Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What America's coming to is that if someone breaks the speed limit and gets caught for doing so, they think it's the cop's fault they were speeding and got caught rather than saying, "Oh, yeah, well, I did something against the law and it's my fault".
Don't like the speed limit somewhere? Work to get it changed. But obey it until it's changed (and know the law regarding school zones in your area BEFORE you drive through them - they're pretty likely to be the same all throughout your city).
I've never had to stare at school zone signs in order to read them. I have had to look at them. Maybe you need a vision test?
And what Rubi3 said.
To quickly answer your question, TexasHorseLady... it's all about accountability.
Nobody's responsible for anything they do today. It's always someone else's fault.
Little Johnny doesn't have ADD...
He's got no father at home while his mother works 3 jobs to pay the bills, and doesn't get the guidance that a youngster needs to keep him out of trouble.
Instead, he's diag'd with ADD, over medicated, and now sits in the back of the class and sleeps, and when he fails his test, it's the teacher's fault...
Accountability. Taking personal responsibility for ones own actions.
There are after school programs.... and as such, you can expect kids to be out there till 4:45....
You got caught. Been there. I was once in a cluster of cars when the red lights went off and I dutifully pulled over and got a ticket. I responded with -- but what about those others? And the officer said -- they didn't stop.
some sort of life lesson there....
An LEO friend of mine told my father something once in a discussion about how they can single out one car in a pack to give a ticket. His response was "When you go fishing, do you catch all the fish?"
You're right about school programs. My son's after school care program lasts until 5:45pm every day. Baseball season has just started for us, so I am over at the field at the school some nights until 7pm. I don't ever speed through a school zone. It might tack ten seconds on to my trip, but gives me peace of mind to know that I didn't blast past one of my son's friends and endanger them.
Wtf? You never voted for it? How about bringing it up to your local representatives and changing the laws? You don't get to vote on police officer activity as they just enforce the law. I swear people have no clue how things work and don't care to actually make efforts to change things they don't like, instead they just complain
They can enforce the law? But have NO business with motor vehicles. I know its just ME saying that, but by tradition we have had all this enforcement forced on all of us.
Some cities and states have gotten out of hand with penalties. Instead of viewing fees and tickets as a form of punishment and deterrent they now view it as a revenue source.
I live in the country, when I drive through little towns, I always make sure I am under the limit. Though, it is interesting that when I do see these small time cops pull over cars, it is almost always old junkie cars. Maybe poor people are more rushed trying to get to their next job, or maybe the cops know that they'll probably be able to get an extra fine because they don't have insurance. You can guess what my cynical self believes.
The moderators seem to like to delete links to other sites. If that happens it's an article on Slate, just do a search for John Oliver and municipal fines, why speeding tickets have gotten so out of control.
They can enforce the law? But have NO business with motor vehicles. I know its just ME saying that, but by tradition we have had all this enforcement forced on all of us.
you think that perhaps that is what cops are paid to do? you know ENFORCE the laws in this country? if you dont like a particular law, then work to get it changed. what do you think would happen if laws were not enforced? for example, it is against the law to run a red light, but you decide you dont like that law and choose to ignore it. one day you decide to run that red light you always hit, and when you do, you hit a car full of young children being driven to school, the doctors office, or where ever.
are you then going to claim tha because you dont like the red light law, you dont have to pay the damages? that you shouldnt get a ticket? that someone is going to have to pay for the damages to your car?
this passage from the case that was linked to indicates that driving is NOT, repeat NOT a right. so again you fail.
*Sigh* No, it indicates driving is not a fundamental right. I already went over that part, but as we both know by now, reading is not your strong suit. Contained within your own quote from the case is a citation to and quote from a Supreme Court case that affirms the license suspension -- albeit after the fact which most likely would not be permitted were it a fundamental right -- precisely because the the appellant was accorded due process under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
So let me try to explain this one more time as simply as I can: A privilege can be issued, restricted, and/or revoked at the government's discretion, such as at-will employment with the government, a month-to-month lease on government property, tax subsidies, government grants, access to public lands, granting of landmark status, etc. By contrast, government cannot deny you a driver's license without a compelling interest in doing so; and once issued, your right to drive cannot be restricted or revoked without due process of law.
If you wish to review case law that clearly holds driving is more than a mere privilege, consider Bell v. Burson ("Suspension of issued licenses thus involves state action that adjudicates important interests of the licensees. In such cases the licenses are not to be taken away without that procedural due process required by the Fourteenth Amendment."); Wall v. King ("We have no doubt that the freedom to make use of one's own property, here a motor vehicle, as a means of getting about from place to place, whether in pursuit of business or pleasure, is a 'liberty' which under the Fourteenth Amendment cannot be denied or curtailed by a state without due process of law."); Raper v. Lucey ("We thus conclude that fourteenth amendment due process will attach to state procedures regulating the application and issuance of a motor vehicle operator's license. Consequently, the claims asserted in the complaint must be said to involve a federally protected right."); or Schuman v. California ("[T]he application and suspension of such a motor vehicle license must comport with the due process requirements of the fourteenth amendment of the federal Constitution.").
If you still don't get it by now I doubt you will any time soon. In either case there's no point in carrying on any further with this diversion.
So as long as you believe what you are doing is "right" its okay to break the law?
Exactly.
Speeding is a "strict liability" violation, which means you don't have to knowingly or willfully drive too fast in order to be guilty of it.
I'm also confused as to how one can know it's a school zone, yet go ahead and speed because they don't see pedestrians (which means you violated the speed limit willfully, anyway). But then - after the fact - have the following litany of complaints:
The school zone sign was not clearly visible or too small (but YOU saw it when you had time to look around for pedestrians and decide it was OK to speed, right?)
I was going with the flow of traffic, aka the other-cars-were-driving-just-as-fast argument (by law, it doesn't matter what the other drivers are doing, and for all you know, the camera caught them, too)
Kids aren't in school at that time of day (as others have pointed out, they actually are. But this doesn't matter, anyway, because the speed limit was in effect at the time you violated it)
Other schools in the area have different times in which their respective speed zones are in effect (this matters how?)
I'm sensing an unwillingness/inability to accept responsibility, which - as others have stated - is indicative of America, today, unfortunately.
I've had several tickets in my life. Each time, I knew I was speeding, though one time it was not until after I was stopped. Regardless, I knew I broke the law and I paid the tickets. I didn't do it gleefully, but I was angrier with myself more than anything else. No, I'm not "holier than thou" and am not a "better" driver than the next guy or gal. I'm not saying that, nor am I seeing where anyone else in this thread has been "self-righteous" or come across with a similar attitude.
This is not aimed at the OP, specifically. But in my experience, people who like to toss around the "holier-than-though" claim whenever a fault is pointed out are people who simply don't like to admit to what they (or the person they're supporting) did wrong. Again, it goes back to an unwillingness to accept responsibility for one's actions. Moreover, in some of these posts, there's an obvious predisposed dislike of those who are tasked with enforcing the law - be it police officers, judges, whomever. If someone has that kind of dislike for our judicial system and has such a jaundiced view, it's difficult for others to take their points all that seriously. Not only that, but from what I've seen, such a predisposition comes from either having run afoul of the law too many times, themselves, or from simply being a person who wants do whatever you want to do, consequence free, and disliking anyone who says otherwise. Sorry, but living within the boundaries of any society comes with rules.
Now, if someone doesn't like those rules, or thinks there are soooo many laws that need to be changed, my advice would be to try and make it happen. Call elected representatives, complain intelligently (don't drop F-bombs and keep saying "this is BS") to someone who can actually make those changes.
Otherwise, doing nothing but ranting about how corrupt our government is probably isn't going to produce much in the way of positive results.
*Sigh* No, it indicates driving is not a fundamental right. I already went over that part, but as we both know by now, reading is not your strong suit. Contained within your own quote from the case is a citation to and quote from a Supreme Court case that affirms the license suspension -- albeit after the fact which most likely would not be permitted were it a fundamental right -- precisely because the the appellant was accorded due process under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
So let me try to explain this one more time as simply as I can: A privilege can be issued, restricted, and/or revoked at the government's discretion, such as at-will employment with the government, a month-to-month lease on government property, tax subsidies, government grants, access to public lands, granting of landmark status, etc. By contrast, government cannot deny you a driver's license without a compelling interest in doing so; and once issued, your right to drive cannot be restricted or revoked without due process of law.
If you wish to review case law that clearly holds driving is more than a mere privilege, consider Bell v. Burson ("Suspension of issued licenses thus involves state action that adjudicates important interests of the licensees. In such cases the licenses are not to be taken away without that procedural due process required by the Fourteenth Amendment."); Wall v. King ("We have no doubt that the freedom to make use of one's own property, here a motor vehicle, as a means of getting about from place to place, whether in pursuit of business or pleasure, is a 'liberty' which under the Fourteenth Amendment cannot be denied or curtailed by a state without due process of law."); Raper v. Lucey ("We thus conclude that fourteenth amendment due process will attach to state procedures regulating the application and issuance of a motor vehicle operator's license. Consequently, the claims asserted in the complaint must be said to involve a federally protected right."); or Schuman v. California ("[T]he application and suspension of such a motor vehicle license must comport with the due process requirements of the fourteenth amendment of the federal Constitution.").
If you still don't get it by now I doubt you will any time soon. In either case there's no point in carrying on any further with this diversion.
nice try but again you fail to prove that driving is a right, not a privilege. all these case deal with is the process by which licenses can be revoked. they only indicate that the states can not revoke a license without due process, something that is required with ANY license issued by government. but even then there are exceptions, for instance the government can suspend a persons license without due process if said person refuses to take a sobriety test.
From the case cited earlier, Miller v. Reed, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit:
"The district court dismissed Miller's section 1983 claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. We conclude that by denying Miller a single mode of transportation-in a car driven by himself-the DMV did not unconstitutionally impede Miller's right to interstate travel. We also conclude that Miller's free exercise of religion is not violated by California's valid and neutral requirement that all applicants for a new or renewed driver's license provide a social security number. Finally, Miller does not present a hybrid claim, which would require that we apply strict scrutiny to the DMV's failure to issue him a driver's license, because he has failed to supplement his free exercise of religion claim with another constitutional claim of colorable merit."
Wall v. King, United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit, was a case where the registrar, though absolutely within their legal and constitutional authority to suspend a license, did so improperly and without due process. Here's the case for those who would like to read it for themselves.
Bell v. Burson, by the very quote used by Drover, states that it is due process that is a right, not the privilege of driving a motor vehicle, license to do so which may be removed with due process.
The others also have to do with violations of the right of due process. In every case, the privilege of driving may be revoked if due process is followed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
