Re: Going somewhere, Deputy???

A user's language is obscene. What should I do?

Hello Guest

• Login
• Register…
• Start blog

• Who, Where, When
• What is interesting here?
• Duels

• Polls
• Avatars
• Interests

• Cities and Countries
• Random blog
• Users search

• Search
• Games
• Tests
• CarGuru

• Сообщества
• Talxy Chat
• Horoscope
• Online

CarGuru > Driving > Re: Going somewhere, Deputy??? 15 April 2005 05:59:45

Recent blog posts:

95 mirage
I have a 95 mirage and this is the second time the injector in number 3 cylinder has gone bad. Anything…

1988 Ford F-150 Truck
I would like to remove the pollution control system from my 1988 F-150, 4.9L I6 300 4x4. Can anyone…

my 99 M chrysler has started to…
my 99 M chrysler has started to cool and then starts to give off heat in the ac vents and then cool…

dodge 2000 intrepid
bought this car right off the show room floor in Bartow fl to this date I have not had any work done on…

starting issue, 2002 dodge…
My 2002 Dodge Caravan wouldn't crank. I tested some things, replaced the battery. After installing the…

;-)
;-)

stereo pin
I put a new battery in my girl friends 94 900 and it wants a code for the radio. There is nothing in the…

Coolant temp on Saturn Sky
I just purchased a 2007 Saturn Sky Redline. As I was driving yesterday I happen to have the info set on…

Saturn Sky Red Line
I just purchased a 2007 Saturn Sky Redline. I noticed will driving yesterday that when I turned on the…

Que pour la place trange
Que pour la place trange

They have birthday today:

Esther

all >>

Forums:

topic feeds

• CarGuru all topics, blogs and comments

• Driving

• Formula-1

• Indycar

• Nascar

• Other sport

• Technology

• 4 x 4

• Volkswagen

• Mercedes

• Acura

• Alfa-romeo

• Audi

• BMW

• Chrysler

• Dodge

• Ford

• General Motors

• Jeep Willys

• Honda

• Hyundai

• Mazda

• Nissan

• Peugeot

• Pontiac

• Porsche

• Saab

• Saturn

• Toyota

• Volvo

• Buy / Sell

• Open discussion

• Anonymous

Discuss:

Re: Road test - DMV is cracked
On 28 Oct 2005 02:52:39 -0700, littleboyblu87@yahoo.com wrote: What state is that? In TX, I…

Happy New Year!
Hi Viatologists, The Worldwide Highway Library would like to wish all viatologists a warm, happy New…

ETHANOL: HOW BRAZIL BEATS THE…
I guess America is so involved in fighting terrorism that forgets to prepare herself for a fuel crisis…

Recent forum topics:

Brake Lights won't work
brake lights on 1996 Grand Am won't work. Fuse and lights are fine. Suggestions?

honda civic 87 model problem
i would like some information on why my honda civic wont start at times after its hot when running it…

mazda premacy glowplug lights…
i have a mazda premacy 2litre diesel . have a problem at the moment ,glowplug light flashing with loss…

I have a 96 chrysler new york…
I have a 96 chrysler new york lhs but no owners manuel and on the message center there is a light that i…

Recent forum comments:

RE: Ask How To Replace Headlight…
how do I release the locking ring on the headlamp bulb in a 99 dodge ram 2500?

RE: Re: Transmission shudder when…
who are you speaking to

RE: Re: Transmission shudder when…
I can feel something like a kick when I first hit the gas pedal when I take off.

RE: stuck hatchback
on the rear gate that is

RE: stuck hatchback
just my latch is stuck and the door wont close on my 2000 sub outback limited

RE: 1999 Chrysler T&C - Speed…
I am reading all of this and am amazed at how bad I am getting ripped off by my Chrysler dealership....4…

RE: How to duplicate Navtech CD’s
where can i buy nav cd's for a 2003 s class mercedes also the latest version for a 2005 sl?

RE: Heating problem in 1988 Honda…
well thats no always true!!! my husband replaced the thermostat/thermometer..... and the water…

RE: Mitsubishi Diamante ECU faults…
how did you read the codes

RE: 98 Dodge Grand Caravan Problems
I had the same problem with the instrument panel, after about a months worth of greif, and dollars…

Модератор:

Administrator


Re: Going somewhere, Deputy???
Jaybird 12 April 2005 11:42:24
	"Paul" <kretp@tmy.now> wrote in message news:MPG.1cc4a4f0fe6442f79896da@newsgroups.bellsouth.net...> <rant>> Police hypocrisy for the day: I'm on GA25-spur southbound approaching the> intersection with GA303 in Glynn County in the right lane doing about> 45mph (the posted SL) and slowing down for a red light at the> intersection. In my mirror, I see a police cruiser approaching at a> very high rate of speed in the left lane. As I stop for the red light> at 303, the police car - with McIntosh County Sherriff's Department> markings on it - sails past me at a speed I would estimate as about 75MPH> - straight through the red light I might add. No lights, no siren and out> of his juristiction (about 20 miles out of his juristiction). He had> absolutely no justification for the way he was driving - even if it was> an "emergency," the local police should have been involved and in the> lead.> As a side note, the city of Brunswick is planning to install RLC's at a> several intersections here where RLR is claimed to be a problem (this> intersection is not one of them as it is outside the city limit). Makes> me curious: if Deputy Dog had been photographed, would he have been> issued a citation? I rather doubt it.> </rant> I looked as best as I could for the Georgia statutes regarding police vehicles but couldn't find much. I know Texas law covers this, but can anyone fill this guy in on Georgia law? -- --- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault.
		Add comment


Paul 12 April 2005 23:52:24 [ permanent link ]
	On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 07:42:24 GMT, jaybird , said the following in rec.autos.driving... I looked as best as I could for the Georgia statutes regarding police > vehicles but couldn't find much. I know Texas law covers this, but can > anyone fill this guy in on Georgia law? Maybe you cops could start obeying the same laws that you expect the rest of us to obey and quit thinking you are God Almighty....
		Add comment


Jaybird 13 April 2005 01:58:27 [ permanent link ]
	"Paul" <kretp@tmy.now> wrote in message news:MPG.1cc5f103fbb6e4479896dd@newsgroups.bellsouth.net...> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 07:42:24 GMT, jaybird , said the following in> rec.autos.driving...> I looked as best as I could for the Georgia statutes regarding police>> vehicles but couldn't find much. I know Texas law covers this, but can>> anyone fill this guy in on Georgia law?> Maybe you cops could start obeying the same laws that you expect the rest> of us to obey and quit thinking you are God Almighty.... When we're off duty, I completely agree. -- --- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault.
		Add comment


Nate Nagel 13 April 2005 13:29:46 [ permanent link ]
	Harry K wrote: jaybird wrote:> "Paul" <kretp@tmy.now> wrote in message>>news:MPG.1cc5f103fbb6e4479896dd@newsgroups.bellsouth.net...>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 07:42:24 GMT, jaybird , said the following in>>>rec.autos.driving...>>> I looked as best as I could for the Georgia statutes regarding> police> vehicles but couldn't find much. I know Texas law covers this,> but can> anyone fill this guy in on Georgia law?>>> Maybe you cops could start obeying the same laws that you expect> the rest> of us to obey and quit thinking you are God Almighty....>> When we're off duty, I completely agree.>> -->>--->>jaybird>>--->>I am not the cause of your problems.>>My actions are the result of your actions.>>Your life is not my fault.> Are you serious? Do you really think that it is legal for -any- cop in> -any- location to blow a red light at speed without lights and siren?> Harry K> Yeah, he really does. amazing, innit? nate -- replace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
		Add comment


Scott en Aztln 13 April 2005 18:04:11 [ permanent link ]
	On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 05:29:46 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@flycast.net> wrote: Maybe you cops could start obeying the same laws that you expect the rest>>>>of us to obey and quit thinking you are God Almighty....>>> When we're off duty, I completely agree.>> Are you serious? Do you really think that it is legal for -any- cop in>> -any- location to blow a red light at speed without lights and siren?> Yeah, he really does. amazing, innit? It is legal - in Texas. Jaybird has established that much. This should not surprise you; Texas also allows me to shoot someone who is stealing my car or breaking into my house. It's like a whole 'nother country. -- Sloth Kills! http://www.geocities.com/slothkills/
		Add comment


Dtj 14 April 2005 04:41:22 [ permanent link ]
	On 13 Apr 2005 07:40:37 -0700, "N8N" <njnagel@hotmail.com> wrote: True, but there's a big difference between carefully proceeding through>a red light at 20 MPH and blowing through it at 75. One, while>technically illegal in most states, could be regarded as not in>violation of "due regard for safety." The other cannot, under even the>most lax intepretation. But of course Jaybird sticks up for the cop>every time.> nate I don't want to sound like I agree with him, but there are cases where I think this would be OK. For example, if the visibility around this intersection allowed the cop to see with 100% accuracy that nobody was approaching the intersection, and he was legitimately out of his jurisdiction, and he had an emergency that required his immediate attention, then I am OK with it. However, if it is anything like my town, the cop was down at the local Home Depot in the next biggest town, or buying donuts in the next town, or visiting the local whorehouse in the next biggest town, or maybe collecting on juice loans for a family member. All of which have been shown to occur where I live, yet nothing ever happens. For some reason the Illinois State Pigs refuse to find any evidence of wrong doing.
		Add comment


L Sternn 14 April 2005 05:22:47 [ permanent link ]
	On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 07:04:11 -0700, Scott en AztlГЎn <slothkills@NOyahooSPAM.com> wrote: On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 05:29:46 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@flycast.net>>wrote:> Maybe you cops could start obeying the same laws that you expect the rest>>>>>of us to obey and quit thinking you are God Almighty....>>>> When we're off duty, I completely agree.>>> Are you serious? Do you really think that it is legal for -any- cop in>>> -any- location to blow a red light at speed without lights and siren?>> Yeah, he really does. amazing, innit?> It is legal - in Texas. Jaybird has established that much.> This should not surprise you; Texas also allows me to shoot someone>who is stealing my car or breaking into my house. It's like a whole>'nother country. You consider this a bad thing? Imagine it's 3 AM and you hear someone at your front door. You go downstairs and there's no one there, but you now hear someone trying to get in through the back door. You shoot through the door and end up killing a drunk. Should you be charged with a crime? This actually happened in Houston - no charges were filed. I don't think any should have been filed either - the guy was protecting his family.
		Add comment


Skip Elliott Bowman 14 April 2005 07:13:52 [ permanent link ]
	"L Sternn" <lincolnfs@hm.net> wrote in message news:iahr51tqtjldd9rjb3qhimegsdrjkfl0c8@4ax.com... Imagine it's 3 AM and you hear someone at your front door. You go> downstairs and there's no one there, but you now hear someone trying> to get in through the back door.> You shoot through the door and end up killing a drunk.> Should you be charged with a crime?> This actually happened in Houston - no charges were filed.> I don't think any should have been filed either - the guy was> protecting his family. From what? A drunk at the wrong address? I remember seeing this case on the news; you left out quite a few details. The drunk was a 19 year old man who had dropped off a friend after a party, then was trying to reach him to tell him something. The father had shot him and was wracked with grief over what he'd done. No one had been attacked, no one had threatened anyone other than a knock on the doors.
		Add comment


Jaybird 14 April 2005 22:22:25 [ permanent link ]
	"Harry K" <turnkey4099@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1113439509.586740.75190@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... N8N wrote:> Scott en Aztlбn wrote:> > On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 05:29:46 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@flycast.net>> > wrote:> > Maybe you cops could start obeying the same laws that you expect> the rest> > >>>>of us to obey and quit thinking you are God Almighty....> > >>> When we're off duty, I completely agree.> > >> Are you serious? Do you really think that it is legal for -any-> cop in> > >> -any- location to blow a red light at speed without lights and> siren?> > > Yeah, he really does. amazing, innit?> > It is legal - in Texas. Jaybird has established that much.> > This should not surprise you; Texas also allows me to shoot someone> > who is stealing my car or breaking into my house. It's like a whole> > 'nother country.> > True, but there's a big difference between carefully proceeding through> a red light at 20 MPH and blowing through it at 75. One, while> technically illegal in most states, could be regarded as not in> violation of "due regard for safety." The other cannot, under even most lax intepretation. But of course Jaybird sticks up for the cop> every time.> nate> I note, however, that he hasn't been back to try to justify his moronic>stance as hopeless as that would be. I'm back! The only justification would be summed up in the first part of DTJ's earlier reply, but no justification by me is really needed. All one has to do is read their state's statutes on operating emergency vehicles and you can tell if the cop was in violation or not. The two issues I see right off is that there is nothing in the state's speed or traffic control device exemptions that say anything about jurisdiction. The other thing is that I'd ask the OP to prove his claim of the cop's speed being 75mph. If a cop has to justify his claim, I would expect at least the same for this situation. -- --- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault.
		Add comment


N E One 15 April 2005 02:02:31 [ permanent link ]
	On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:22:25 GMT, "jaybird" <nospam@me.com> wrote: I note, however, that he hasn't been back to try to justify his moronic>>stance as hopeless as that would be.> I'm back!> The only justification would be summed up in the first part of DTJ's earlier >reply, but no justification by me is really needed. All one has to do is >read their state's statutes on operating emergency vehicles and you can tell >if the cop was in violation or not. The two issues I see right off is that >there is nothing in the state's speed or traffic control device exemptions >that say anything about jurisdiction. The other thing is that I'd ask the >OP to prove his claim of the cop's speed being 75mph. If a cop has to >justify his claim, I would expect at least the same for this situation. Since the court simply takes the cops word for it, his word should be good enough here.
		Add comment


Dtj 15 April 2005 05:24:52 [ permanent link ]
	On 14 Apr 2005 05:29:15 -0700, "N8N" <njnagel@hotmail.com> wrote: DTJ wrote:>> On 13 Apr 2005 07:40:37 -0700, "N8N" <njnagel@hotmail.com> wrote:>> I don't want to sound like I agree with him, but there are cases>where>> I think this would be OK. For example, if the visibility around this>> intersection allowed the cop to see with 100% accuracy that nobody>was>> approaching the intersection, and he was legitimately out of his>> jurisdiction, and he had an emergency that required his immediate>> attention, then I am OK with it.> A rare occurrance IMHO... anyway the same cops will say to your face Definitely rare. that it's unsafe to drive 75 MPH through a green light anywhere in>the state of MD (or VA, PA, NJ etc. for that matter) Yep, as they drive 95 ...
		Add comment


Jaybird 15 April 2005 05:57:47 [ permanent link ]
	"N E One" <anyone@anywhere.non> wrote in message news:v2qt5196hestu0ldvrndn0vcn5309pd9eg@4ax.com...> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:22:25 GMT, "jaybird" <nospam@me.com> wrote:> I note, however, that he hasn't been back to try to justify his moronic>>>stance as hopeless as that would be.>> I'm back!>> The only justification would be summed up in the first part of DTJ's >>earlier>>reply, but no justification by me is really needed. All one has to do is>>read their state's statutes on operating emergency vehicles and you can >>tell>>if the cop was in violation or not. The two issues I see right off is >>that>>there is nothing in the state's speed or traffic control device exemptions>>that say anything about jurisdiction. The other thing is that I'd ask the>>OP to prove his claim of the cop's speed being 75mph. If a cop has to>>justify his claim, I would expect at least the same for this situation.> Since the court simply takes the cops word for it, his word should be> good enough here. Not exactly. The courts accept the testimony of a cop because he is trained and experienced in the forms of speed detection with judicial notice. -- --- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault.
		Add comment


Nate Nagel 15 April 2005 05:59:45 [ permanent link ]
	jaybird wrote: "N E One" <anyone@anywhere.non> wrote in message > news:v2qt5196hestu0ldvrndn0vcn5309pd9eg@4ax.com...> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:22:25 GMT, "jaybird" <nospam@me.com> wrote:>> I note, however, that he hasn't been back to try to justify his moronic>>>>stance as hopeless as that would be.>>> I'm back!>>> The only justification would be summed up in the first part of DTJ's >>>earlier>>>reply, but no justification by me is really needed. All one has to do is>>>read their state's statutes on operating emergency vehicles and you can >>>tell>>>if the cop was in violation or not. The two issues I see right off is >>>that>>>there is nothing in the state's speed or traffic control device exemptions>>>that say anything about jurisdiction. The other thing is that I'd ask the>>>OP to prove his claim of the cop's speed being 75mph. If a cop has to>>>justify his claim, I would expect at least the same for this situation.>> Since the court simply takes the cops word for it, his word should be>>good enough here.> Not exactly. The courts accept the testimony of a cop because he is trained > and experienced in the forms of speed detection with judicial notice.> So if cops are so trained in speed detection why do they never seem to notice when they're speeding themselves? nate -- replace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
		Add comment


Jaybird 15 April 2005 06:00:51 [ permanent link ]
	"Harry K" <turnkey4099@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1113527504.480622.314800@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... jaybird wrote:> "Harry K" <turnkey4099@hotmail.com> wrote in message> news:1113439509.586740.75190@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...> N8N wrote:> > Scott en Aztlбn wrote:> > > On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 05:29:46 -0400, Nate Nagel> <njnagel@flycast.net>> > > wrote:> > > Maybe you cops could start obeying the same laws that you> expect> > the rest> > > >>>>of us to obey and quit thinking you are God Almighty....> > > >>> When we're off duty, I completely agree.> > > >> Are you serious? Do you really think that it is legal for -any-> > cop in> > > >> -any- location to blow a red light at speed without lights and> > siren?> > > > Yeah, he really does. amazing, innit?> > > It is legal - in Texas. Jaybird has established that much.> > > This should not surprise you; Texas also allows me to shoot someone> > > who is stealing my car or breaking into my house. It's like a whole> > > 'nother country.> > > True, but there's a big difference between carefully proceeding> through> > a red light at 20 MPH and blowing through it at 75. One, while> > technically illegal in most states, could be regarded as not in> > violation of "due regard for safety." The other cannot, under even> the> > most lax intepretation. But of course Jaybird sticks up for the every time.> > nate> > I note, however, that he hasn't been back to try to justify his moronic> >stance as hopeless as that would be.> I'm back!> The only justification would be summed up in the first part of DTJ's earlier> reply, but no justification by me is really needed. All one has to do is> read their state's statutes on operating emergency vehicles and you can tell> if the cop was in violation or not. The two issues I see right off is that> there is nothing in the state's speed or traffic control device exemptions> that say anything about jurisdiction. The other thing is that I'd ask the> OP to prove his claim of the cop's speed being 75mph. If a cop has justify his claim, I would expect at least the same for this situation.> --> ---> jaybird> ---> I am not the cause of your problems.> My actions are the result of your actions.> Your life is not my fault. O.K. Lets say that the speed wasn't 75 considering the usual>excageration that goes on here. How about 60? 50? 40? 30? At what>speed do you consider it 'using due care' to bust a red light without>lights and siren?? In my SO it is verbotten at any speed. There is no speed restriction on a police vehicle here and no requirement to use a visual or audible signal so as long as the driver is exercising due care he is authorized. That doesn't prevent a department from putting stricter guidelines on the practice though. -- --- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault.
		Add comment


Nate Nagel 15 April 2005 11:16:20 [ permanent link ]
	jaybird wrote: "Harry K" <turnkey4099@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1113527504.480622.314800@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...> jaybird wrote:> "Harry K" <turnkey4099@hotmail.com> wrote in message>>news:1113439509.586740.75190@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...>> N8N wrote:>> Scott en AztlГЎn wrote:>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 05:29:46 -0400, Nate Nagel>> <njnagel@flycast.net>>> wrote:>>>> Maybe you cops could start obeying the same laws that you>> expect>> the rest>>> of us to obey and quit thinking you are God Almighty....>>>>>>> When we're off duty, I completely agree.>>>>>> Are you serious? Do you really think that it is legal for> -any-> cop in>>> -any- location to blow a red light at speed without lights and>>> siren?>>> Yeah, he really does. amazing, innit?>>>> It is legal - in Texas. Jaybird has established that much.>>>> This should not surprise you; Texas also allows me to shoot> someone> who is stealing my car or breaking into my house. It's like a> whole> 'nother country.>>>> True, but there's a big difference between carefully proceeding>> through>> a red light at 20 MPH and blowing through it at 75. One, while>>>technically illegal in most states, could be regarded as not in>>>violation of "due regard for safety." The other cannot, under even>> most lax intepretation. But of course Jaybird sticks up for the> every time.>>> nate>>> I note, however, that he hasn't been back to try to justify his> moronic> stance as hopeless as that would be.>> I'm back!>> The only justification would be summed up in the first part of DTJ's> earlier> reply, but no justification by me is really needed. All one has to> do is> read their state's statutes on operating emergency vehicles and you> can tell> if the cop was in violation or not. The two issues I see right off> is that> there is nothing in the state's speed or traffic control device> exemptions> that say anything about jurisdiction. The other thing is that I'd> ask the> OP to prove his claim of the cop's speed being 75mph. If a cop has> justify his claim, I would expect at least the same for this> situation.> -->>--->>jaybird>>--->>I am not the cause of your problems.>>My actions are the result of your actions.>>Your life is not my fault.> O.K. Lets say that the speed wasn't 75 considering the usual>>excageration that goes on here. How about 60? 50? 40? 30? At what>>speed do you consider it 'using due care' to bust a red light without>>lights and siren?? In my SO it is verbotten at any speed.> There is no speed restriction on a police vehicle here and no requirement to > use a visual or audible signal so as long as the driver is exercising due > care he is authorized. That doesn't prevent a department from putting > stricter guidelines on the practice though.> So at what point do YOU think is too fast, i.e. even under the best of conditions you think he wasn't exercising due care? Is that speed less than or greater than 75 MPH? nate -- replace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
		Add comment


Jaybird 15 April 2005 11:30:13 [ permanent link ]
	"Nate Nagel" <njnagel@flycast.net> wrote in message news:lMGdnQ2m0Y6OvcLfRVn-rg@comcast.com...> jaybird wrote:> "N E One" <anyone@anywhere.non> wrote in message >> news:v2qt5196hestu0ldvrndn0vcn5309pd9eg@4ax.com...>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:22:25 GMT, "jaybird" <nospam@me.com> wrote:>>> I note, however, that he hasn't been back to try to justify his moronic>>>>>stance as hopeless as that would be.>>>> I'm back!>>>> The only justification would be summed up in the first part of DTJ's >>>>earlier>>>>reply, but no justification by me is really needed. All one has to do >>>>is>>>>read their state's statutes on operating emergency vehicles and you can >>>>tell>>>>if the cop was in violation or not. The two issues I see right off is >>>>that>>>>there is nothing in the state's speed or traffic control device >>>>exemptions>>>>that say anything about jurisdiction. The other thing is that I'd ask >>>>the>>>>OP to prove his claim of the cop's speed being 75mph. If a cop has to>>>>justify his claim, I would expect at least the same for this situation.>>> Since the court simply takes the cops word for it, his word should be>>>good enough here.>> Not exactly. The courts accept the testimony of a cop because he is >> trained and experienced in the forms of speed detection with judicial >> notice.>> So if cops are so trained in speed detection why do they never seem to > notice when they're speeding themselves? Because they're driving police vehicles. -- --- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault.
		Add comment


Jaybird 15 April 2005 11:31:34 [ permanent link ]
	O.K. Lets say that the speed wasn't 75 considering the usual>>>excageration that goes on here. How about 60? 50? 40? 30? At what>>>speed do you consider it 'using due care' to bust a red light without>>>lights and siren?? In my SO it is verbotten at any speed.>> There is no speed restriction on a police vehicle here and no requirement >> to use a visual or audible signal so as long as the driver is exercising >> due care he is authorized. That doesn't prevent a department from >> putting stricter guidelines on the practice though.>> So at what point do YOU think is too fast, i.e. even under the best of > conditions you think he wasn't exercising due care? Is that speed less > than or greater than 75 MPH? There's no way to tell. None of us know the conditions at that particular intersection. -- --- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault.
		Add comment


Nate Nagel 15 April 2005 11:41:43 [ permanent link ]
	jaybird wrote: O.K. Lets say that the speed wasn't 75 considering the usual>>>>excageration that goes on here. How about 60? 50? 40? 30? At what>>>>speed do you consider it 'using due care' to bust a red light without>>>>lights and siren?? In my SO it is verbotten at any speed.>>> There is no speed restriction on a police vehicle here and no requirement >>>to use a visual or audible signal so as long as the driver is exercising >>>due care he is authorized. That doesn't prevent a department from >>>putting stricter guidelines on the practice though.>>> So at what point do YOU think is too fast, i.e. even under the best of >>conditions you think he wasn't exercising due care? Is that speed less >>than or greater than 75 MPH?> There's no way to tell. None of us know the conditions at that particular > intersection.> sigh. All right, we're going to have to accept a little role reversal here, because while you (both individually and collectively) are quick to berate the average motorist for driving too fast just because he exceeded a number on a sign, it boggles the mind how you can accept the OP's description of the officer's driving as anything other than unsafe. First of all, 75 MPH is just TOO DAMNED FAST to be going through a red light, under any but the most contrived circumstances. (the fact that we're even having a discussion about what speed is appropriate to run a red light is somewhat disturbing.) Secondly, blowing a red light at any speed without lights and/or siren is illegal in every state that I'm aware of, save Texas. Sounds like Judy's favorite catch phrase, "criminal coddler" actually applies to you for being blind to the illegal acts of your fellow officers. nate -- replace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
		Add comment


Jaybird 15 April 2005 12:17:47 [ permanent link ]
	"Nate Nagel" <njnagel@flycast.net> wrote in message news:oo-dnf3jP7Wj7cLfRVn-gQ@comcast.com...> jaybird wrote:> O.K. Lets say that the speed wasn't 75 considering the usual>>>>>excageration that goes on here. How about 60? 50? 40? 30? At what>>>>>speed do you consider it 'using due care' to bust a red light without>>>>>lights and siren?? In my SO it is verbotten at any speed.>>>> There is no speed restriction on a police vehicle here and no >>>>requirement to use a visual or audible signal so as long as the driver >>>>is exercising due care he is authorized. That doesn't prevent a >>>>department from putting stricter guidelines on the practice though.>>>> So at what point do YOU think is too fast, i.e. even under the best of >>>conditions you think he wasn't exercising due care? Is that speed less >>>than or greater than 75 MPH?>> There's no way to tell. None of us know the conditions at that >> particular intersection.>> sigh.> All right, we're going to have to accept a little role reversal here, > because while you (both individually and collectively) are quick to berate > the average motorist for driving too fast just because he exceeded a > number on a sign, it boggles the mind how you can accept the OP's > description of the officer's driving as anything other than unsafe. It's because we're talking about two different types of vehicle traffic, but I'll humor ya. First of all, 75 MPH is just TOO DAMNED FAST to be going through a red > light, under any but the most contrived circumstances. (the fact that > we're even having a discussion about what speed is appropriate to run a > red light is somewhat disturbing.) I agree. We still don't have any evidence to believe that the cop was going 75. Secondly, blowing a red light at any speed without lights and/or siren > is illegal in every state that I'm aware of, save Texas. Thank god for Texas..... hehe. Sounds like Judy's favorite catch phrase, "criminal coddler" actually > applies to you for being blind to the illegal acts of your fellow > officers. Nope. Sounds to me like a case of due care where the cop was en route to something and knew the intersection was clear to go through. Looks like he used good judgement too since he went through without disturbing anyone other than the OP. -- --- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault.
		Add comment


Nate Nagel 15 April 2005 13:25:05 [ permanent link ]
	jaybird wrote:> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel@flycast.net> wrote in message > news:oo-dnf3jP7Wj7cLfRVn-gQ@comcast.com...> jaybird wrote:>> O.K. Lets say that the speed wasn't 75 considering the usual>>>>>>excageration that goes on here. How about 60? 50? 40? 30? At what>>>>>>speed do you consider it 'using due care' to bust a red light without>>>>>>lights and siren?? In my SO it is verbotten at any speed.>>>>> There is no speed restriction on a police vehicle here and no >>>>>requirement to use a visual or audible signal so as long as the driver >>>>>is exercising due care he is authorized. That doesn't prevent a >>>>>department from putting stricter guidelines on the practice though.>>>>> So at what point do YOU think is too fast, i.e. even under the best of >>>>conditions you think he wasn't exercising due care? Is that speed less >>>>than or greater than 75 MPH?>>> There's no way to tell. None of us know the conditions at that >>>particular intersection.>>> sigh.>> All right, we're going to have to accept a little role reversal here, >>because while you (both individually and collectively) are quick to berate >>the average motorist for driving too fast just because he exceeded a >>number on a sign, it boggles the mind how you can accept the OP's >>description of the officer's driving as anything other than unsafe.> It's because we're talking about two different types of vehicle traffic, but > I'll humor ya.> First of all, 75 MPH is just TOO DAMNED FAST to be going through a red >>light, under any but the most contrived circumstances. (the fact that >>we're even having a discussion about what speed is appropriate to run a >>red light is somewhat disturbing.)> I agree. We still don't have any evidence to believe that the cop was going > 75.> Secondly, blowing a red light at any speed without lights and/or siren >>is illegal in every state that I'm aware of, save Texas.> Thank god for Texas..... hehe.> Sounds like Judy's favorite catch phrase, "criminal coddler" actually >>applies to you for being blind to the illegal acts of your fellow >>officers.> Nope. Sounds to me like a case of due care where the cop was en route to > something and knew the intersection was clear to go through. Looks like he > used good judgement too since he went through without disturbing anyone > other than the OP.> Tell me, how many days would I spend in jail for pulling a stunt like that? nate -- replace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
		Add comment


Garth Almgren 15 April 2005 21:00:11 [ permanent link ]
	Around 4/15/2005 12:42 AM, Nate Nagel wrote: jaybird wrote:> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel@flycast.net> wrote in message >> news:lMGdnQ2m0Y6OvcLfRVn-rg@comcast.com...>> So if cops are so trained in speed detection why do they never seem >>> to notice when they're speeding themselves?>> Because they're driving police vehicles.> So getting into a police car suddenly makes one stupider? That plus wearing a sidearm. Together they not only make one stupider, but they give one a severely overinflated ego and sense of machismo. -- ~/Garth \|"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie. Almgren \| I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave. ******* \| And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant." (pgp@v6stang.com for secure mail info) --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)
		Add comment


Jaybird 16 April 2005 02:43:31 [ permanent link ]
	"Nate Nagel" <njnagel@flycast.net> wrote in message news:I4ydndqFdPfoFcLfRVn-sg@comcast.com...> jaybird wrote:>> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel@flycast.net> wrote in message >> news:oo-dnf3jP7Wj7cLfRVn-gQ@comcast.com...>> jaybird wrote:>>> O.K. Lets say that the speed wasn't 75 considering the usual>>>>>>>excageration that goes on here. How about 60? 50? 40? 30? At >>>>>>>what>>>>>>>speed do you consider it 'using due care' to bust a red light without>>>>>>>lights and siren?? In my SO it is verbotten at any speed.>>>>>> There is no speed restriction on a police vehicle here and no >>>>>>requirement to use a visual or audible signal so as long as the driver >>>>>>is exercising due care he is authorized. That doesn't prevent a >>>>>>department from putting stricter guidelines on the practice though.>>>>>> So at what point do YOU think is too fast, i.e. even under the best of >>>>>conditions you think he wasn't exercising due care? Is that speed less >>>>>than or greater than 75 MPH?>>>> There's no way to tell. None of us know the conditions at that >>>>particular intersection.>>>> sigh.>>> All right, we're going to have to accept a little role reversal here, >>>because while you (both individually and collectively) are quick to >>>berate the average motorist for driving too fast just because he exceeded >>>a number on a sign, it boggles the mind how you can accept the OP's >>>description of the officer's driving as anything other than unsafe.>> It's because we're talking about two different types of vehicle traffic, >> but I'll humor ya.>> First of all, 75 MPH is just TOO DAMNED FAST to be going through a red >>>light, under any but the most contrived circumstances. (the fact that >>>we're even having a discussion about what speed is appropriate to run a >>>red light is somewhat disturbing.)>> I agree. We still don't have any evidence to believe that the cop was >> going 75.>> Secondly, blowing a red light at any speed without lights and/or siren >>>is illegal in every state that I'm aware of, save Texas.>> Thank god for Texas..... hehe.>> Sounds like Judy's favorite catch phrase, "criminal coddler" actually >>>applies to you for being blind to the illegal acts of your fellow >>>officers.>> Nope. Sounds to me like a case of due care where the cop was en route to >> something and knew the intersection was clear to go through. Looks like >> he used good judgement too since he went through without disturbing >> anyone other than the OP.>> Tell me, how many days would I spend in jail for pulling a stunt like > that? It depends on how the law applies to emergency vehicles in Georgia. In Texas there wouldn't be any violations in this scenario. -- --- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault.
		Add comment


Jaybird 16 April 2005 02:45:46 [ permanent link ]
	"Harry K" <turnkey4099@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1113573915.938155.134230@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... jaybird wrote:> "Harry K" <turnkey4099@hotmail.com> wrote in message> news:1113527504.480622.314800@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...> jaybird wrote:> > "Harry K" <turnkey4099@hotmail.com> wrote in message> > news:1113439509.586740.75190@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...> > N8N wrote:> > > Scott en Aztlбn wrote:> > > > On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 05:29:46 -0400, Nate Nagel> > <njnagel@flycast.net>> > > > wrote:> > > > Maybe you cops could start obeying the same laws that you> > expect> > > the rest> > > > >>>>of us to obey and quit thinking you are God Almighty....> > > > >>> When we're off duty, I completely agree.> > > > >> Are you serious? Do you really think that it is legal for> -any-> > > cop in> > > > >> -any- location to blow a red light at speed without lights siren?> > > > > Yeah, he really does. amazing, innit?> > > > It is legal - in Texas. Jaybird has established that much.> > > > This should not surprise you; Texas also allows me to shoot> someone> > > > who is stealing my car or breaking into my house. It's like a> whole> > > > 'nother country.> > > > True, but there's a big difference between carefully proceeding> > through> > > a red light at 20 MPH and blowing through it at 75. One, while> > > technically illegal in most states, could be regarded as not in> > > violation of "due regard for safety." The other cannot, under even> > the> > > most lax intepretation. But of course Jaybird sticks up for the> cop> > > every time.> > > nate> > > I note, however, that he hasn't been back to try to justify his> moronic> > >stance as hopeless as that would be.> > I'm back!> > The only justification would be summed up in the first part of DTJ's> earlier> > reply, but no justification by me is really needed. All one has to> do is> > read their state's statutes on operating emergency vehicles and you> can tell> > if the cop was in violation or not. The two issues I see right off> is that> > there is nothing in the state's speed or traffic control device> exemptions> > that say anything about jurisdiction. The other thing is that I'd> ask the> > OP to prove his claim of the cop's speed being 75mph. If a cop has> to> > justify his claim, I would expect at least the same for this> situation.> > --> > ---> > jaybird> > ---> > I am not the cause of your problems.> > My actions are the result of your actions.> > Your life is not my fault.> O.K. Lets say that the speed wasn't 75 considering the usual> >excageration that goes on here. How about 60? 50? 40? 30? At what> >speed do you consider it 'using due care' to bust a red light without> >lights and siren?? In my SO it is verbotten at any speed.> There is no speed restriction on a police vehicle here and no requirement to> use a visual or audible signal so as long as the driver is exercising care he is authorized. That doesn't prevent a department from putting> stricter guidelines on the practice though.> --> ---> jaybird> ---> I am not the cause of your problems.> My actions are the result of your actions.> Your life is not my fault. So no answer to a simple question I see. It's not a simple question. All the law states is that the driver slow to a speed necessary to see the intersection clearly and then you can proceed. It doesn't specify a number so I can't answer that. I've driven through intersections at all kinds of different speeds depending on how far you can see down the road each way. -- --- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault.
		Add comment


Nate Nagel 16 April 2005 03:04:34 [ permanent link ]
	jaybird wrote:> "Harry K" <turnkey4099@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:1113573915.938155.134230@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...> jaybird wrote:> "Harry K" <turnkey4099@hotmail.com> wrote in message>>news:1113527504.480622.314800@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...>> jaybird wrote:>> "Harry K" <turnkey4099@hotmail.com> wrote in message>>>news:1113439509.586740.75190@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...>>> N8N wrote:>>> Scott en AztlГЎn wrote:>>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 05:29:46 -0400, Nate Nagel>>> <njnagel@flycast.net>>>> wrote:>>>>> Maybe you cops could start obeying the same laws that you>>> expect>>> the rest>>>> of us to obey and quit thinking you are God Almighty....>>>>>>>> When we're off duty, I completely agree.>>>>>>> Are you serious? Do you really think that it is legal for>> -any->> cop in>>>> -any- location to blow a red light at speed without lights> siren?>>>> Yeah, he really does. amazing, innit?>>>>> It is legal - in Texas. Jaybird has established that much.>>>>> This should not surprise you; Texas also allows me to shoot>> someone>> who is stealing my car or breaking into my house. It's like a>> whole>> 'nother country.>>>>> True, but there's a big difference between carefully proceeding>>> through>>> a red light at 20 MPH and blowing through it at 75. One, while>>>>technically illegal in most states, could be regarded as not in>>>>violation of "due regard for safety." The other cannot, under> even> most lax intepretation. But of course Jaybird sticks up for the>> every time.>>>> nate>>>> I note, however, that he hasn't been back to try to justify his>> moronic>> stance as hopeless as that would be.>>> I'm back!>>> The only justification would be summed up in the first part of> DTJ's> earlier>> reply, but no justification by me is really needed. All one has to>> do is>> read their state's statutes on operating emergency vehicles and you>> can tell>> if the cop was in violation or not. The two issues I see right off>> is that>> there is nothing in the state's speed or traffic control device>> exemptions>> that say anything about jurisdiction. The other thing is that I'd>> ask the>> OP to prove his claim of the cop's speed being 75mph. If a cop has>> justify his claim, I would expect at least the same for this>> situation.>> -->>>--->>>jaybird>>>--->>>I am not the cause of your problems.>>>My actions are the result of your actions.>>>Your life is not my fault.>> O.K. Lets say that the speed wasn't 75 considering the usual>>>excageration that goes on here. How about 60? 50? 40? 30? At> what> speed do you consider it 'using due care' to bust a red light> without> lights and siren?? In my SO it is verbotten at any speed.>> There is no speed restriction on a police vehicle here and no> requirement to> use a visual or audible signal so as long as the driver is exercising> care he is authorized. That doesn't prevent a department from> putting> stricter guidelines on the practice though.>> -->>--->>jaybird>>--->>I am not the cause of your problems.>>My actions are the result of your actions.>>Your life is not my fault.> So no answer to a simple question I see.> It's not a simple question. All the law states is that the driver slow to a > speed necessary to see the intersection clearly and then you can proceed. > It doesn't specify a number so I can't answer that. I've driven through > intersections at all kinds of different speeds depending on how far you can > see down the road each way.> Cite, please? That is very unusual; in most states an additional requirement is the activation of lights and/or siren. nate -- replace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
		Add comment


Paul 16 April 2005 10:43:27 [ permanent link ]
	On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 03:41:43 -0400, Nate Nagel , said the following in rec.autos.driving... <snip> There's no way to tell. None of us know the conditions at that particular > > intersection. Just to satisfy our friend's curiosity, here's the details of the intersection and the traffic conditions that afternoon (a little wordy, but needed to give a complete detail of what happened that day): GA25-Spur: 4 lane highway with emergency lanes on the right running from I-95 to US17/GA25 (hence the designation of "Spur.") seperated by 25ft (appx.) median with turn pockets at all intersections. All intersections are controlled by traffic lights with left turn arrows (and right turn arrows at most intersections) for traffic exiting the highway. Distance between intersections is anywhere from 1/2 mile to 2+ miles. There are no business or residential driveways intersecting this road. Posted Speed Limits are 50MPH to 45MPH. GA303: suburban highway with 4 lanes seperated by a center left turn lane many business driveways intersect this road. No left turn arrows for traffic turning left from GA303 to Ga25-Spur. Posted Speed Limit is 45MPH. The intersection: These roads do not intersect at 90 degrees. Sightlines are poor on GA25-spur in the southbound lanes on both right and left; especially if there are vehicles waiting in the turn pockets. Traffic conditions: Moderate traffic, with vehicles waiting in the left turn pocket to turn from GA25-Spur SB to GA303 NB. No traffic waiting to turn right. Clear weather, dry pavement. The light had been red for several seconds and traffic on GA 303 was starting to proceed into the intersection when the sherriff's car entered the intersection with out so much as stepping on the brakes. <sarcasm> Can't imagine why they would think that it would be safe to enter an intersection on a green light. </sarcasm> sigh. I'll second that: sigh All right, we're going to have to accept a little role reversal here, > because while you (both individually and collectively) are quick to > berate the average motorist for driving too fast just because he > exceeded a number on a sign, it boggles the mind how you can accept the > OP's description of the officer's driving as anything other than unsafe. Like I said in the original post: police hypocrisy. Or as Phil Collins sang: "God will take good care of you. Just do as I say, don't do as I do." Substitute Government (or Police) for God and the point is the same. FWIW, the Sheriff in McIntosh County goes by the name Charles "Chunk," Jones. Care to guess what kind of department this is? First of all, 75 MPH is just TOO DAMNED FAST to be going through a red > light, under any but the most contrived circumstances. (the fact that > we're even having a discussion about what speed is appropriate to run a > red light is somewhat disturbing.)> Secondly, blowing a red light at any speed without lights and/or siren > is illegal in every state that I'm aware of, save Texas. Had the deputy exercised any semblance of caution entering the intersection and used the lights/siren (even if he turned them off after exiting the intersection) I probablly would not have even thought twice about it, much less done a rant here. But his blatent disregard for public safety was what brought me to comment on it. Also, I have observed the Brunswick Police and Glynn County Police (their juristiction) vehicles on many occaisions. and every time I have seen them have to go through a red light, they always used lights and/or siren and always used due care (slowing down and making sure cross traffic stops first) when entering the intersection. So, jaybird, before you take this as an indictment of all police, I am merely commenting on what I saw this particular deputy do and, heaven forbid, this is a driving forum and this was a driving related situation... Sounds like Judy's favorite catch phrase, "criminal coddler" actually > applies to you for being blind to the illegal acts of your fellow > officers. Only certain criminals.
		Add comment


Jaybird 16 April 2005 11:03:06 [ permanent link ]
	Well don't worry. If he/she is hired then they'll teach him/her all >>>>about driving an emergency vehicle and how it is different than normal >>>>traffic.>>>> In other words, how to BREAK THE LAW THEY ARE SWORN TO UPHOLD.>> Now how can you break a law that doesn't even apply to you?>> You can't.> However, it's real easy to break a law that DOES apply to you. And since > the OP is NOT in Texas, you're just being disingenuous and/or deliberately > obtuse. In most states, there is NO difference between a police car and > "normal traffic" UNLESS lights, siren, or both are in use. You know this, > I know this, everyone knows this, and your continued petulant stamping of > feet and insisting that it just isn't so doesn't say a whole lot for your > powers of logic or your integrity. So we've both made some very general statements. If you'll go back through the posts, you can see that my very first reply to this was for someone familiar with Georgia law to explain how it relates to emergency vehicles. -- --- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault.
		Add comment


Jaybird 16 April 2005 11:12:33 [ permanent link ]
	It's not a simple question. All the law states is that the driver slow >> to a speed necessary to see the intersection clearly and then you can >> proceed. It doesn't specify a number so I can't answer that. I've driven >> through intersections at all kinds of different speeds depending on how >> far you can see down the road each way.>> Cite, please? That is very unusual; in most states an additional > requirement is the activation of lights and/or siren. § 546.001. PERMISSIBLE CONDUCT. In operating an authorized emergency vehicle the operator may: (2) proceed past a red or stop signal or stop sign, after slowing as necessary for safe operation; (3) exceed a maximum speed limit, except as provided by an ordinance adopted under Section 545.365, as long as the operator does not endanger life or property; and (4) disregard a regulation governing the direction of movement or turning in specified directions. § 546.003. AUDIBLE OR VISUAL SIGNALS REQUIRED. Except as provided by Section 546.004, the operator of an authorized emergency vehicle engaging in conduct permitted by Section 546.001 shall use, at the discretion of the operator in accordance with policies of the department or the local government that employs the operator, audible or visual signals that meet the pertinent requirements of Sections 547.305 and 547.702. -- --- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault.
		Add comment


Nate Nagel 16 April 2005 14:49:50 [ permanent link ]
	jaybird wrote: Well don't worry. If he/she is hired then they'll teach him/her all >>>>>about driving an emergency vehicle and how it is different than normal >>>>>traffic.>>>>> In other words, how to BREAK THE LAW THEY ARE SWORN TO UPHOLD.>>> Now how can you break a law that doesn't even apply to you?>>> You can't.>> However, it's real easy to break a law that DOES apply to you. And since >>the OP is NOT in Texas, you're just being disingenuous and/or deliberately >>obtuse. In most states, there is NO difference between a police car and >>"normal traffic" UNLESS lights, siren, or both are in use. You know this, >>I know this, everyone knows this, and your continued petulant stamping of >>feet and insisting that it just isn't so doesn't say a whole lot for your >>powers of logic or your integrity.> So we've both made some very general statements. If you'll go back through > the posts, you can see that my very first reply to this was for someone > familiar with Georgia law to explain how it relates to emergency vehicles.> And since you haven't found anything, you assume that it's more similar to Texas than the rest of the country? Texas is weird, their laws are wierd, and just because they make sense to you doesn't mean that the rest of us don't scracth our heads in puzzlement. nate -- replace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
		Add comment


Nate Nagel 16 April 2005 14:51:03 [ permanent link ]
	jaybird wrote: It's not a simple question. All the law states is that the driver slow >>>to a speed necessary to see the intersection clearly and then you can >>>proceed. It doesn't specify a number so I can't answer that. I've driven >>>through intersections at all kinds of different speeds depending on how >>>far you can see down the road each way.>>> Cite, please? That is very unusual; in most states an additional >>requirement is the activation of lights and/or siren.> В§ 546.001. PERMISSIBLE CONDUCT. In operating an> authorized emergency vehicle the operator may:> (2) proceed past a red or stop signal or stop sign,> after slowing as necessary for safe operation;> (3) exceed a maximum speed limit, except as provided> by an ordinance adopted under Section 545.365, as long as the> operator does not endanger life or property; and> (4) disregard a regulation governing the direction of> movement or turning in specified directions.> В§ 546.003. AUDIBLE OR VISUAL SIGNALS REQUIRED. Except> as provided by Section 546.004, the operator of an authorized> emergency vehicle engaging in conduct permitted by Section 546.001> shall use, at the discretion of the operator in accordance with> policies of the department or the local government that employs the> operator, audible or visual signals that meet the pertinent> requirements of Sections 547.305 and 547.702.> And what state is that code from? While I didn't find the exact section of GA code that pertains to your comments, I did notice that most of their motor vehicle laws started with "40." nate -- replace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
		Add comment


Scott en AztlГЎn 16 April 2005 18:31:55 [ permanent link ]
	On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 06:51:03 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@flycast.net> wrote: jaybird wrote:> It's not a simple question. All the law states is that the driver slow >>>>to a speed necessary to see the intersection clearly and then you can >>>>proceed. It doesn't specify a number so I can't answer that. I've driven >>>>through intersections at all kinds of different speeds depending on how >>>>far you can see down the road each way.>>>> Cite, please? That is very unusual; in most states an additional >>>requirement is the activation of lights and/or siren.>> В§ 546.001. PERMISSIBLE CONDUCT. In operating an>> authorized emergency vehicle the operator may:>> (2) proceed past a red or stop signal or stop sign,>> after slowing as necessary for safe operation;>> (3) exceed a maximum speed limit, except as provided>> by an ordinance adopted under Section 545.365, as long as the>> operator does not endanger life or property; and>> (4) disregard a regulation governing the direction of>> movement or turning in specified directions.>> В§ 546.003. AUDIBLE OR VISUAL SIGNALS REQUIRED. Except>> as provided by Section 546.004, the operator of an authorized>> emergency vehicle engaging in conduct permitted by Section 546.001>> shall use, at the discretion of the operator in accordance with>> policies of the department or the local government that employs the>> operator, audible or visual signals that meet the pertinent>> requirements of Sections 547.305 and 547.702.>> And what state is that code from? Texas, of course. But even in Texas a lawman is not entirely above the law. Notice the requirements to slow down "as necessary for safe oeration" and "as long as the operator does not endanger life or property?" It seems as though some of the actions that Jaybird has so staunchly defended would be illegal even in Texas. -- Sloth Kills! http://www.geocities.com/slothkills/
		Add comment


Jaybird 16 April 2005 22:48:54 [ permanent link ]
	"Nate Nagel" <njnagel@flycast.net> wrote in message news:Cq2dnT3VBdaGc_3fRVn-gg@comcast.com...> jaybird wrote:> It's not a simple question. All the law states is that the driver slow >>>>to a speed necessary to see the intersection clearly and then you can >>>>proceed. It doesn't specify a number so I can't answer that. I've >>>>driven through intersections at all kinds of different speeds depending >>>>on how far you can see down the road each way.>>>> Cite, please? That is very unusual; in most states an additional >>>requirement is the activation of lights and/or siren.>> § 546.001. PERMISSIBLE CONDUCT. In operating an>> authorized emergency vehicle the operator may:>> (2) proceed past a red or stop signal or stop sign,>> after slowing as necessary for safe operation;>> (3) exceed a maximum speed limit, except as provided>> by an ordinance adopted under Section 545.365, as long as the>> operator does not endanger life or property; and>> (4) disregard a regulation governing the direction of>> movement or turning in specified directions.>> § 546.003. AUDIBLE OR VISUAL SIGNALS REQUIRED. Except>> as provided by Section 546.004, the operator of an authorized>> emergency vehicle engaging in conduct permitted by Section 546.001>> shall use, at the discretion of the operator in accordance with>> policies of the department or the local government that employs the>> operator, audible or visual signals that meet the pertinent>> requirements of Sections 547.305 and 547.702.>> And what state is that code from? While I didn't find the exact section > of GA code that pertains to your comments, I did notice that most of their > motor vehicle laws started with "40." I see where the confusion is. This thread started off with Harry and I exchanging information about how we do things where we work individually. We kinda got off the original post here. The laws I quoted were from Texas and weren't specific to the op. Someone familiar with Georgia law would have to update us back on the original topic. -- --- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault.
		Add comment


Jaybird 16 April 2005 22:50:45 [ permanent link ]
	"Scott en Aztlбn" <slothkills@NOyahooSPAM.com> wrote in message news:4b8261dn6l20iste66ppahntek18cqufkh@4ax.com...> On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 06:51:03 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@flycast.net>> wrote:> jaybird wrote:>> It's not a simple question. All the law states is that the driver slow>>>>>to a speed necessary to see the intersection clearly and then you can>>>>>proceed. It doesn't specify a number so I can't answer that. I've >>>>>driven>>>>>through intersections at all kinds of different speeds depending on how>>>>>far you can see down the road each way.>>>>> Cite, please? That is very unusual; in most states an additional>>>>requirement is the activation of lights and/or siren.>>> § 546.001. PERMISSIBLE CONDUCT. In operating an>>> authorized emergency vehicle the operator may:>>> (2) proceed past a red or stop signal or stop sign,>>> after slowing as necessary for safe operation;>>> (3) exceed a maximum speed limit, except as provided>>> by an ordinance adopted under Section 545.365, as long as the>>> operator does not endanger life or property; and>>> (4) disregard a regulation governing the direction of>>> movement or turning in specified directions.>>> § 546.003. AUDIBLE OR VISUAL SIGNALS REQUIRED. Except>>> as provided by Section 546.004, the operator of an authorized>>> emergency vehicle engaging in conduct permitted by Section 546.001>>> shall use, at the discretion of the operator in accordance with>>> policies of the department or the local government that employs the>>> operator, audible or visual signals that meet the pertinent>>> requirements of Sections 547.305 and 547.702.>>> And what state is that code from?> Texas, of course.> But even in Texas a lawman is not entirely above the law. Notice the> requirements to slow down "as necessary for safe oeration" and "as> long as the operator does not endanger life or property?"> It seems as though some of the actions that Jaybird has so staunchly> defended would be illegal even in Texas. Nope. The cop fulfilled the requirement obviously since there was no collision. He safely operated his vehicle, and did not endanger anyone's life or property. -- --- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault.
		Add comment


Jaybird 16 April 2005 22:52:37 [ permanent link ]
	"Nate Nagel" <njnagel@flycast.net> wrote in message news:Cq2dnQLVBdZPcP3fRVn-gg@comcast.com...> jaybird wrote:> Well don't worry. If he/she is hired then they'll teach him/her all >>>>>>about driving an emergency vehicle and how it is different than normal >>>>>>traffic.>>>>>> In other words, how to BREAK THE LAW THEY ARE SWORN TO UPHOLD.>>>> Now how can you break a law that doesn't even apply to you?>>>> You can't.>>> However, it's real easy to break a law that DOES apply to you. And since >>>the OP is NOT in Texas, you're just being disingenuous and/or >>>deliberately obtuse. In most states, there is NO difference between a >>>police car and "normal traffic" UNLESS lights, siren, or both are in use. >>>You know this, I know this, everyone knows this, and your continued >>>petulant stamping of feet and insisting that it just isn't so doesn't say >>>a whole lot for your powers of logic or your integrity.>> So we've both made some very general statements. If you'll go back >> through the posts, you can see that my very first reply to this was for >> someone familiar with Georgia law to explain how it relates to emergency >> vehicles.>> And since you haven't found anything, you assume that it's more similar to > Texas than the rest of the country? Texas is weird, their laws are wierd, > and just because they make sense to you doesn't mean that the rest of us > don't scracth our heads in puzzlement. I can only relate what I am familiar with. I guess we can give up on this topic since we're not really going anywhere with it and there's no one here with much knowledge about Georgia traffic law. -- --- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault.
		Add comment


Paul 16 April 2005 23:59:01 [ permanent link ]
	On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 06:51:03 -0400, Nate Nagel , said the following in rec.autos.driving... В§ 546.001. PERMISSIBLE CONDUCT. In operating an> > authorized emergency vehicle the operator may:> > (2) proceed past a red or stop signal or stop sign,> > after slowing as necessary for safe operation; ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ jaybird just proved my point here atleast WRT TX law. The car I observed definitely was not complying with this section. Good thing for that deputy that he was not in TX. (3) exceed a maximum speed limit, except as provided> > by an ordinance adopted under Section 545.365, as long as the> > operator does not endanger life or property; and ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Again. (4) disregard a regulation governing the direction of> > movement or turning in specified directions.> > В§ 546.003. AUDIBLE OR VISUAL SIGNALS REQUIRED. Except> > as provided by Section 546.004, the operator of an authorized> > emergency vehicle engaging in conduct permitted by Section 546.001> > shall use, at the discretion of the operator in accordance with> > policies of the department or the local government that employs the> > operator, audible or visual signals that meet the pertinent> > requirements of Sections 547.305 and 547.702.> > And what state is that code from? While I didn't find the exact section > of GA code that pertains to your comments, I did notice that most of > their motor vehicle laws started with "40." The only law I was able to find on this was the following: ref: http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2003_04/gacode/40-6-21.html (3) Steady red indications shall have the following meanings: (A) Traffic, except pedestrians, facing a steady CIRCULAR RED signal alone shall stop at a clearly marked stop line or, if there is no stop line, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if there is no crosswalk, before entering the intersection, and shall remain standing until an indication to proceed is shown, except as provided in subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D) of this paragraph; Sections (B), (C), and (D) relate to vehicles making turns on a red light. No mention of police vehicles that I could find exceptions for them.
		Add comment


Paul 17 April 2005 04:29:03 [ permanent link ]
	On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 02:43:27 -0400, Paul , said the following in rec.autos.driving... The intersection: These roads do not intersect at 90 degrees. Sightlines > are poor on GA25-spur in the southbound lanes on both right and left; > especially if there are vehicles waiting in the turn pockets. > FWIW, this is a link to an overhead view of the intersection. I hope it works (you may need to cut and paste this).... http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=31.193705,- 81.476873&spn=0.003433,0.005515&t=k&hl=en GA25-Spur runs from NW to SE. GA303 runs appx West to East.
		Add comment

CarGuru > Driving > Re: Going somewhere, Deputy??? 15 April 2005 05:59:45

	see also: GRANDAM: Mexico City: Citgo/SAMAX race… IRL: Panther Racing Homestead test… NASCAR: Watkins Glen announces "Read…		pass tests:		see also: FUEL PUMP my 92 saturn sc 1.9lit 5 speed trans help removing stock radio from 97'…

Copyright © 2001—2009 Car-Guru
Idea: Miсhael Monashev
See Help and FAQ in the community support.car-guru.com.
Write in the community about the bugs you have noticedbugs.car-guru.com.
Write your offers and comments in the communities suggest.car-guru.com.
Information for parents.
Write us at:

If you would like to report an abuse of our service, such as a spam message, please .




Get comments by e-mail Add to favourites

respect your talk pals, avoid using obscene language, typing entire messages in CAPS, posting buy/sell ads or violating netiquette or the RF Criminal Code..

Re: Going somewhere, Deputy???

Add new comment