YAWN....





"itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge"
wrote in message ...
Ok so this should just about end the discussion, this was sent to me by
request from a Administrative Leo. There is no hersay here or no web
sites. Just actual proof, other than signed active work zones or school
zones these law are it.




THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA


SENATE BILL
No. 760 Session of 2003




INTRODUCED BY THOMPSON, KUKOVICH, RAFFERTY, WONDERLING, EARLL,
KITCHEN, MUSTO, PILEGGI, ORIE, D. WHITE, DENT, WAUGH, PUNT,
WAGNER, LOGAN, C. WILLIAMS AND ERICKSON, MAY 16, 2003



REFERRED TO TRANSPORTATION ACT, MAY 16, 2003





Amending Title 75 (Vehicles) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated
Statutes, further providing for conviction and point
schedules, for speed timing devices and for State and local
powers.



The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
hereby enacts as follows:

Section 1. Section 1535(d) of Title 75 of the Pennsylvania
Consolidated Statutes is amended to read:
§ 1535. Schedule of convictions and points.


(d) [Exception] Exceptions.--
(1) This section does not apply to a person who was
operating a pedalcycle or an animal drawn vehicle.
(2) If a speeding offense under section 3362 (relating
to maximum speed limits) is charged as a result of use of a
device authorized by section 3368(c) (relating to speed
timing devices), no points shall be assigned under subsection
(a) unless the speed recorded is ten or more miles per hour
in excess of the legal speed limit.


Section 2. Section 3368(a), (c), (d) and (e) of Title 75,
amended December 23, 2002 (P.L.1982, No.229), are amended and
the section is amended by adding subsections to read:

§ 3368. Speed timing devices.
(a) Speedometers authorized.--The rate of speed of any
vehicle may be timed on any highway by a police officer using a
motor vehicle equipped with a speedometer, except as provided in
section 6109 (relating to specific powers of department and
local authorities). In ascertaining the speed of a vehicle by
the use of a speedometer, the speed shall be timed for a
distance of not less than three-tenths of a mile.

(c) Mechanical, electrical and electronic devices
authorized.--
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section and in
section 6109, the rate of speed of any vehicle may be timed
on any highway by a police officer using a mechanical or
electrical speed timing device.
(2) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (3),
electronic devices such as radio-microwave devices (commonly
referred to as electronic speed meters or radar) or infrared
laser light devices (commonly referred to as LIDAR) may be
used [only by]:
(i) By members of the Pennsylvania State Police.
(ii) Upon completion of a training course approved
by the Pennsylvania State Police and the Municipal Police
Officers' Education and Training Commission, by full-time
police officers employed by the full-service police
- 2 -




department of a political subdivision or regional police
department if official warning signs indicating the use
of these devices are erected within 500 feet of the
border of the political subdivision on the main arteries
entering that political subdivision.

(3) Electronic devices which calculate speed by
measuring elapsed time between measured road surface points
by using two sensors and devices which measure and calculate
the average speed of a vehicle between any two points may be
used by any police officer.

(4) 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. Furthermore, no person
may be convicted upon evidence obtained through the use of
devices authorized by paragraph (2) or (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 paragraph shall not apply to
evidence obtained through the use of devices authorized by
paragraph (2) or (3) within a school zone or an active work
zone.
(5) As used in this subsection, the following words and
phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this
paragraph:
"Full-service police department." A local or regional
police department which:
(i) is authorized by one or more political
subdivisions;
(ii) provides 24-hour-a-day patrol and investigative
- 3 -


services; and
(iii) reports its activities monthly to the
Pennsylvania State Police in accordance with the Uniform
Crime Reporting System.
"Full-time police officer." An employee of a political
subdivision or regional police department who complies with
all of the following:
(i) Is certified under 53 Pa.C.S. Ch. 21 Subch. D
(relating to municipal police education and training).
(ii) Is empowered to enforce 18 Pa.C.S. (relating to
crimes and offenses) and this title.
(iii) Is a regular full-time police officer under
the act of June 15, 1951 (P.L.586, No.144), entitled "An
act regulating the suspension, removal, furloughing and
reinstatement of police officers in boroughs and
townships of the first class having police forces of less
than three members, and in townships of the second
class," or works a minimum of 200 days a year.
(iv) Is provided coverage by a police pension plan
under:
(A) the act of May 24, 1893 (P.L.129, No.82),
entitled "An act to empower boroughs and cities to
establish a police pension fund, to take property in
trust therefor and regulating and providing for the
regulation of the same";
(B) the act of June 23, 1931 (P.L.932, No.317),
known as The Third Class City Code;
(C) the act of May 22, 1935 (P.L.233, No.99),
referred to as the Second Class City Policemen Relief
Law;
20030S0760B0871 - 4 -




(D) the act of May 29, 1956 (1955 P.L.1804,
No.600), referred to as the Municipal Police Pension
Law; or
(E) the act of July 15, 1957 (P.L.901, No.399),
known as the Optional Third Class City Charter Law.
The term does not include auxiliary, part-time or fire
police.
(d) Classification, approval and testing of mechanical,
electrical and electronic devices.--The department may, by
regulation, classify specific devices as being mechanical,
electrical or electronic. All mechanical, electrical or
electronic devices shall be of a type approved by the
department, which shall appoint stations for calibrating and
testing the devices [and may prescribe regulations as to the
manner in which calibrations and tests shall be made]. All
devices, including LIDAR laser devices and electronic speed
meters or radar, must have been tested for accuracy within a
period of one year prior to the alleged violation in accordance
with specifications prescribed by the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA). All electronic devices, such as
LIDAR laser devices, and electronic speed devices, such as speed
meters or radar, approved for use in this Commonwealth, must
appear on the International Association of Chiefs of Police
consumer products list, in conjunction with National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) standards. The
certification and calibration of electronic devices under
subsection (c)(3) shall also include the certification and
calibration of all equipment, timing strips and other devices
which are actually used with the particular electronic device
being certified and calibrated. [The devices shall have been
20030S0760B0871 - 5 -




tested for accuracy within a period of 60 days prior to the
alleged violation.] A certificate from the station showing that
the calibration and test were made within the required period,
and that the device was accurate, shall be competent and prima
facie evidence of those facts in every proceeding in which a
violation of this title is charged.
(e) Distance requirements for use of mechanical, electrical
and electronic devices.--[Mechanical]
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), mechanical,
electrical or electronic devices may not be used to time the
rate of speed of vehicles within 500 feet after a speed limit
sign indicating a decrease of speed. This limitation on the
use of speed timing devices shall not apply to speed limit
signs indicating school zones, bridge and elevated structure
speed limits, hazardous grade speed limits and work zone
speed limits.
(2) Whenever radio-microwave speed timing devices or
infrared laser light devices are used by a local or regional
police officer, the police officer must locate the vehicle
with the radio-microwave speed timing device or infrared
laser light device in a location that is not intentionally
concealed from the motoring public.
(f) Local ordinance required to enforce.--
(1) Prior to use of radio-microwave speed timing devices
or infrared laser light devices used for speed timing by
local or regional police officers, the appropriate governing
body must adopt an ordinance authorizing the local or
regional police department to employ such devices on roads
within the boundaries of the governing body where a required
engineering and traffic study has been conducted and in
20030S0760B0871 - 6 -




accordance with section 6109(a)(11) to address citizen
complaints or demonstrable traffic safety concerns, such as
high crash rates or fatalities.
(2) During the initial 90 days of speed enforcement by a
local or regional police department using radio-microwave
speed timing devices or infrared laser light devices, persons
may only be sanctioned for violations with a written warning.
(g) Excess revenues.--The primary use of radar or LIDAR by
local or regional police officers is for traffic safety
purposes. Each local or regional police department that uses
radar or LIDAR shall report annually to the Pennsylvania State
Police the municipal revenue generated from speed enforcement
citations on such forms as may be prescribed by the Pennsylvania
State Police. In the event the municipal share of revenue
generated from speed enforcement citations exceeds 5% of the
total municipal budget or 5% of the regional police department
budget, all sums in excess thereof shall be remitted to the
Pennsylvania State Police to be used for traffic safety
purposes. This subsection shall expire five years after it takes
effect.
Section 3. Section 6109(a)(11) of Title 75 is amended to
read:
§ 6109. Specific powers of department and local authorities.
(a) Enumeration of police powers.--The provisions of this
title shall not be deemed to prevent the department on State-
designated highways and local authorities on streets or highways
within their physical boundaries from the reasonable exercise of
their police powers. The following are presumed to be reasonable
exercises of police power:

20030S0760B0871 - 7 -




(11) Enforcement of speed restrictions authorized under
Subchapter F of Chapter 33[, except that] in accordance with
the following:
(i) Except as set forth in subparagraph (ii), speed
restrictions may be enforced by [local police] full-time
police officers employed by the full-service police
department of a political subdivision or regional police
department on a limited access or divided highway only if
[it] this title authorizes such enforcement and the
highway is patrolled by the local or regional police
force under the terms of an agreement with the
Pennsylvania State Police.
(ii) If this title authorizes speed restrictions to
be enforced by a police department of a city of the first
class, they may be enforced on limited access or divided
highways within the police department's jurisdiction. An
agreement with the Pennsylvania State Police is not
necessary under this subparagraph.

Section 4. This act shall take effect in 120 days.







E13L75BIL/20030S0760B0871 - 8 -



--
"Landshark" wrote in message
. com...
See, I have proved he did those posts and
all he can do now is try to recriminate me and
anyone that disagree with him.

Landshark

NNTP-Posting-Date: =A0=A0 Thu, Feb 24, 2005, 1:13pm (EST-1) Group:
=A0=A0 rec.radio.cb Subject: =A0=A0 Dave Hall, this is what you have
been looking for From: =A0=A0 itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
User-Agent: =A0=A0
Xnews/06.08.25 X-No-Archive: =A0=A0 yes Date: =A0=A0 Thu, Feb 24, 2005,
1:13pm (EST-1) X-Trace: =A0=A0
sv3-5kF9M7iyN+gXQ/DXYIFPP44xBFyCplS86IjSuWwwiKsJEHuYHlEthxBCbN8WsO/CnOQENn=
48wNO8ala!xEDKZAhxJgYfZmbvgYWuVtQHcT62xEUgcRjVIVdZ qNk5UozrrnzbZYuJGASMNmhC=

X-Complaints-To: =A0=A0 X-DMCA-Complaints-To: =A0=A0
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: =A0=A0 Please be sure to forward
a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: =A0=A0 Otherwise we will be
unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: =A0=A0 1.3.31
Ok so this should just about end the

discussion, this was sent to me by request

from a Administrative Leo.

There is no hersay

Until this mystery source is cited and ascertained, that's exactly what
it is..hearsay.

here or no web sites. Just actual proof, other

than signed active work zones or school

zones these law are it.


It's not proof because you say so, but let's assume it is, just for the
sake of the thread. Your statement above absolutely contradicts N3CVJ's
claim that one CAN NOT BE CITED for speeding 1 MPH over the limit in Pa.
You deftly illustrate the circumstances where one can be cited for such
an infraction. Staying with assumptions, it would be safe to assume
David T. Hall Jr. knew nothing of the law regarding these exceptions,
therefore, he insists such does not exist, effectively contradicting one
of his favorite claims that "absence of proof is not proof of absence".

From: (Mr.=A0Chigliac)
YAWN....

The French are always sleeping.

NNTP-Posting-Date: =A0=A0 Fri, Feb 25, 2005, 5:07pm (EST-1) Group:
=A0=A0 rec.radio.cb Subject: =A0=A0 Dave Hall, this is what you have
been looking for From: =A0=A0 itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
User-Agent: =A0=A0
Xnews/06.08.25 X-No-Archive: =A0=A0 yes Date: =A0=A0 Fri, Feb 25, 2005,
5:07pm (EST-1) X-Trace: =A0=A0
sv3-WgMKChYj1j3DnXm0SmoIZg5xWPovJPwnFOR7LL6EKdfWy/auKkiCzv4Ds+juKhGy5GNvk1=
31PQ2uvo0!sEAUhpczBytZokFwtt0JOfbnr/YtkZB6nydFZwmohXNHfACoCCQ2tKsR2iYU7c55=
AfaT
X-Complaints-To: =A0=A0 X-DMCA-Complaints-To: =A0=A0
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: =A0=A0 Please be sure to forward
a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: =A0=A0 Otherwise we will be
unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: =A0=A0 1.3.31
(I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote in
news:3633-421F5BAC-46 @storefull-3254.bay.webtv.net:
N3CVJ David T. Hall Jr. wrote:
Ok so this should just about end the

discussion, this was sent to me by request

from a Administrative Leo.


A claim by yourself of a mystery administrative leo telling you anything
is third-hand hearsay.
Until this mystery source is cited and ascertained, that's exactly what
it is..hearsay.


Don't worry about the mystery source,


David T. Hall Jr. (N3CVJ) invoked this mystery source, not I. Your chin
appears to be getting caught under my heel, again.
_
It's not proof because you say so,

It is proof because the Pa commonwealths

statutes are stamped all over it, your

communicaTION DEFICIT PRECLUDES YOU
FROM SEEING SUCH AS IT IS



Only David T. Hall Jr. has been wrong on every issue.

_
but let's assume it is,

Assume all you want, that is your normal SOP
=A0
=A0just for the
sake of the thread. Your statement above absolutely contradicts N3CVJ's
claim that one CAN NOT BE CITED for speeding 1 MPH over the limit in Pa.

Perhaps you can show us in the documents I

posted where it says that?


Perhaps you can ask another, as everyone has long tired of explaining
whta they mean to you and reminding you of your poor memory.

_
You deftly illustrate the circumstances where one can be cited for such
an infraction.

The funny part is your and frank's arguement

never hinged upon this obscure fact that has

been presented.



The only thing that is funny is the manner in which you attack myself,
Frank, and anyone else that illustrates David's hypocrisy and bull****.

Until an actual passage from pa code is

presented it is hersay to speculate the exact

meaning of the law.


Hearsay is everything Hall has presented and attributed as fact because
a mystery leo source "told" him so

_
=A0
David T. Hall Jr. knew nothing of the law regarding these exceptions,
therefore, he insists such does not exist, effectively contradicting one
of his favorite claims that "absence of proof is not proof of absence".

Well tipsy,


Your feelings of shame are increasing day by day. It really upsets you
to not who who the hell it is bouncing your head off the wall.

frank nor yourself knew of these exceptions

until Landshark brought them to light,


What Frank and myself knew, was exactly what you have been taught since
then...that there exists no requirement saying Pa State Officers must
give a window of 5 MPH to all speeders..that was David T. Hall's : )
claim, and you are bleeding from the ....uh..gums trying to manage some
sort of damage control for his regular idiocy.

and yet so far there has been no law posted

by anyone stating the exact exception and any
limitations.


You asking for a law that disproves David T. Hall Jr.'s
misinterpretation of the law.

In fact the article landshark posted did indeed

state there are tolerances which i clearly

demonstrated with my follow up document.


Stay with the topic, no matter how painful it is to have your ears
pinned and tail cropped at a time like this. No one ever took issue with
tolerances,..in fact, only you are invoking such a topic to try and
obscure David T. Hall Jr.'s screwups. It was he that claimed that a 5
MPH tolerance was mandatory in Pa for all speeders. You begging for
someone to show a law to disprove your incompetence and
misinterpretations is but a bonus to the freak show you have been forced
to live.

itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote:
-snip-
Going to Dayton, or skeered?

NNTP-Posting-Date: =A0=A0 Mon, Feb 28, 2005, 12:29pm (EST-1) Group:
=A0=A0 rec.radio.cb Subject: =A0=A0 Dave Hall, this is what you have
been looking for From: =A0=A0 itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
User-Agent: =A0=A0
Xnews/06.08.25 X-No-Archive: =A0=A0 yes Date: =A0=A0 Mon, Feb 28, 2005,
12:29pm (EST-1) X-Trace: =A0=A0
sv3-elvWuheb+VSQ+bfeYCAekOa8WGSH+FJ9ie8TbsYdYut/CdMeOTB2OvM4B8+8LYi2UUKeUv=
meyMPxjjQ!W7H1vO98k+FTufjrN8exy6xpANLMriDhaC3ElTCQ wu3bjyO6j08M9tOmSPJvOzBq=
fTVQ
X-Complaints-To: =A0=A0 X-DMCA-Complaints-To: =A0=A0
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: =A0=A0 Please be sure to forward
a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: =A0=A0 Otherwise we will be
unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: =A0=A0 1.3.31
(I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote

2) If a speeding offense under section 3362

(relating to maximum speed limits) is

charged as a result of use of a =A0device

authorized by section 3368(c) (relating to

speed timing devices), no points shall be

assigned under subsection

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= A0=A0(a) unless the
speed recorded is

ten or more miles per hour =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 in excess of

the legal speed limit.
=A0



Yet, the passage you invoke is a single exemption to the rule that
speeders can be cited at any speed infraction. Your single exemption
passage addresses only the matter of points being assessed and addresses
nothing of the fines that are assessed, the end result of receiving a
speeding ticket.


=A0=A0=A0No person may be convicted upon evidence

obtained

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= A0=A0through the use
of devices

authorized by paragraphs (2) and

=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0= A0=A0(3) unless the
speed recorded is

six or more miles per hour =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 in excess of

the legal speed limit.

Repeating this single exemption is fine, but does not address David T.
Hall Jr.'s erroneous interpretation of yet another law.



Furthermore, no person =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 may be

convicted upon evidence obtained through the
use of =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 devices authorized by paragraph

(2) or (3) in an area where =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 the legal

speed limit is less than 55 miles per hour if the
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 speed recorded is less than ten miles per
hour in excess of =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 the legal speed limit.



The line you posted above is in direct contradiction with the previous
line you posted. For instance, above, your passage claims 55 MPH as the
determining factor and speed, yet your previous passage gives no speed
at all, and makes only reference to a speed recorded in excess of 6 MPH
over the limit as the determining factor. Both sentences cite the same
law, same paragraph applications, yet have two separate conclusions.
They both can't be right.


This paragraph shall not apply to =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0

evidence obtained through the use of devices

authorized by =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 paragraph (2) or (3) within

a school zone or an active work =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 zone.


Nicely illustrated. You not only cite an example of David Jr. being
incorrect, but present what you apparently hold as proof.
You are holding a passage that
applies only to speeders in Pa going 55 or less. The speed limit is 65
on the interstates in Pa, and State Troopers are the only ones who use
radar in Pa. State Troopers are usually found on the interstates and
turnpikes, which is where the allowed speed limit is 65 MPH and where
the State Troopers usually employ their radar. Try this one more time:
David T. Hall Jr. (N3CVJ) claimed it was required that all speeders in
Pa be given an automatic "grace window" by the cops, permitting them 5
MPH over the posted limit. You were wrong then, you are wrong now.

NNTP-Posting-Date: =A0=A0 Tue, Mar 1, 2005, 11:21am (EST-1) Group:
=A0=A0 rec.radio.cb Subject: =A0=A0 Dave Hall, this is what you have
been looking for From: Daid T. Hall Jr. =A0=A0
itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
User-Agent: =A0=A0 Xnews/06.08.25 X-No-Archive: =A0=A0 yes Date: =A0=A0
Tue, Mar 1, 2005, 11:21am (EST-1) X-Trace: =A0=A0
sv3-hkCw7Z9N9k+3C9WalHw+W5kegNigPLh6OXQcZry18j9d8WJpc/YnRZKMcCjDOXlSjll979=
AFUQzhWgY!NsOzK/1rWCheb+AMCOXb2w8vDBJyAms1igd2wYeCVwGWbEyUiCCAbg86 wZo1X2ys=
WmDD
X-Complaints-To: =A0=A0 X-DMCA-Complaints-To: =A0=A0
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: =A0=A0 Please be sure to forward
a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: =A0=A0 Otherwise we will be
unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: =A0=A0 1.3.32
(David T. Hall Jr.) wrote in news:9507-42249354-37
Both sentences cite the same law, same paragraph applications, yet have
two separate conclusions. They both can't be right.

LOL you better reread it


You ought try and understand what it is you are wrong about.

your communication deficit has caused you

much grief before and it still does.


I'm not the one citing the law where it very plainly illustrates what
everyone has been trying to tell you. As usual, you are extremely slow
to get it.

If the speed limit is below 55 mph, you cant

get cited for a ticket unless you are caught 10

mph over the speed limit, not 6 in this case.


,,which has nothing at all to do with getting cited when violating the
state's maximum speed limit of 65 MPH,,you know,,on the interstates
where the State Troopers (who are the only ones allowe dto use radar in
Pa) actually use radar and write tickets.

Now go menstrate some more over the facts

because they dont agreee with you.


Pay attention, as that deficit and mild retardation has you getting
angry again, with all those who continue to educate your ignorance:
David T. Hall Jr. (N3CVJ) said he was told by leo's that all speeders in
Pa are to be given a 5 MPH "grace window". You continue to post the
passage of the law that cites the complete pposite of that claim. Again,
one can be cited for going 66 in a 65, yet, you are in dire straits and
drooling incoherently about the law whichi you always demonstrate a
problem comprehending.

I'm still grinning over you invoking yet another mystery. The (read:
un-named) radar manufacturer that you permit to define the definition of
the law. Tell us again about how this radar marketing department came up
with the term "non-radar state" to apply to states that use radar, and
of which you cited as some type of support for your misinterpratations
and plain, rude ignorance.

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 11:21:05 -0600, itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote:

(I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote in news:9507-42249354-37
:

The line you posted above is in direct contradiction with the previous
line you posted. For instance, above, your passage claims 55 MPH as the
determining factor and speed, yet your previous passage gives no speed
at all, and makes only reference to a speed recorded in excess of 6 MPH
over the limit as the determining factor. Both sentences cite the same
law, same paragraph applications, yet have two separate conclusions.
They both can't be right.

LOL you better reread it your communication deficit has caused you much
grief before and it still does. If the speed limit is below 55 mph, you
cant get cited for a ticket unless you are caught 10 mph over the speed
limit, not 6 in this case. Now go menstrate some more over the facts
because they dont agreee with you.



Furthermore, no person may be
convicted upon evidence obtained through the
use of devices authorized by paragraph
(2) or (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.

I'm tired of wasting my time on this issue. He doesn't get it. He
can't understand conditionals, and that's why he feels there's an
apparent "contradiction" between paragraph 2 and 3 devices.

The law is the law, and it specifies the conditions by which a speed
tolerance is required to be given, which is most of the time. The
minimum tolerance is 5 MPH, and in certain other situations (Below 55
MPH and using electronic devices OTHER than RADAR), they have to
increase that tolerance to 10 MPH. It's not contradictory, it's in
addition to.

Your amended statutes also illustrate that no points are to be
assigned until 10 MPH or more over, but it does not say that you can't
be stopped and ticketed between 5 and 10 MPH over in a radar zone.

Twisty's interpretive skills are not much better than my 5 year old's.
It's no wonder he thinks the various laws mean something different
than what they actually state, to those of us who CAN interpret and
comprehend what we read.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 11:21:05 -0600, itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote:
(I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote in
news:9507-42249354-37 @storefull-3257.bay.webtv.net:
The line you posted above is in direct contradiction with the previous
line you posted. For instance, above, your passage claims 55 MPH as the
determining factor and speed, yet your previous passage gives no speed
at all, and makes only reference to a speed recorded in excess of 6 MPH
over the limit as the determining factor. Both sentences cite the same
law, same paragraph applications, yet have two separate conclusions.
They both can't be right.

I'm tired of wasting my time on this issue.

That's because of your stubborn refusal to learn and ignorance insisting
no one else can be right besides you, despite the number of people that
continually correct you.

He doesn't get it. He can't understand

conditionals, and that's why he feels there's an
apparent "contradiction" between paragraph 2

and 3 devices.

There is,,,,and you are unable to comprehend it.


The law is the law,


..and you simply aren't up to date on it, despite your cries and whines
about how it's your state and you know about the law. Same thing you
said regarding the law about your hobby that you know nothing of and
have to be shown, such as your claim that roger beeps were illegal based
on your inability to find a law specifically permitting them.

and it specifies the

conditions by which a speed tolerance is

required to be given, which is most of the time.

See what you are iunable to comprehend..

The minimum tolerance is 5 MPH,

Wrong,,,

and in certain other situations (Below 55 MPH

and using electronic devices OTHER than

RADAR), they have to increase that tolerance

to 10 MPH. It's not contradictory, it's in

addition to.


No,,it's not.

Your amended statutes also illustrate that no
points are to be assigned until 10 MPH or
more over, but it does not say that you can't
be stopped and ticketed between 5 and 10
MPH over in a radar zone.




Twisty's interpretive skills are not much better

than my 5 year old's.


Although your need to be insultive is based upon your own incompetence
and ignorance, ithere is no excuse for such when you are taught better
each day by cber's who do know the law better than yourself. Perhaps you
can get your five year old to explain to you what everyone comprehends.

It's no wonder he thinks the various laws

mean something different than what they

actually state, to those of us who CAN

interpret and comprehend what we read.

Too bad these reading skills you speak of
have prevented you from finding the current law.

David T. Hall Jr. N3CVJ

"Sandbagger"

On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 10:31:25 -0500, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

From: (Dave*Hall)
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 11:21:05 -0600, itoldyouiamnotiamnotgeorge
wrote:
(I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote in
news:9507-42249354-37 @storefull-3257.bay.webtv.net:
The line you posted above is in direct contradiction with the previous
line you posted. For instance, above, your passage claims 55 MPH as the
determining factor and speed, yet your previous passage gives no speed
at all, and makes only reference to a speed recorded in excess of 6 MPH
over the limit as the determining factor. Both sentences cite the same
law, same paragraph applications, yet have two separate conclusions.
They both can't be right.

I'm tired of wasting my time on this issue.

That's because of your stubborn refusal to learn and ignorance insisting
no one else can be right besides you, despite the number of people that
continually correct you.

I am more than willing to admit a mistake (ala the roger beep issue)
when I am actually wrong. But in this case, you can "correct" me all
you want, and the only thing you'll accomplish is to illustrate just
how poorly your comprehensive skills are, and how ignorant you are of
Pennsylvania law.



He doesn't get it. He can't understand
conditionals, and that's why he feels there's an
apparent "contradiction" between paragraph 2
and 3 devices.

There is,,,,and you are unable to comprehend it.

There is not. If you had normal comprehensive skills you'd understand
the difference. The more you talk about it, the more obvious your
inabilities become.


.and you simply aren't up to date on it, despite your cries and whines
about how it's your state and you know about the law.

But I'm right and you're not. Plain and simple.


Same thing you
said regarding the law about your hobby that you know nothing of and
have to be shown, such as your claim that roger beeps were illegal based
on your inability to find a law specifically permitting them.

There is no rule specifically permitting them. It then becomes a
subjective matter as to whether a roger beep could be classified as an
amusement or entertainment device. Absent a specific rule either way,
it becomes little more than speculation as to whether they are legal
or not. You ASSUMED they were. without anything authoritative to go
on. At least I had the sense to go to the FCC and have it clarified
once and for all.


and it specifies the
conditions by which a speed tolerance is
required to be given, which is most of the time.

See what you are iunable to comprehend..

I comprehend just fine. It is you who cannot understand the difference
between a paragraph 2 and 3 device and why there are separate
tolerances specified for each.


The minimum tolerance is 5 MPH,

Wrong,,,

Right. Read it again. Or better yet, have your mommy read (and then
explain) it to you.


and in certain other situations (Below 55 MPH
and using electronic devices OTHER than
RADAR), they have to increase that tolerance
to 10 MPH. It's not contradictory, it's in
addition to.

No,,it's not.

Yes, it is.

Your amended statutes also illustrate that no
points are to be assigned until 10 MPH or
more over, but it does not say that you can't
be stopped and ticketed between 5 and 10
MPH over in a radar zone.




Twisty's interpretive skills are not much better
than my 5 year old's.

Although your need to be insultive is based upon your own incompetence
and ignorance, ithere is no excuse for such when you are taught better
each day by cber's who do know the law better than yourself.

You have poor comprehensive abilities, and you continually prove it
on a daily basis. I used to think you deliberately twisted words as a
sort of mind game. Now I'm beginning to think that you actually don't
understand written words, and your "twisting" is the result of your
inability to accurately comprehend what you read. The real hoot is
that you then have the gaul to accuse others of having
"communication's deficits" when it is you who has the problem. If
outlining this simple fact is "insulting" to you, then so be it. Like
I said many time over the years, I don't pull punches or mollycoddle
people. If you can't handle the harsh reality, then I suggest you find
someone else to "play" with.

The only thing you know about the law is how to make excuses for
breaking it.


Perhaps you
can get your five year old to explain to you what everyone comprehends.

Now you fall back on your old standby, how "everyone agrees with me"
fallacy.

You're alright, it's the rest of the world that's crazy........


It's no wonder he thinks the various laws
mean something different than what they
actually state, to those of us who CAN
interpret and comprehend what we read.

Too bad these reading skills you speak of
have prevented you from finding the current law.

I know the current law. What's your excuse?

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj