My goodness,,the concept is simple, Davie. Helicopter watches traffic
below..clocks how long it takes cars to get from point A (marked by
paint on highway) to point B (also marked by paint on highway). Taaa
daa..VASCAR.

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 17:40:48 -0500, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

There is no rule, unwritten or written that requires the officer to
ignore a speeder. To wit...the portion you conveniently snipped shows
how your claim is not across the board and is an exception, as it
pertains ONLY when traveling in areas with posted speeds LESS than 55,
whereas the the posted interstate (65 MPH) speeds, of which Pa. finally
raised from 55 not too long ago, are the speed LIMITS imposed by the
state of Pennsylvania.

There are still many limited access roads

which are posted at 55.


You're roving. There are also many local and city roads where the speed
is 35. Not relevant to the maximum speed limit imposed by the state.

In fact, the majority of places where they

allow 65 are those areas where the highway is
not in a "congested" (meaning densely

populated) area.



Regardless, you are citing the exception. Once again, you can cite no
rule requiring the officer to give a window of ANY speed in regards to
the states maximum imposed speed limit.

In most others, it's still 55.


On the interstates in Pa, the maximum speed is 65 MPH. See above.

Not on all of them. I live and travel them on a daily basis. You can
expect me to tell you how the fish are running inTampa Bay so don't
you try to tell me about the roads in my state. You know nothing about
it.



That's NOT what it says. Here is the interpretation for you,
Dave,,,,where the POSTED speed limit is 55 or LESS is the ONLY manner
where it applies.it is a specific exception. Once again, the maximum
posted speed limit on Pa interstates is 65. There is NO law or rule, or
even "unwritten" as you claim, that REQUIRES the officer to GIVE any
leeway at all.


Read it again. I realize that comprehension has always been your weak
spot, but try separating the paragraph into parts.

The first part:

"No person may be convicted upon evidence obtained through the use of
devices authorized by paragraphs (2) and (3) unless the speed recorded
is six or more miles per hour in excess of the legal speed limit."

Nowhere in that sentence is there a specific speed limit listed. That
means that this applies to 65 MPH roads and using RADAR. This statute
states that LEO must give a 5 MPH grace. How much more clear can it
be?

The next part is a FURTHER restriction:

"Furthermore, no person may be convicted upon evidence obtained
through the use of devices authorized by paragraph (3) in an area
where the legal speed limit is less than 55 miles per hour if the
speed recorded is less than ten miles per hour in excess of the legal
speed limit."

This part specifically refers to the conditions that (a) the road is
posted at less than 55, and (b) are using devices authorized in
paragraph 3 (normally VASCAR). In this case they have to give you a 10
MPH grace.



"This paragraph shall not apply to evidence obtained through the use
of devices authorized by paragraph (3) within a school zone."

This is the only exception to the rule.


Once again, you demonstrate, to people with normal comprehensive
ability, that you can't understand what you read. It's no wonder you
jump to the wrong conclusions over and over again in the scant 4 years
that you have been polluting this newsgroup. Your pattern of habitual
incomprehension is all the more apparent if one walks through Google
for a few minutes.

This is my last word on the subject. If you won't take Pa. law as
evidence that a minimum of a 5 MPH grace exists, then that's not my
problem. I've been driving for 29 years now and I've never gotten a
speeding ticket. I run right through speed traps while running within
the "tolerance" speed and I've never been hassled or pulled over.

I know several cops who confirm this. I could name them, but it
wouldn't prove anything since you don't know them. I could just as
easily make up names.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 07:32:28 -0500, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 17:40:48 -0500, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

There is no rule, unwritten or written that requires the officer to
ignore a speeder. To wit...the portion you conveniently snipped shows
how your claim is not across the board and is an exception, as it
pertains ONLY when traveling in areas with posted speeds LESS than 55,
whereas the the posted interstate (65 MPH) speeds, of which Pa. finally
raised from 55 not too long ago, are the speed LIMITS imposed by the
state of Pennsylvania.

There are still many limited access roads

which are posted at 55.


You're roving. There are also many local and city roads where the speed
is 35. Not relevant to the maximum speed limit imposed by the state.

In fact, the majority of places where they

allow 65 are those areas where the highway is
not in a "congested" (meaning densely

populated) area.



Regardless, you are citing the exception. Once again, you can cite no
rule requiring the officer to give a window of ANY speed in regards to
the states maximum imposed speed limit.

In most others, it's still 55.


On the interstates in Pa, the maximum speed is 65 MPH. See above.

Not on all of them. I live and travel them on a daily basis. You can
expect me to tell you how the fish are running inTampa Bay so don't
you try to tell me about the roads in my state. You know nothing about
it.



That's NOT what it says. Here is the interpretation for you,
Dave,,,,where the POSTED speed limit is 55 or LESS is the ONLY manner
where it applies.it is a specific exception. Once again, the maximum
posted speed limit on Pa interstates is 65. There is NO law or rule, or
even "unwritten" as you claim, that REQUIRES the officer to GIVE any
leeway at all.


Read it again. I realize that comprehension has always been your weak
spot, but try separating the paragraph into parts.

The first part:

"No person may be convicted upon evidence obtained through the use of
devices authorized by paragraphs (2) and (3) unless the speed recorded
is six or more miles per hour in excess of the legal speed limit."

Nowhere in that sentence is there a specific speed limit listed. That
means that this applies to 65 MPH roads and using RADAR. This statute
states that LEO must give a 5 MPH grace. How much more clear can it
be?

The next part is a FURTHER restriction:

"Furthermore, no person may be convicted upon evidence obtained
through the use of devices authorized by paragraph (3) in an area
where the legal speed limit is less than 55 miles per hour if the
speed recorded is less than ten miles per hour in excess of the legal
speed limit."

This part specifically refers to the conditions that (a) the road is
posted at less than 55, and (b) are using devices authorized in
paragraph 3 (normally VASCAR). In this case they have to give you a 10
MPH grace.



"This paragraph shall not apply to evidence obtained through the use
of devices authorized by paragraph (3) within a school zone."

This is the only exception to the rule.


But nowhere does it state that any grace is given when the speed
measuring device is mechanical or electrical, as per paragraph (1). So
if they are using a paragraph (1) device then they CAN bust you for
doing 56 in a 55 zone.


Once again, you demonstrate, to people with normal comprehensive
ability, that you can't understand what you read. It's no wonder you
jump to the wrong conclusions over and over again in the scant 4 years
that you have been polluting this newsgroup. Your pattern of habitual
incomprehension is all the more apparent if one walks through Google
for a few minutes.


PKB.


This is my last word on the subject.


Only because you have been proven wrong and you can't admit it.




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

From: pam
(itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge)
(I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote in
news:6287-4213D1C6-678 @storefull-3258.bay.webtv.net:
My goodness,,the concept is simple, Davie. Helicopter watches traffic
below..clocks how long it takes cars to get from point A (marked by
paint on highway) to point B (also marked by paint on highway). Taaa
daa..VASCAR.

They very rarely use a helicopter for traffic

enforcement

Perhaps in your neck of the woods, they do not, but in the larger cities
and metropolis', they most certainly do.

vascar is ran in the police cars.


And from the air.

They dont have the budget for using

helicopters for speed enforcement.


Which State Police budget are you referring?

From: pam
(itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge)
(I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote in
news:6288-4213CF9E-244 @storefull-3258.bay.webtv.net:
Pennsy is not a radar stste by any means

You are completely daft. Every single State
Police Officer with a patrol unit is equipped
with them.

You are completly a fool, The state Police are

the only ones who use radar in the state,

no

town's or cities or municipalties, deputies none
use radar. That means it is not a radar state.


By whose definition? Yours? It's wrong.
A non-radar state would mean just what the phrase connotates: the state
is void of radar.

From: pam
(itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge)
(I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote in
news:6288-4213CF9E-244 @storefull-3258.bay.webtv.net:
most towns dont even have them

Gee,,,that's because only State Cops are
permitted to have them in Pa.

Gee, then that makes pennsy not really a

radar state


LMAO,,,"Here comes Davie with his heart in his hand he's a one boy band
and he's off to the rodeo...."

Here you are redefining what you "really" meant.
Now you are back-pedaling with "Pa is not REALLY a radar state". LMAO,
Again,,if it was a non-radar state, radar would not be implemented by
the authorities. In fact, you are the only one I have ever heard ue the
term "non-radar" state when the state does in fact, use radar. Can you
cite a single source where you took this phrase from? Perhaps a link or
provide for it? Of course you can't, Dave, it;s why you are lending
support to yourself.

and you were bleeding all over yourself on

point in a previous post.


I love pointing things out like this...once again, you are the only one
not comprehending the gaping wounds responsible for all the blood you
attribute to others are all yours....just like your false and unprovoked
insults and accusations against all who disagree with you, your
projection is classic these days, Dave.

From: pam
(itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge)
(I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote in
news:6288-4213D105-245 @storefull-3258.bay.webtv.net:
If
a speed limit is posted at 35 they will not write you until you pass the
prescribed min over the limit,
-
Show the statute.

They cant write you at 35 you are not going

over the speed limit you assclown,


Please leave your mother out of the conversation and allow her to rest
in peace. You worked so hard over the years, please don't sink back into
depression requiring those meds, again.

have

and the can't write you until you are over the

radars accuracy.

Try and get your thoughts together *before* attempting to communicate.
You will be surprised how easy people can understand you once you learn
how and you will no longer be reduced to blaming others for your
personal hells.

From: pam
(itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge)
(I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote in
news:6288-4213D105-245 @storefull-3258.bay.webtv.net:
They most certainly do, all states have a window, it is actually for
equipment error etc.
Show the statute.

Call a Lawyer in Penns and ask him about the

case law on moving radar in the common

wealth of Pa

A lawyer interprets the law, they do not make it, so, keeping with that
original thought, YOU call the lawyer, as you are the only one suffering
great communication problems, evidenced by your need to contact the fcc
when everyone else already knows roger beeps are legal. Besides, only
you need another to explain and interpret communication law to you, so
there is no reasonable manner one can expect you to know much about
anything, based specifically on your past and presented ignorance and
unprovoked malice. You're a lid, David.

From: pam
(itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge)
(I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote in news:6288-4213D105-
:
They most certainly do, all states have a

window, it is actually for equipment error etc.

Show the statute.

Pennsylvania has a wierd exception for Speed limits.
Code =A7 3362
Maximum speed limits. (b) Posting of speed limit.-- 1. No maximum speed
limit established under subsection (a)(1), (1.2) or (3) shall be
effective unless posted on fixed or variable official traffic-control
devices erected in accordance with regulations adopted by the department
which regulations shall require posting at the beginning and end of each
speed zone and at intervals not greater than one-half mile. 2. No
maximum speed limit established under subsection (a)(1.1) shall be
effective unless posted on fixed or variable official traffic-control
devices erected after each interchange on the portion of highway on
which the speed limit is in effect and wherever else the department
shall determine.

Basically if the sign is not posted under the

conditions above. NO SPEED LIMIT IS IN

EFFECT. Many people do not know about this
loophole.

Interesting. Its not relevant to the position N3CVJ maintains (that all
Pa State Cops must give a window to ALL speeders) but interesting
nonetheless.

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 17:40:48 -0500, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
There is no rule, unwritten or written that requires the officer to
ignore a speeder. To wit...the portion you conveniently snipped shows
how your claim is not across the board and is an exception, as it
pertains ONLY when traveling in areas with posted speeds LESS than 55,
whereas the the posted interstate (65 MPH) speeds, of which Pa. finally
raised from 55 not too long ago, are the speed LIMITS imposed by the
state of Pennsylvania.

There are still many limited access roads

which are posted at 55.

You're roving. There are also many local and city roads where the speed
is 35. Not relevant to the maximum speed limit imposed by the state.

In fact, the majority of places where they

allow 65 are those areas where the highway is
not in a "congested" (meaning densely

populated) area.

Regardless, you are citing the exception. Once again, you can cite no
rule requiring the officer to give a window of ANY speed in regards to
the states maximum imposed speed limit.

In most others, it's still 55.

On the interstates in Pa, the maximum speed is 65 MPH. See above.

Not on all of them.


Yes, on ALL of them. If you are going to try and say portions of the
interstates have reduced speeds and try and invoke this as your point of
reasoning for saying "not all of them", you really have issues and can't
stand to be shown you are wrong. ALL interstates have reduced speeds in
some areas.

I live and travel them on a daily basis.

(snip)

Your personal experiences are null, void, and irrelevant to the facts.
You not only proved this with your claim that you "USED forensics" in
your reasoning and repair approach to radios, but affirmed it by setting
forth the amount of time you spent in radio as some sort of self-styled
litmus test when comparing yourself and knowledge to other ops, then
turned around and not only made the claim that roger beeps were illegal,
but willfully, stubbornly, and defiantly clung to such ignorance, even
when taught better by several other hammies.


You can expect me to tell you how the fish are
running inTampa Bay so don't you try to tell

me about the roads in my state. You know

nothing about it.




Crystal: BALL,,,there's so many things Dave needs to know,,,Crystal-Ball
-
That's NOT what it says. Here is the interpretation for you,
Dave,,,,where the POSTED speed limit is 55 or LESS is the ONLY manner
where it applies.it is a specific exception. Once again, the maximum
posted speed limit on Pa interstates is 65. There is NO law or rule, or
even "unwritten" as you claim, that REQUIRES the officer to GIVE any
leeway at all.

Read it again. I realize that comprehension

has always been your weak spot, but try

separating the paragraph into parts.

The first part:

"No person may be convicted upon evidence

obtained through the use of devices

authorized by paragraphs (2) and (3) unless

the speed recorded is six or more miles per

hour in excess of the legal speed limit."

Nowhere in that sentence is there a specific

speed limit listed. That means that this applies
to 65 MPH roads and using RADAR. This

statute states that LEO must give a 5 MPH

grace. How much more clear can it be?

The next part is a FURTHER restriction:


Restriction to WHAT? There must be a prior
item in order for it to be FURTHER, and the prior item is exactly what
it relates.

"Furthermore, no person may be convicted

upon evidence obtained through the use of

devices authorized by paragraph (3) in an

area where the legal speed limit is less than

55 miles per hour if the speed recorded is less
than ten miles per hour in excess of the legal

speed limit."

This part specifically refers to the conditions

that (a) the road is posted at less than 55, and
(b) are using devices authorized in paragraph

3 (normally VASCAR). In this case they have

to give you a 10 MPH grace.



No argument. Try and remain relevant, Davie. One would think that after
each and every person reminding you to stay on topic, you would get an
inkling.

"This paragraph shall not apply to evidence

obtained through the use of devices

authorized by paragraph (3) within a school

zone."


Once again, you demonstrate, to people with

normal comprehensive ability, that you can't

understand what you read.


Normal people do not insist roger beeps are illegal after being taught
better. Normal people do not prefer to focus on the personal lives of
usenet posters, as you claimed you prefer to do. Normal people do ot
accuse all they disagree of taking sides with others and conspiring
against them. Normal people do not accuse any and all criticism of
coming from conspiratorial plotters.


It's no wonder you jump to the wrong

conclusions over and over again in the scant 4
years that you have been polluting this

newsgroup.



Your heart is on your sleeve through no fault of your own.

Your pattern of habitual incomprehension is all
the more apparent if one walks through

Google for a few minutes.



Ahh,,the inability to exert control to the point you can remain focused
has always haunted you. Get some help, Davie, as your predilection of
the nuances of poster's lives has consumed you beyond what you can even
comprehend.

This is my last word on the subject.


Well, that IS you pattern throughout google posg history. When it sinks
in to your angry and misguided soul that you are wrong on a matter, you
abandon the subject like you do your custody issue.


If you won't take Pa. law as evidence


Oh, everyone takes the law as evidence, Davie, trouble is, your
communication deficits prevent you from processing logic and the law,
resulting in claims like "Roger beeps are illegal" based on your
inability to locate absence of proof.

that a minimum of a 5 MPH grace exists, then

that's not my problem. I've been driving for 29

years now


(snip)

Again, your personal experiences mean nothing. Hell, you hold the time
spent in radio as some sort of weird and twisted badge of honor and have
said as much all throughout your permitted usenet life among our fine
group, but it hasn;t prevented you from the ignorance that haunts you
daily and manifests itself in bizarre and unexplained quotes from
yourself such as "roger beeps are illegal" .




I know several cops who confirm this. I could

name them, but it wouldn't prove anything

since you don't know them.



Then why bring up the issue? Oh, that's right, because your desperation
dictates you need all the false support you can lend yourself at times
like this.

I could just as easily make up names.

..well go ahead, because these imaginary playmates that you told the
group not only exist, but agree with you that roger beeps are illegal,
should certainly have names.


David T. Hall Jr.

N3CVJ

"Sandbagger"