It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

new almost nation wide law:move over one lane AND drop to 20mph BELOW posted limit if cops pulled ov

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Three_moons
So do we suspend driving privileges indefinitely for the first offense , send them to prison for life, let them crash into a traffic stop while killing a cop, a family and themselves or something else? What's your suggestion?


Do we want to stop the criminal? Are we to trust recidivism statistics? Do we want to actually see the result we were promised in that the crime rates plummet?

If so then yes. We hardline the hell out of the punishments and put first offenders to death.

Either this system is going to produce the results promised or we can do away with the system and accept the real world for what it is. This half-assed approach to law that we have only serves to harm innocents and waste resources.




posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by iamsupermanv2
 


in germany its called drive right or only go into the left lane to pass etc

and the middle east and similar places dont have traffic laws at all and they have a suprisingly low fatlity rate but that has other factors to atribute to it like avoid the rich peopels cars etc

and both those countries have far better roads then in the usa

montana used to not have speed limits tell the fed threatend to cut off federal funding and there fatility rate went up after the law but alchol had a huge factor in that as well

i think it would be great if we desginated a speeding lane and speeding liscences to those who took a special test kinda like taking highperformace driveing lessons but that will never happen even though it would problay generate tons of revinue



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by adjensen
And "real life has real consequences" is pretty much the point of any law, including this one.


No they're not. These laws make morons believe the world is a safe(r) place.


Perhaps, but you still have not stated what a better solution is. Your "let the idiots die out" theory is nonsensical. Not only will they not die out, but by your own logic, most are too stupid to even make the connection that Billy Joe Jim Bob dying in a moonshine still explosion has some relevance to their own way of life.

You agree that there's a problem, but without a reasonable solution, you're merely coldly dismissive of police, firefighter and EMT safety for your own minor benefit.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


I know different people with different levels of morality

Some do not steal because of fear of the law. Plain and simple. Think there aren't people like that, but I know a few.

You're grinding an axe I see. I get it now. Later.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by earthdude
 

Read the article and the thread. Move over OR slow down 20mph not to slow down to 20mph.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by Three_moons
If so then yes. We hardline the hell out of the punishments and put first offenders to death.

Is this for everything? Well, we still need a law to enforce the first time offender, no? World population issues would be resolved in no time then. So quickly that there probably wouldn't be anyone around to administer death.

[edit on 8/11/2010 by Three_moons]



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
...most are too stupid to even make the connection that Billy Joe Jim Bob dying in a moonshine still explosion has some relevance to their own way of life.


So they die in their own moonshine explosion.

Why assume I'm merely and pettily casting off cops or EMT's or other "rescue" professionals?

Are we just forgetting about Mark changing his tire so he can get to Thanksgiving dinner?

Or maybe this law doesnt mention poor Mark? I suppose it's open season on him on the side of the road? The law might force me to be courteous to the cops but I can apparently whiz by at 65 only inches from Marks face, right? It isnt explicitly mentioned in the law and I'm too damn stupid to just have any sense of decency as admitted by the necessity of such a law so clearly if it isnt "illegal" then it must be perfectly fine to do?

See how stupid this all is?

This fixation on the holy and grand rescue crowd is part of the method to imposing these asinine laws. It's identical to the "think of the children" motive.

A fantastic example is the mythical "black talon" ammunition. Allegedly flying through body armor as a hot knife through butter. Of course it never did that even though there are plenty of real bullets that would do that yet the media and politicians called them "cop-killer" bullets and thanks to stupid people's outcry they were banned for fictional reasons.

It's one of the great jokes of America.

Sadly too few actual get the punchline.


[edit on 11-8-2010 by thisguyrighthere]



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   
how do i edit the thread title to fix my error as it seems to be confusing people and that was not my intention

for the record the title should say move over one lane and slow down BY 20mph not SLOW down to 20mph i dropped the ball on this one my bad!!!



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   
To add to my first post and the discussion in this topic.

I've had to help someone with a broken down vehicle on the interstate a few times. You know what it's like to be working under the hood with semis and most cars not even moving over? People don't understand until they have to do it themselves.

If you can't move over, that's fine. I know it happens. Then slow down. Semis and trucks displace alot of air when they come by.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Judohawk
 


But unless you're a cop you get no benefit. If you're just some guy on the side of the road drivers can nearly take your head off at 65. Because we're all too stupid to be courteous and since for some reason stupid people cease to be stupid when ordered to do so by 'law' and only cops and EMT's and firefighters are mentioned in the law the law has said it's perfectly fine for the stupids who only do whats sensible when the law mandates it to zoom past you and whoever you're helping at 65 with only inches of space.

This law just gets more idiotic.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 03:26 PM
link   
dang i feel i caused some ruckous by using the wrong word

to clarify i think its good cops and other motorists be protected how wrongly read the original article i ASSUMED wrongly that it was saying you had to drop down to 20 not reduce your speed by 20 which is far more reasonable sorry for any confusion i may have caused



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by KilrathiLG
 


I havent read all of the states respective laws but I have skimmed at least half of them and not one so far has mentioned motorists. It's cops and emergency vehicles. Often just cops. I guess we're supposed to assume a tow truck is a cop in those cases?

You or me, we dont apply. So open season on the average motorist changing a flat or checking under the hood.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   
In Saskatchewan it's easy. Most of our highways are only one lane (population of entire province = 1 million people), so the law is slow to 60 KM , I think that's about 40 MPH.

That goes for any emergency vehicle, cops, ambulance, tow truck, hwy workers, all the same. No one gets special treatment, we don't want our hwy workers hit any more than our cops.

If you don't slow down, the fines are for negligent driving, speeding, etc up to about $500.

It's probably easier here than anywhere though, there's rarely ever anyone behind you, unless you're near a city.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by Judohawk
 


But unless you're a cop you get no benefit. If you're just some guy on the side of the road drivers can nearly take your head off at 65. Because we're all too stupid to be courteous and since for some reason stupid people cease to be stupid when ordered to do so by 'law' and only cops and EMT's and firefighters are mentioned in the law the law has said it's perfectly fine for the stupids who only do whats sensible when the law mandates it to zoom past you and whoever you're helping at 65 with only inches of space.

This law just gets more idiotic.


So your suggestion is that the law should be even more restrictive? I would sort of agree, but I'm guessing that you do not. However, it can be argued that you do not need to get out of your car on the freeway, you can call a tow truck for assistance.

Still waiting on your solution, a real solution to the problem of police and EMT workers who have no choice but to leave their vehicle and risk getting run over! Come on, you asked me whether I thought this was a good idea and I didn't weasel out on you. Do me the same favour.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
Again, I fail to see how this isn't a rational law. Seat belt laws, helmet laws, there's a point to be made, but this isn't about protecting you from your own stupid decisions, but protecting others from your own stupid decisions.


Rational laws are unnecessary to regulate rational men. It is logical to yield for an approaching emergency vehicle, and to slow and be cautious of emergency vehicles at the scene of an accident. Some posters in this thread are aware of these laws, and others who are unaware of them self-regulate in the spirit of them. Many others care very little for the laws and will continue to break them regardless how many exist. All are categorized similarly and measured equally in the eyes of the law.

The move over America website lists Deputy Ryan Seguin, the unfortunate and tragic victim of one of these accidents. The offender, Valdo Vega:

www.thepolicespecial.com

Valdo Vega tested negative for drugs and alcohol, though he did have a suspended license for failing to pay a speeding ticket.

Vega, 21, of Hollywood, Fla., has had four previous driving citations, including three for speeding. Authorities said in one instance, he was cited for traveling 95 mph in a 65 mph zone.


has a history of reckless driving.

Sometimes, I suppose, even firefighters get it wrong
:



(He was released twenty-three minutes later without charges, and was awarded a sum of money in civil court.)

One more video, somewhat related, two emergency vehicles, which should yield?:




posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
However, it can be argued that you do not need to get out of your car on the freeway, you can call a tow truck for assistance.


This. This is what I was getting at about creating a structure where fools feel safe despite the absolute and irrefutable fact that they are not.

As long as fools continue to feel safe they will persistently behave foolishly.

This is the only solution. Any measure less is simply a band-aid on a sucking chest wound or a blanket on a 90% 3rd degree burn victim.

People need to be permitted the consequences of their actions and allowed to accept the reality that no person or organization or government is capable of looking out for them despite endless promises to perform just that task.

In this way we encourage a mature, thoughtful and mindful society.

Until the training wheels come off we'll never learn to really ride the bike.

[edit on 11-8-2010 by thisguyrighthere]



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


Here's the GA law...not just for cops...any emergency vehicles and workers.

www.gahighwaysafety.org...



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


I'm curious to see which of these laws, if any, make allowances for anyone on the side of the highway. Not just cops and people with blinking lights.

Seems it would have been simpler to write the laws as all-inclusive of any motorist on the side of the highway. Why take extra time to exclude anyone who isnt a worker or cop or other flashing light apparently "superior-class" individual?

Regardless this is all off the main point. Being the stupidity and ultimate futility of the law to perform its claimed task.

Because if the drunk and speeding jackass didnt stop at the drinking and speeding laws he's sure to stop at the "move over" law. Third law is the charm I suppose.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Dewi Winters
 


those kinds of movies make me sick fracking cops(farscape not circumvention) let firefighters do thre job we need a law to give command of accidents to firemen not gestapo cops like those in the videos i hope that cop lost his job in the first one is there any way i can find out more info on what happened?

ps i just watched 2nd video did any one else see that cop run the stopsign AFTER he turned his emergency lights and sirenes off?

[edit on 11-8-2010 by KilrathiLG]



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


I agree. I dont know why people would have a problem with this.

I saw one cop walking back to his car after writing one guy a ticket and a car go flying past him over the speed limit and almost clip him.

He went after the car, and got it, but if people cant use good common sense, apparently we need to make laws to enforce good common sense. Common sense would tell you when there are people (or for me, animals too) on the side of the road SLOW DOWN and pay close attention.

But half the drivers on the road cant even see a "right lane closed ahead merge left" sign with blinking lights and traffic cones everywhere until they are right at the point the lane ends, so clearly, paying attention is too much to ask.




top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join