other 2), and beat a
ticket for rolling stop. A cop was at a stop trap where many motorists were
rolling thru it. He gave about 150 tickets over a course of a weekend. I fought
mine, because he missed my stop. He had 2 motorists pulled over and was on foot
getting their documents, and he looked at the corner, I had already stopped and
was moving, and he waved me over. I was nonetheless not cooperative. The DA
wanted to bargain that too, but the fine was like $180. I said i was going to
fight it, and he basically laughed. He said it was a sure fire loss. At the
trial, which was about 20 minutes long, the officer needed to look at the ticket
to read what car I was driving. And he said he pulled me over with his car after
rolling thru a stop. I got him on him not remembering my carwithout reading the
ticket, and that he was on foot with 2 other vehicles, and did not pull me over
with his car. The judge ruled in my favor, but he didn't rule on it that night,
to give me the satifaction in court. Instead, he sent his not guilty decision by
mail, 2 days later. I never did go back to the prosecutor and show him the
letter.

So like I said, It's mostly at the descretion of the cop. And FYI, you can be
going 56 in a 55, and if he wants to stop you and say you were doing 75 in a 55,
even though you did 56, there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.

Vinnie S.

Vinnie S. wrote:

So like I said, It's mostly at the descretion of the cop. And FYI, you can
be going 56 in a 55, and if he wants to stop you and say you were doing 75
in a 55, even though you did 56, there isn't a damn thing you can do about
it.

Sure there is. Challenge him in court using his radar gun as evidence
against him. If it recorded 56 and he's claiming 75, any of the following
could happen in Oregon: Charges dismissed on the 10% rule, charges
dismissed because the speed was reasonable for the conditions and the speed
was simply a posted advised speed and not a limit (universal speed rule),
or charges dismissed on the grounds of false testimony on the part of the
police officer (pretty much gauranteed to end his law enforcement career,
he'd have a *damn* hard time getting a job even as a rent-a-cop with that
on his record).

Your best defense is to learn the local law and obey it. Oregon tends to be
pretty lax because 1) you can go hundreds of miles without encountering
anything to hit, and 2) almost all traffic tickets handed out are to
Californians, who don't have to pass a test to get a license[1].

[1] If you don't know the answer on the test, you can ask the clerk and get
as many right answers as you need just for the asking, and I can't recall
ever seeing anybody taking a driving test at the CA DMVs. I never bothered
driving in California when I got stuck moving down there for a few years,
it's not hard to get a ride down there if you can get the nerve up with
riding with an essentially unlicensed driver.

--
Paul Johnson

http://ursine.ca/~baloo/

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 20:37:48 -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:

Vinnie S. wrote:

So like I said, It's mostly at the descretion of the cop. And FYI, you can
be going 56 in a 55, and if he wants to stop you and say you were doing 75
in a 55, even though you did 56, there isn't a damn thing you can do about
it.

Sure there is. Challenge him in court using his radar gun as evidence
against him. If it recorded 56 and he's claiming 75, any of the following
could happen in Oregon:


As far as I know, there is no printed history of a radar reading. Granted 99.9%
of the time, they will write yoy up for what you sped at. But I don't think
there is a shred of evidence you can use. Not even eyewitnesses.

Charges dismissed on the 10% rule, charges
dismissed because the speed was reasonable for the conditions and the speed
was simply a posted advised speed and not a limit (universal speed rule),
or charges dismissed on the grounds of false testimony on the part of the
police officer (pretty much gauranteed to end his law enforcement career,
he'd have a *damn* hard time getting a job even as a rent-a-cop with that
on his record).

Your best defense is to learn the local law and obey it. Oregon tends to be
pretty lax because 1) you can go hundreds of miles without encountering
anything to hit, and 2) almost all traffic tickets handed out are to
Californians, who don't have to pass a test to get a license[1].

Again, here in NJ, it is a revenue generating system. Like I said, they just
want their fined, and not put you in your insurance poor house. The officers
have told me to challenge, because they reduce it to no points.


[1] If you don't know the answer on the test, you can ask the clerk and get
as many right answers as you need just for the asking, and I can't recall
ever seeing anybody taking a driving test at the CA DMVs. I never bothered
driving in California when I got stuck moving down there for a few years,
it's not hard to get a ride down there if you can get the nerve up with
riding with an essentially unlicensed driver.


I can tell you this. Aside from full serve gas, NJ and Oregon are worlds apart.

Vinnie S.