Tux of Borg Posted March 25, 2011 Posted March 25, 2011 I know that while living in Buffalo, and down here in Atlanta, the police have officers setup at the checkpoints JUST TO WATCH FOR cars that quickly turn around or avoid the checkpoint, and then they go after them. Usually, the people who are in a hurry to avoid the checkpoint are the ones they are actually after. You're better off taking the 2 minutes to hand the guy your license and keep on rolling. I wouldn't say just to watch for cars that turn around. However, we do put a vehicle near the entrance of the chute to go after cars that try to avoid the check point. And in my experience, most of the stops end up in tickets and arrests. If you noticed I said earlier that I felt the app should not be illegal. I also feel that checkpoints are ok. Now having said that from what I've heard, at least when I lived in souther CA, those checkpoints typically didn't result in too many arrests for DUI seeing people do see them ahead of time and can bail out of them. The public demands that checkpoints be fair and impartial. If we have a nighttime checkpoint in a high crime area, the next checkpoint needs to be during the daytime in a low crime area. It's not as simple as setting up a checkpoint down the street from your local bar every weekend. Isn't this basically the same issue that some states have with radar detectors? Essentially you're circumventing law enforcement. Think about it from a different perspective. If you're out for a nice drive with your family on Saturday, maybe heading out to dinner, do your really want to risk getting creamed by some hammered moron. Especially if the idiot got drunk because he had an app? I personally don't have a problem with people having a radar detector or using an app like Trapster. If i see that one of my radar spots gets listed on Trapster, i just move to another location. The ultimate goal is for safe driving and if an app tells them i am sitting there, then they are going to drive safer. As far as radar detectors go, if the officer is properly running radar/lidar that radar detector is worthless. I don't 'transmit' on my radar until until after i get a good visual speed estimate of the vehicle. By the time the violator hears his detector going off, I'm already locked in.
Chef Jim Posted March 25, 2011 Posted March 25, 2011 The public demands that checkpoints be fair and impartial. If we have a nighttime checkpoint in a high crime area, the next checkpoint needs to be during the daytime in a low crime area. It's not as simple as setting up a checkpoint down the street from your local bar every weekend. How successful are they as far as the number of people arrested vs the number of cars that actually go through? Or is it more of a presence thing? Reason I ask is I read an article when I lived in Orange county about how many people they actually pulled over and how many they arrested. It was from a checkpoint that I had gone through and there where shitloads of cars in that backup. I was surprised how low the results were.
GoodBye Posted March 25, 2011 Posted March 25, 2011 That's one of the common arguments if you read the thread on the post -- it's public information anyway and most places give you the ability to bypass the checkpoint by using side streets. I can't say that I've ever seen a checkpoint in Minnesota, so I'm not sure if they're legal here. The article says that they're not legal in Oregon. We are too busy smookin' doobies that we won't even see the checkpoints if they existed.
Chef Jim Posted March 25, 2011 Posted March 25, 2011 We are too busy smookin' doobies that we won't even see the checkpoints if they existed. You too?!?!
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 26, 2011 Posted March 26, 2011 If I remember correctly, there are studies out there that have texting while driving as being worse than being drunk. It's pretty much common sense since texting involves looking away from the road while the drunk can still actually see. I'm not sure how many have banned it so far, but I know a lot of places are at least looking into it if they haven't already. Those no cell phone laws have to be much easier to enforce than drunk driving. A drunk can at least disguise it but I don't know how you hide the fact that you have a phone in your hand. Tinted windows? But those (front) are illegal too!
Tux of Borg Posted March 26, 2011 Posted March 26, 2011 How successful are they as far as the number of people arrested vs the number of cars that actually go through? Or is it more of a presence thing? Reason I ask is I read an article when I lived in Orange county about how many people they actually pulled over and how many they arrested. It was from a checkpoint that I had gone through and there where shitloads of cars in that backup. I was surprised how low the results were. Not all the cars in line get checked. When the cars start to get backed up we perform a 'flush' and let everyone through. Once the last car is through and there is a break in traffic, the head of the checkpoint will say we are stopping the next car that is coming through. The reason why we wait for a break in traffic is so we can't be accused of profiling vehicles. I've always felt that checkpoints are more of a presence thing. The stats will vary depending on where the checkpoint is held, but typically the stats aren't as high as people would think. If you have a checkpoint in a low income/high crime area, you are going to see a lot of unsafe vehicles, faulty equipment, suspended license, no insurance, etc... If you hold a checkpoint in a higher income/low crime area, you'll have the same amount of contacts but won't have anything to write them for.
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 26, 2011 Posted March 26, 2011 Not all the cars in line get checked. When the cars start to get backed up we perform a 'flush' and let everyone through. Once the last car is through and there is a break in traffic, the head of the checkpoint will say we are stopping the next car that is coming through. The reason why we wait for a break in traffic is so we can't be accused of profiling vehicles. I've always felt that checkpoints are more of a presence thing. The stats will vary depending on where the checkpoint is held, but typically the stats aren't as high as people would think. If you have a checkpoint in a low income/high crime area, you are going to see a lot of unsafe vehicles, faulty equipment, suspended license, no insurance, etc... If you hold a checkpoint in a higher income/low crime area, you'll have the same amount of contacts but won't have anything to write them for. Womb to the tomb baby! A lot of communities are in fiscal straights and we need to start cutting back on the "presence" thing... It is a total waste of money... It just doesn't work as well as the police establishment wants us to believe. Yet, anybody can cook numbers up to tell a story they want told. It will never be a perfect world and the costs (all) of "presence" is so out of whack with benefit. Look how the DARE program has been called out as ineffective and basically a waste. Another of my pet peeves: Like my community/village... One of the hot button topics in town is saving money. There is a village board election coming up April 5th. We don't have a residency requirement... So the chief of police and fire chief live in other towns... About 5 to 10 miles away... They give a car to the chief of police to take home. The give a car to the fire chief to take home... They don't even live in town... What kinda "presence" is that seeing another town's cop car in a driveway? :rolleyes: AND on top of it the fire chief is a professional firefighter in the town he lives in AND he isn't required to go on calls in our town! This issue is really dividing the village board. How screwy is this? I don't mind giving them cars... BUT only if they live in town and go on calls. Why should our village cars leave jurisdiction for non-official business? We really gotta stop feeding into the police and fire, "we need you at all cost mentailty"... We need to start cutting back the OT and what not. If they work holidays and weekends, give them comp time... Just like the rest of the world works. "Great nations have their heros, it is the sad nation that needs them."
Dan Posted March 26, 2011 Posted March 26, 2011 Yeah... Maybe for DUI that works better... I would love if they go after me for a seat belt check... Because the belt will be on. I am not anti-seat belts, they work... I am just anti-seat belt law. In Illinois there is such a double standard... Seat belt law and kids in car seats to 8 years old... Yet, on a motorcycle... No helmet law... Not even for a child on back. The Seat Belt laws are horrible. A great representation of my civil liberties being infringed upon with legislation that has to be passed because if you're against it you're anti-kid. I'm sure a 5-point seat belt would be safer; why not helmets while you drive; fire retardant suits? All of those would make driving safer if you got in a wreck. If I'm willing to risk putting my life in danger by not wearing a seat belt; I should be allowed that right. It's a stupid law, that I don't abide by (and have paid the fine for on numerous occasions). If I remember correctly, there are studies out there that have texting while driving as being worse than being drunk. It's pretty much common sense since texting involves looking away from the road while the drunk can still actually see. I'm not sure how many have banned it so far, but I know a lot of places are at least looking into it if they haven't already. Those no cell phone laws have to be much easier to enforce than drunk driving. A drunk can at least disguise it but I don't know how you hide the fact that you have a phone in your hand. Cell Phone laws are just about as stupid. How is talking on my cell phone any more distracting that talking to someone in the passenger seat? And I don't buy the idea that one hand is holding the phone. How many people drive with both hands on the wheel at 10 and 2? Few, if any. Again, it's just something that legislators have to pass because if they don't they're deemed insensitive to some dead kid/person. I am just as capable of maintaining control of my vehicle while holding a phone to my ear as I am sipping on a cup of coffee while switching the radio and talking to my buddy in the passenger seat.. just that none of those things are deemed bad. Texting.. yeah I can see that. It's by far one of the more distracting things you can do while driving (I do it), due to the reading and typing involved. However, is it a law that we really need to enact and then spend invaluable resources trying to enforce when there's so many other things we should be spending our law enforcement dollars on. Which brings me to my final point below.... Not all the cars in line get checked. When the cars start to get backed up we perform a 'flush' and let everyone through. Once the last car is through and there is a break in traffic, the head of the checkpoint will say we are stopping the next car that is coming through. The reason why we wait for a break in traffic is so we can't be accused of profiling vehicles. I've always felt that checkpoints are more of a presence thing. The stats will vary depending on where the checkpoint is held, but typically the stats aren't as high as people would think. If you have a checkpoint in a low income/high crime area, you are going to see a lot of unsafe vehicles, faulty equipment, suspended license, no insurance, etc... If you hold a checkpoint in a higher income/low crime area, you'll have the same amount of contacts but won't have anything to write them for. And that is my problem with these checkpoints and traffic stakeouts. How many tax dollars are spent checking to see if I have an insurance card in my vehicle while far more serious criminals are roaming the streets freely. Certainly, I'm sure there are occasions when a checkpoint or traffic stakeout gets a real criminal off the street; but it seems far more successful at stopping people and nickel and diming them for minor offenses than anything else. Why not spend the same amount of time trying to find the guy that's selling drugs to everyone in town, or stealing cars, or breaking into houses, or any other serious crime. I guess it's easier to get me for a faulty tail light or out of date inspection sticker than it is to run down drug dealers and armed robbers. If the intent is to get drunk drivers off the street then set the check point up outside the bars and get the drunks. If you can't do that.. then stop wasting all our time just to make sure we've gotten our insurance cards up to date and actually in my car.
Clippers of Nfl Posted March 26, 2011 Posted March 26, 2011 I wouldn't say just to watch for cars that turn around. However, we do put a vehicle near the entrance of the chute to go after cars that try to avoid the check point. And in my experience, most of the stops end up in tickets and arrests. The public demands that checkpoints be fair and impartial. If we have a nighttime checkpoint in a high crime area, the next checkpoint needs to be during the daytime in a low crime area. It's not as simple as setting up a checkpoint down the street from your local bar every weekend. I personally don't have a problem with people having a radar detector or using an app like Trapster. If i see that one of my radar spots gets listed on Trapster, i just move to another location. The ultimate goal is for safe driving and if an app tells them i am sitting there, then they are going to drive safer. As far as radar detectors go, if the officer is properly running radar/lidar that radar detector is worthless. I don't 'transmit' on my radar until until after i get a good visual speed estimate of the vehicle. By the time the violator hears his detector going off, I'm already locked in. nice advice on not buying a detector. thanks. The Seat Belt laws are horrible. A great representation of my civil liberties being infringed upon with legislation that has to be passed because if you're against it you're anti-kid. I'm sure a 5-point seat belt would be safer; why not helmets while you drive; fire retardant suits? All of those would make driving safer if you got in a wreck. If I'm willing to risk putting my life in danger by not wearing a seat belt; I should be allowed that right. It's a stupid law, that I don't abide by (and have paid the fine for on numerous occasions). Cell Phone laws are just about as stupid. How is talking on my cell phone any more distracting that talking to someone in the passenger seat? And I don't buy the idea that one hand is holding the phone. How many people drive with both hands on the wheel at 10 and 2? Few, if any. Again, it's just something that legislators have to pass because if they don't they're deemed insensitive to some dead kid/person. I am just as capable of maintaining control of my vehicle while holding a phone to my ear as I am sipping on a cup of coffee while switching the radio and talking to my buddy in the passenger seat.. just that none of those things are deemed bad. Texting.. yeah I can see that. It's by far one of the more distracting things you can do while driving (I do it), due to the reading and typing involved. However, is it a law that we really need to enact and then spend invaluable resources trying to enforce when there's so many other things we should be spending our law enforcement dollars on. Which brings me to my final point below.... And that is my problem with these checkpoints and traffic stakeouts. How many tax dollars are spent checking to see if I have an insurance card in my vehicle while far more serious criminals are roaming the streets freely. Certainly, I'm sure there are occasions when a checkpoint or traffic stakeout gets a real criminal off the street; but it seems far more successful at stopping people and nickel and diming them for minor offenses than anything else. Why not spend the same amount of time trying to find the guy that's selling drugs to everyone in town, or stealing cars, or breaking into houses, or any other serious crime. I guess it's easier to get me for a faulty tail light or out of date inspection sticker than it is to run down drug dealers and armed robbers. If the intent is to get drunk drivers off the street then set the check point up outside the bars and get the drunks. If you can't do that.. then stop wasting all our time just to make sure we've gotten our insurance cards up to date and actually in my car. nice post
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 26, 2011 Posted March 26, 2011 (edited) Take this FWIW... And you know me as a total dolt... Well "some" of you. I just got off a speeding rap in December... I will always go to court when I get a ticket... In hopes the officer doesn't show... Well, many other officers didn't show when I went... Those cases were dropped and the people were free to go. But my douchebag officer was one of the only ones to show... Nice! I remembered him and layed low in court, with my defense. So we go to "mini-trial"... I won, I couldn't believe it!. I did exactly what the judge said, asked quetions when I cross-examined the state's case... And won! The judge may have been in a Christmas mood... But I made my point sanely without aruging... GASP!!! The cop was a real "winner." When cross-examined, he couldn't couldn't remember what color car I had, If anybody was with me (my wife was), etc... etc... Of course I crafted my questions CAREFULLY without leading him into the right answers. I was pretty proud and it was easy to do. The state's case was that he got me going the other way in a 45... Said I was going 60. I made the defense that it wasn't me he tagged, he got another car... Either in front of me or behind me... He fIrmly stated that, it was me he got... I created reasonable doubt with the judge... He couldn't answer even the basic questions described above... Didn't know how heavy the traffic was, etc... He never looked at notes... BUT, I was going to attempt a "hearsay" objection if he did... I am not sure how that would have worked? Anyway... I got off even the radar rap... Really, I wasn't speeding... I think he either lied or got the car in front of me. I turned off down another road... He blew a u-turn to give pursuit. The best advice... NEVER create an image in the officers head... Obviously get a continuance if you can, that will put the scene farther out of the cop's mind. Just take the ticket and lay low... Thank them... Mind your "yes sirs, no mams"... Be polite and subservient! Make them think you will just pay, go online, or whatever. Try to get out of their "playground" as quick as possible. They write so many tickets and traffic court is one big scam of justice... You don't want any memory of the event in the officer's mind. Of course you should remember every little detail of the incident... Which I did, everything. Creating doubt is what you have to do. The judge in my case was asking all kinds of question about radar, calibration, what happend when the cruiser is going a certain speed... Maybe I just got a dolt officer (bigger than me) and it was Christmas... ?? But I stuck to my guns and had my day in court. Get it right out of your mind that you get "your day" while you are stopped! You can usually ask for a warning, that may work. The ticket was gonna be 75 dollar with no school. When people before me pled guilty in court, the judge gave them a $10 fine and $190 court cost fee. I had to stick to my guns! Courts don't like when you expose them as a farce of justice and a "money maker"... They get mighty defensive! Yet, if you do expose it (traffic court) for what its worth and do it politely and procedurally... They usually want to get the person out of their face so they can pick on/fleece somebody easier. Do I sound like a liberal? Edited March 26, 2011 by ExiledInIllinois
Fezmid Posted March 26, 2011 Author Posted March 26, 2011 The ticket was gonna be 75 dollar with no school. $75 ticket?!?! Geez... I got pulled over for allegedly doing 75 in a 65 and the ticket was ~$170... I was going to challenge it (I was only going 69... Yeah, still speeding), but I was leaving my job and coworkers put together a big lunch for me that day. And I didn't want to reschedule because asking for a day off of work that soon after starting a new job didn't seem like a good idea. But I still know I wasn't going 75.... Especially with what the cop said. "I saw you fly past as I was getting onto the highway, but figured it was just because I was going so slow on the onramp. Then I started following you and saw you were going too fast." If that was a true story, how fast must the cop have been going to catch up to me? Oh well.
Clippers of Nfl Posted March 26, 2011 Posted March 26, 2011 Take this FWIW... And you know me as a total dolt... Well "some" of you. I just got off a speeding rap in December... I will always go to court when I get a ticket... In hopes the officer doesn't show... Well, many other officers didn't show when I went... Those cases were dropped and the people were free to go. But my douchebag officer was one of the only ones to show... Nice! I remembered him and layed low in court, with my defense. So we go to "mini-trial"... I won, I couldn't believe it!. I did exactly what the judge said, asked quetions when I cross-examined the state's case... And won! The judge may have been in a Christmas mood... But I made my point sanely without aruging... GASP!!! The cop was a real "winner." When cross-examined, he couldn't couldn't remember what color car I had, If anybody was with me (my wife was), etc... etc... Of course I crafted my questions CAREFULLY without leading him into the right answers. I was pretty proud and it was easy to do. The state's case was that he got me going the other way in a 45... Said I was going 60. I made the defense that it wasn't me he tagged, he got another car... Either in front of me or behind me... He fIrmly stated that, it was me he got... I created reasonable doubt with the judge... He couldn't answer even the basic questions described above... Didn't know how heavy the traffic was, etc... He never looked at notes... BUT, I was going to attempt a "hearsay" objection if he did... I am not sure how that would have worked? Anyway... I got off even the radar rap... Really, I wasn't speeding... I think he either lied or got the car in front of me. I turned off down another road... He blew a u-turn to give pursuit. The best advice... NEVER create an image in the officers head... Obviously get a continuance if you can, that will put the scene farther out of the cop's mind. Just take the ticket and lay low... Thank them... Mind your "yes sirs, no mams"... Be polite and subservient! Make them think you will just pay, go online, or whatever. Try to get out of their "playground" as quick as possible. They write so many tickets and traffic court is one big scam of justice... You don't want any memory of the event in the officer's mind. Of course you should remember every little detail of the incident... Which I did, everything. Creating doubt is what you have to do. The judge in my case was asking all kinds of question about radar, calibration, what happend when the cruiser is going a certain speed... Maybe I just got a dolt officer (bigger than me) and it was Christmas... ?? But I stuck to my guns and had my day in court. Get it right out of your mind that you get "your day" while you are stopped! You can usually ask for a warning, that may work. The ticket was gonna be 75 dollar with no school. When people before me pled guilty in court, the judge gave them a $10 fine and $190 court cost fee. I had to stick to my guns! Courts don't like when you expose them as a farce of justice and a "money maker"... They get mighty defensive! Yet, if you do expose it (traffic court) for what its worth and do it politely and procedurally... They usually want to get the person out of their face so they can pick on/fleece somebody easier. Do I sound like a liberal? nice advice baby! i always pay and go to traffic school. whos the dolt now. by the way, that is a cheap ass ticket. they start at 270 in southern cal. parking tickets can almost be that much. lol from now on i will do it the exiled way.
DC Tom Posted March 26, 2011 Posted March 26, 2011 Cell Phone laws are just about as stupid. How is talking on my cell phone any more distracting that talking to someone in the passenger seat? Maybe you're special. Most people I see talking on the cell phone can't drive for **** while they're doing it - unilke a conversation with a passenger, most people seem to be FAR too stupid to prioritize driving over their phone conversations. Last two times my wife was hit, it was by someone too interested in their phone to pay attention to the road. One of those women stayed on the phone through the accident (including when the air bag went off - impressive, really), and refused to interrupt her phone call to answer the cops' questions. (And yes, she went from a traffic citation to a couple of misdemeanor charges very quickly.) Bottom line: never underestimate the stupidity of people behind the wheel.
Dan Posted March 27, 2011 Posted March 27, 2011 Maybe you're special. Most people I see talking on the cell phone can't drive for **** while they're doing it - unilke a conversation with a passenger, most people seem to be FAR too stupid to prioritize driving over their phone conversations. Last two times my wife was hit, it was by someone too interested in their phone to pay attention to the road. One of those women stayed on the phone through the accident (including when the air bag went off - impressive, really), and refused to interrupt her phone call to answer the cops' questions. (And yes, she went from a traffic citation to a couple of misdemeanor charges very quickly.) Bottom line: never underestimate the stupidity of people behind the wheel. I can agree with that... me being special of course. ...and perhaps the rest of it. Most people are stupid. But, why do we have to follow stupid laws for stupid people? You can't legislate our stupid. I've seen plenty of people that can't drive for **** regardless of what they're doing, yet they're still out there driving around. I've had plenty of close calls while driving on my phone; unlike the idiots you mention though, I just drop the phone and grab the wheel - phone be damned.
Alaska Darin Posted March 27, 2011 Posted March 27, 2011 Yeah because getting drunk drivers off the road is a really bad idea. I think your weed is making you a bit paranoid. DUI checkpoints don't get drunk drivers off the road. If they did, we wouldn't have the recidivism rates we do. DUI checkpoints are about money.
Sig1Hunter Posted March 27, 2011 Posted March 27, 2011 Really you don't need the app... Especially where I live... It is so damn flat and everything is a grid with the streets... Not that I drive drunk. You can see a checkpoint a 3 miles away. They do it here on the holidays for seat belts and "safety"... Yeah, fiscally restrained communities having cops work OT on the holidays "checking seat belts." Where does the silliness end? It's not silliness if you understand the why behind checkpoints...agencies get money from the Feds for conducting them. Checkpoints are surprisingly ineffective at removing impaired drivers from the roads. They do provide somewhat of a deterrent effect, and give the public a sense of security, but the main reason for them is the federal grants provided by NHTSA.
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 27, 2011 Posted March 27, 2011 nice advice baby! i always pay and go to traffic school. whos the dolt now. by the way, that is a cheap ass ticket. they start at 270 in southern cal. parking tickets can almost be that much. lol from now on i will do it the exiled way. See that is the thing... I don't get a lot of tickets and ALWAYS go to court. Maybe 1 every 5 or more years. I went to court one time about 15 years ago and the female judge basically said to everybody contesting: "If you don't plead guilty, I will believe the officer." WTF is that about? What a sham! So I pled guilty... The fine and fee was less years ago. Ticket would have still been around 75 with no school, 100ish with school. Pleading guilt back then, it was only under 50. So here has been my logic: Go to court and maybe lose and pay less, while having to defer paying all together and still "get your day in court" to face your accuser. Okay, so I go this time and people ahead of me are either getting dismissed (no cop, no show... Two weeks before Christmas) OR they plead guilty and pay 10 fine and 190 in court costs! I thought to myself 190! That is double than going to school. I had to dig in and least go down with a fight! Maybe the judge was irked that people pled not guilty and then didn't fight or see it to mini-trial? I was the only one to "dig in." AND I LISTENED TO THE JUDGE ON HOW THE MINI_TRIAL WILL PROCEED. I didn't argue, I waited for the state to rest its case... And I asked nothing but questions, then made my closing argument... VERY PROCEDURAL. Everybody else laid down and did their best French by pleady guilty right away. Of course given the way the officer supposedly "got me" I would do the same again.. If the situation was different and he busted for a red-light or whatever... I may rethink going to court. With radar and certain situations, I think it is worth the try and would do it again! Anyway... There was a car ahead of me hauling. I seen the cop blow a u-turn in my rear view... He had to wait about sometime to clear traffic... I had two choices to make... Head the other 1/2 mile into Indiana across the state line, or turn north and then east into Indiana... I choose to turn... My logic was if I seen him fly by... It was the other guy... Anyway, he came for me. If I had to do it again, I would have headed straight... MAYBE he was going after the other guy and decide to take me "the easy bait" since I was staying in Illinois? It was a dumb move on me, but I wanted to be sure if he was going after me or not... Soas if he was, I could gain an extra few minutes to be composed... Or maybe I would lose him. He had to be going a 120 miles an hour in a 45 to catch up with me... While I maintained 45... I didn't want to speed up, then he would just get me for that! DUI checkpoints don't get drunk drivers off the road. If they did, we wouldn't have the recidivism rates we do. DUI checkpoints are about money. :thumbsup: So are 10 fines and 190 court costs... 190 court fees? WTF... Cook coounty was raking in the dough just before Christmas! Well, heck everyday! Problem is overpaid: Lawyers and judges, that got people by the short hairs. Another time about 20 years ago I went to court and the cop didn't show... The prosecutor just gave me back my license (they take your license in IL, in lieu of a bond card) and send very snippy: "You can leave." I didn't know what was going on and I started asking questions... He got even more pissed: "JUST LEAVE!" It is nothing but a money fleecing sham! He made me feel like he was gonna have to drink Bud that night instead of Heineken... It's not silliness if you understand the why behind checkpoints...agencies get money from the Feds for conducting them. Checkpoints are surprisingly ineffective at removing impaired drivers from the roads. They do provide somewhat of a deterrent effect, and give the public a sense of security, but the main reason for them is the federal grants provided by NHTSA. Don't even get into this with AD. BTW, I agree with AD.
BuffaloBill Posted March 27, 2011 Posted March 27, 2011 I suppose one could argue that it is a form of free speech. Perhaps this is not much different than if I were to post in this forum .... there is a roadblock at such and such a location. The app may make it easier and faster but it is not that unlike other tools. With that said, if you need to look at your app for roadblocks then you should not be driving, it is that simple.
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 27, 2011 Posted March 27, 2011 I suppose one could argue that it is a form of free speech. Perhaps this is not much different than if I were to post in this forum .... there is a roadblock at such and such a location. The app may make it easier and faster but it is not that unlike other tools. With that said, if you need to look at your app for roadblocks then you should not be driving, it is that simple. Or... Like I said earlier in the thread. I usually blink at the oncoming traffic when I see a cop hiding... A lot of people blink back with a "Thank You" and thumbs up! Unless it is another Jeep and then it confused with that silly "Jeep wave."
meazza Posted March 27, 2011 Posted March 27, 2011 If checkpoints are publicly announced beforehand (as I think they are in many places), it's a non-issue. If they're not...then they should be, because I sure as **** don't want law enforcement operating under a veil of secrecy. "But think of the children!" Arguments to sympathy aren't arguments at all. If the guys sober enough to actually use the app properly ...
Recommended Posts