🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5tjfas$kli@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
Colin R. Leech <ag414@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:

>BS (grimrod@NOSPAMmindless.com) wrote:

>> The counter to this is a video camera in the car.  They already use
>> them to protect the officer in a traffic stop, now if they would just
>> leave them on while driving, they'd have it on film.

>Again I agree this is a good idea, but the number of incidents you can
>capture is very limited. A car travelling with the flow of traffic sees 
>a very limited number of vehicles compared to one stationary at the
>roadside.

Yes; perhaps.  But if one were to believe what the cops who used to
post on this group (it has been notably quiet from them lately,
thankfully!), they can only stop 5 or 6 people an hour.  This means
that there would be little to no difference in the amount of people
who would be targeted; it would just be a better group to target.

>On multilane highways, there could well be incidents warranting
>a closer look all around you that you won't necessarily see because you're
>looking at something else at that moment and don't capture the whole event
>(eg. you're looking straight ahead when somebody two lanes over beside you
>does something stupid). The camera likely wouldn't pick up the licence
>plate, so the camera operator would have to notice the event personally
>and then use the film as the evidence to corroborate the eye-witness
>account. This also means two policemen in the car.

I don't see why a little number on a radar gun does any better at
corroborating the speed the vehicle was travelling-- there is no
permanent record of said speed, nor any recording device.  It is
essentially the cop's word against the driver's word, which means (in
reality) the cop's word in a court of law.  I think it's a crutch for
the cops to say that they can't do much about it because the proof is
limited.  Truth be told, it is far easier to sit on the side of the
road waiting for evil speeders who disobey an arbitrary limit, rather
than being pro-active and citing the dangerous drivers.

>Plus, the police would
>have to start buying unmarked cars that don't stand out in the traffic
>(many unmarked cars are still spotted by the average person).

Funny thing....  My local rag of a newspaper had three consecutive
days of front-page articles about how the local state police are
cracking down on "aggressive drivers."  They are doing so by using
non-traditional unmarked cars.  Since Governor Pataki made it illegal
for unmarked state police cars to pull over drivers, they make radio
contact with a marked unit to make the stop.

This campaign could be a good thing.  However, these jackasses who are
running this program listed what they consider "aggressive."
Unfortunately, "speeding" was numero uno on their list.  In other
words, it is the status quo "speed kills" bullcrap, just in a slightly
different form.

Even better-- about a week or two after this series of articles, there
was an article about how the county DA called on his cellphone to
report a driver behind him who was flashing his lights.  Of course,
the cops responded and wrote the other driver a ticket.  The main
problem here, though, was that the DA was pulling the self-righteous
left-lane hog act, and failed to "keep right except to pass."  Idiot.

-JPC

-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
  John P. Curcio                         jpc@philabs.research.philips.com
  Philips Research     345 Scarborough Road     Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
                 ...I speak for nobody but myself...