My New You Tube - Virginia Can't Drive!

[Kevin Lang]

Andy C, Imagine traffic, hundreds of cars going 70 miles per hour minimum, on a two-lane interstate.



The traffic crests a hill, and suddenly there is a policeman on the right shoulder.



Suddenly, hundreds of cars must instantly shift to one lane.



Sounds like a formula for an accident. It is.



I've seen too many close calls and too many accidents as a direct result of the ramifications of this poorly thought out law. Yet you see "nothing wrong with the law".



Never has "As close to the center line" been good enough. If you're in the lane next to the cops, it doesn't matter if God himself is stopping you from getting out of the lane. The cops, especially the 2nd car which arrives for this purpose, will pull you over, and even if you were justified, you cannot prove it in court.

it should be federal law

I'd like to remind you that no good can come from the thoughtless phrase "It should be a law...".

 

[Andy Chase]

KL, as I mentioned getting close to the center line and slowing down is only allowed if you are unable to get over. But they will ticket you if no one is preventing you from changing lanes and you stay in the right lane (or left lane if the cop is pulled over on the left side). Here's a link that talks about it, I skimmed briefly through it just now. It appears that 44/50 states have the same/similar law. 5-10 extra minutes of drive time is way better than a fatality that could've been avoided. Also, in your case of a cop pulling someone over on a crest of a hill, chances are a cop would have the driver pull up a little farter ahead so people could have warning of them being there. I know you'll say that will never always be the case, but a smart, safe cop would/should do that.:soap:

 

[Kevin Lang]

KL, as I mentioned getting close to the center line and slowing down is only allowed if you are unable to get over. But they will ticket you if no one is preventing you from changing lanes and you stay in the right lane (or left lane if the cop is pulled over on the left side).

And you neglect to mention that they can, will, and have ticketed people for being in the lane closest to the police, despite not being able to get over to the other lane.



Private citizens cannot bring any proof to the table in court to contest the officer in such scenarios either.



For the record: Forcing a sudden deceleration in traffic risks an accident. Forcing lane changes risks an accident. I'd hope you'd agree.



That said, here's a position to consider. Have your law. The law isn't so much the problem. The problem is the number of occurrences of police pulling people over on busy 2-lane stretches of road. I propose that our esteemed police force not pull over speeders, merely log them and bill them later.



This is how speed-trap cameras operate. In fact, since the only duty performed routinely by the vast majority of police officers on the side of the road is busting speeders, why not just use the mobile speed camera vans instead?



The roads would be safer, the Powers that Be get their money from speeders, and more of it as the overhead of having an officer there is cut.



Save the shoulder pull-overs for the times that really warrant it, which mere speeding is not. Especially on an interstate.

 

[Andy Chase]

Do they still allow the camera's? I know in MN they tried the traffic camera's to ticket red light runners, but they only lasted a year. Some people that were ticketed sued because the camera's can't prove who was driving the car at the time of the incident. They might have even been deemed unconstitutional for some odd reason, if I remember correctly.

 

[Kevin Lang]

Don't let the Powers that Be in DC hear you say that, they love their speed cameras and procured millions in speeding tickets from them.



The Baltimore Beltway will be sporting several "mobile speed enforcement camera platforms" (vans) at its construction zone, near the I-81 junction.



I remember people tried to get the cameras repealed, but they lost. Now all that is said is that "A speeding camera ticketing you is the same as a live officer ticketing you."



...though if State Troopers didn't run speed traps, the public would never see them on duty. I know I never have.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Regarding this center-line stuff, I was driving home from the airport a couple of weeks ago. I was about 1am, and I was rounding a really tight curve about 2 miles from my house. On that curve is a church, set back in the church parking lot a township police car. The officer pulled out and followed me. 1/2 mile up the road he put on his lights, but not his siren; didn't even chirp them.



I saw him when he had pulled out behind me. I never did anything wrong from that point on...didn't think I did anything wrong from that point prior.



The I had license and registration in hand with window down, and my hand with the materials waiting in plain sight, resting on the open window sill when the officer approached. He took the documents, and said: "I stopped you because you came close to crossing the center line back there on the curve." I knew he might be right, I also knew I didn't cross it and wasn't in danger of hitting anything at 1am on an otherwise dark road even if the traffic coming the other way was also near the center.



But, I knew to shut up and only answer questions asked. I knew what was coming. The officer then asked me a series of questions. "Where have you been?" - Answer: "the airport"; "Where are you going?" - Answer: "Home...2 miles up the road." "What did you do in your travels?" - Answer: "Business, working in Atlanta."



I know my rights. I know the cop really has no legal basis to ask me these questions. But, I also know WHY he is asking these questions. He is using the Q&A as a sobriety test. Maybe he had a suspicion I was drinking. Maybe that gave him the legal right to ask questions as a sobriety test. I'm not a lawyer...don't even play one on TV or the Interweb.



The officer tells me: "We get a lot of drunk drivers on this road at this time of night. I see you haven't been drinking. I'll check your license then you will be on your way."



He went back, checked my license (clean) he gave me my docs and I was on my way. I thanked him, told him he was doing a good job keeping drunks off the road and again thanked him for that job.



I know I didn't cross the line...probably didn't even hug it that much...I see he was trolling. I was profiled - I fit the time-of-night profile for those leaving the bar. Oh well. I probably won't sue anyone! (LOL)



TJR

 

[Andy Chase]

TJR, that reminds me of Ron White talking about a DUI. He said the officers were profilling him as well, it turns out they were pulling over every vehicle driving down that particular sidewalk that night. That's profiling and profiling is wrong!"



The cop wasn't "profiling" you, it was his observation of your vehicle and the potential that a drunk was behind the wheel. It seemed he was courteious about it and wasn't a jerk.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Andy C,



Toe-may-toe; toe-mah-toe!



I say profile because I fit the profile that night of drivers he wanted to pull over to see if driving drunk. The observation he saw and the profile I fit was that of a person driving down that stretch of road after closing time...a time of day and a stretch of road that gave him a high(er) probability that anyone being stopped might have been drinking.



That's what happened. He profiled me. I wasn't doing anything wrong. I was simply guilty of driving on a road that ends at one end of town with a couple of bars, and enters into another town where the cops have really good control of things; and is a road that very few others would travel that time of day.



I have no problem with him doing it, either. But I won't for a minute think that it's not a targeted stop, with no real basis for the stop...other than I fit a profile...that is profiling.



As I said, I know for a fact I didn't cross the line. That would be his word against mine. That's just the justification he used for his stop. But surprisingly, I really don't care, because once he found I wasn't drinking, he let me go.



Doesn't make it right, just makes me okay with it. I'm okay because I'm the one targeted.



It's much like the Arizona immigration bill that some say when enforced will be done so in a fair, non-rights infringing manner. I simply am not so naive as to believe that. Cops can and will make up reasons to stop people if they think there is some other liklihood that the person they stopping are guilty of drunk driving, or being an illegal. Of the two situations, I feel much better about a cop doing that to stop drunk drivers than I do illegals. Doesn't make either right; but illegals don't (to me) pose the same threat as a drunk driver.



So, to me, do the means justify the ends? Sometimes.



Am I hypocritical? Sometimes!



:back2topic:

TJR

 

[Kevin Lang]

but illegals don't (to me) pose the same threat as a drunk driver.

What's to stop illegals from becoming drunk drivers? Uninsured drunk drivers who are near impossible to prosecute? In fact, when you started that tirade in a thread about this a while back, I'm positive one of us posted an anecdote about just that happening (Uninsured illegal smashing into an insured citizen, and getting off scott-free)



Cops pulling someone over on a local road in proximity to a bar cluster late at night is something that I, also, am okay with. Less so if it is me, but the ST isn't a vehicle for those crowds around here, so that's rare.



Cops pulling people over on 2 lane interstates in broad daylight, risking & exploiting other motorists, however, is not ok, unless it is done for a damn fine reason.



Speeding is not an example of such a reason.:btddhorse:

 

[Andy Chase]

But isn't speed a common factor in deadly crashes?? I'm not saying all speeders lead to fatalities, but theya re a factor.

 

[Kevin Lang]

It's the Interstate. A place where an additional 10 mph makes a serious difference, as many drivers upon it are using it for long periods of time.

(A fact clearly recognized by cops and truckers, who must read the speed limit as 15 mph higher)



Is 70 mph really more controllable than 80-90 mph? No.



70 mph is 102 feet per second. Under 3 seconds to drive the length of a football field. That's not time to react to a sudden change in conditions which would cause accident.



80 mph is 117 feet per second. 90 is 132 feet per second.



At these speeds, an additional 30 feet per second is superfluous, because if that car cuts in front of you, or that deer jumps out, odds are you're going to hit it already at 70 mph.



Shoot, the advanced accident avoidance exercise at the Bob Bondurant driving school sets the speed at 40 mph, as faster than that and you don't have time to react.

 

[Mark K 2]

I hear the troopers and deputies were out enforcing Wisconsin's 65 mph speed limit on Interstate 94 again today. Based on the radio traffic on my ST's two-way radio, the magic number today was 72 mph. Everyone doing that or higher got a ticket.

 

[Kevin Lang]

Based on the radio traffic on my ST's two-way radio, the magic number today was 72 mph.

SIGH



At least that's a whole 7 mph of grace...though naturally The Fuzz speeds to its speed traps



(As an aside, the worst interstate in America is still better than the Trans-Can. The only speed traps on the Trans-Can are near the places to get off, and into Civilization. Average speed 50 mph over several hundred miles. Brutal. )

 

[Thomas Rogers]

KL,



(fixed typo)



Regarding speed, a line has to be drawn somewhere...or not at all. If we decide to draw one then there will always be a debate of WHERE. That debate, IMHO, is rather pointless.



The more interesting and worthwhile debate (IMHO) is over whether there should even be a line.



TJR

 

[Kevin Lang]

The more interesting and worthwhile debate (IMHO) is over whwhether there should even be a line.

I'm not sure what "whwhether" is (forum tradition), but just to state for the record, I say there shouldn't be a line.



Getting hit by a car at any speed will probably kill, and if it doesn't, the victim would probably seriously wish the collision had been fatal.



Interestingly, the speed traps are a clear example of a government Not working against its people. Cutting yellow light times and putting in ridiculous speed limit changes all in the pursuit of $.

(FYI DC/Montgomery County, MD has actually started counting the speed camera income as a constant...)

 

[EddieS'04]

Doesn't make either right; but illegals don't (to me) pose the same threat as a drunk driver.

Check the police blotter in my town. Most DUI are illegals. Usually have other illegal buddies with them. Fact.....

 

[Andy Cabrera]

Eddie,



I am assuming that they are also driving without a license?

 

[Kevin Lang]

I am assuming that they are also driving without a license?

I'm curious as to why whether or not they had a license mattered.



If "Tay-Has" is anything like Maryland, the Mid-Atlantic Haven for Illegals, and it is, then getting legitimate drivers' licenses is nothing. The organization "Casa de Maryland" has been getting illegals licenses for eons now.



Here illegals have licenses aplenty Many are forgeries, but they still have them.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Eddie said:

Check the police blotter in my town. Most DUI are illegals. Usually have other illegal buddies with them. Fact.....

That's why I said "to me" in parens, to imply that illegals aren't a big problem for me, where I live.



Neither is crime due to drug users, or meth labs, or crack houses, or gang violence. These things are problems elsewhere, but I choose not to live like an animal, with the animals.



TJR