Radar detectors illegal in Virginia

[Beltway]

Often, yes, although "I was moving with the flow of traffic"  won't necessarily get you out of a ticket if you get pulled over.

In over a million miles of driving over 50 years, I never have been stopped for that.

Also, in situations such as, say, driving west on 316 from Athens after a UGA football game, driving the speed limit is a good way of saying "I'm driving drunk."

So if thousands of vehicles in a traffic stream are driving the speed limit, that means that everybody is drunk?

[froggie]

Often, yes, although "I was moving with the flow of traffic"  won't necessarily get you out of a ticket if you get pulled over.

In over a million miles of driving over 50 years, I never have been stopped for that.

I have.  Though in fairness, I was also the out-of-state plate as well as the "tail end Charlie" of that particular traffic stream.

[abefroman329]

Often, yes, although "I was moving with the flow of traffic"  won't necessarily get you out of a ticket if you get pulled over.

In over a million miles of driving over 50 years, I never have been stopped for that.

I have.  Though in fairness, I was also the out-of-state plate as well as the "tail end Charlie" of that particular traffic stream.

Hm, I guess I need to stop referring to speeding cars in front of me as "my radar detector,"  then.

[kalvado]

Often, yes, although "I was moving with the flow of traffic"  won't necessarily get you out of a ticket if you get pulled over.

In over a million miles of driving over 50 years, I never have been stopped for that.

I have.  Though in fairness, I was also the out-of-state plate as well as the "tail end Charlie" of that particular traffic stream.

Hm, I guess I need to stop referring to speeding cars in front of me as "my radar detector,"  then.

Possible logic is that first guy may say "I accelerated as those in the back started to tailgate me" while last guy in the bunch could only drive faster than the bunch to catch up with the gang.
But then if officer has any reason to assume pulling you over may yield anything more that a speeding ticket, nothing will save you. I suspect one of the reasons for keeping speed limits what they are is an easy way to work around fourth amendment.

[jeffandnicole]

ADDENDUM: The way that the no-mounting-on-windshield laws are written in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, they would appear to ban E-ZPasses as well. Go figure.

You are correct about that. That said, officers have been told don't write tickets for it, and I've never read of a case where it happened. When you get your EZ Pass you're given written instructions of where to mount it. Many people ignore such instructions though.

Heh.  Read 1984.

This reference is so tiring. No one mentions it though when they're standing out there recording something on their personal cell phone uploading it for the world....and the authorities...to see.

[Rothman]

Ignorance of the privacy risks and possible government misbehavior does not mean that such risks do not exist.  Orwell's warning is more pertinent today than ever, not less.

[jeffandnicole]

Ironically, most people's privacy has been disrupted by the private sector. Countless database breaches at large stores, credit card hacks and email viruses are daily issues.  Your phone's GPS tells your phone carrier, Google, and every other company you've looked at or given permission to on your phone knows where you are within a 10 foot radius.

But people ignore all of that.

And tomorrow, they'll be hacked again. But they fear a story named 1984 more than actual reality.

[Beltway]

Often, yes, although "I was moving with the flow of traffic"  won't necessarily get you out of a ticket if you get pulled over.

In over a million miles of driving over 50 years, I never have been stopped for that.

I have.  Though in fairness, I was also the out-of-state plate as well as the "tail end Charlie" of that particular traffic stream.

Not saying that it can't happen, or that some individual cop might not do that, just that it is extremely rare, and is not the general policy of a PD.

If some of the stuff claimed was common, the courts would be flooded with traffic cases and would not be able to do any other cases.

[Beltway]

Remember the poster "GPSMAN" on MTR?  He had a lot of interesting responses to the various Usenet driving "experts". 

Example post of his --

From: gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com>
Newsgroups: misc.transport.road
Subject: Re: Would YOU pay for the right to speed?
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 10:17:56 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <ea7d31b6-1528-4c07-b75f-ba7f164f4e86@q2g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.209.250.147
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1284139076 1434 127.0.0.1 (10 Sep 2010 17:17:56 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 17:17:56 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US)
AppleWebKit/534.3 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/6.0.472.55 Safari/534.3,gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com misc.transport.road:67765

On Sep 9, 5:49=A0pm, Nate Nagel <njn...@roosters.net> wrote:
> On 09/09/2010 08:40 AM, gpsman wrote:
>
> > On Sep 8, 10:16 am, ernest.p...@vernal.equinox.edu (T.J. Higgins)
> > wrote:
>
> >> How do large speed differentials work on the autobahn?
>
> > Driver education and training, additional regulations, and enforcement
> > that would cause the heads of Usenet driving "experts" to explode.
>
> Isn't that what pretty much all intelligent posters to RAD have been
> advocating all along?

Intelli... who in the hell would that be?  The poster who can't
operate a killfile?

The posters who report, ad nauseum, their every travail negotiating
traffic?  The poster who can't monitor his speedometer, citing it as a
"distraction"?  The posters who have nothing more than the most basic
of training and education, most of which they now cite as "wrong"?

The posters who unashamedly post video of their bad operational habits
and judgment, their own code infractions and temper tantrums?

The posters who will repeatedly, without embarrassment, proclaim
driving "perfectly safe", then in the same post report threatening a
motorist with their vehicle to "teach them a lesson", or freely admit
they believe cameras cause crashes?

Intelligence, I'm afraid, isn't as common as you seem to believe.

And, intelligence doesn't have much to do with it.  I've seen perfect
dolts decide to drive like they had some sense and guys with degrees
refuse and lose their jobs, after the company went to the expense of
providing them remedial training.

> Or is your idea of "Usenet driving 'experts'"
> limited to morons like yourself, "Aunt Judy," Scott Weisass, Carl
> Troller, etc.?

<yawn>

> But yes, I probably would experience some cognitive dissonance as such a
> concept is totally alien to current US practice.

You're functionally illiterate.

> Slow is safe, screw everything else.

You reported witnessing 2 rear-end crashes at highway velocities every
day.

-----
- gpsman

[Rothman]

Ironically, most people's privacy has been disrupted by the private sector. Countless database breaches at large stores, credit card hacks and email viruses are daily issues.  Your phone's GPS tells your phone carrier, Google, and every other company you've looked at or given permission to on your phone knows where you are within a 10 foot radius.

But people ignore all of that.

And tomorrow, they'll be hacked again. But they fear a story named 1984 more than actual reality.

They're coming at us from all sides.  There is no hope for America.

[kalvado]

Ironically, most people's privacy has been disrupted by the private sector. Countless database breaches at large stores, credit card hacks and email viruses are daily issues.  Your phone's GPS tells your phone carrier, Google, and every other company you've looked at or given permission to on your phone knows where you are within a 10 foot radius.

But people ignore all of that.

And tomorrow, they'll be hacked again. But they fear a story named 1984 more than actual reality.

What most private entities are up to is your money. And preferably legal money. If someone uses my information to sell me something, I have a choice of buying thing I need or saying "no, thank you" - generally even if they become obnoxious. And if they end up knowing what I need and offering right thing - it is mostly a win-win situation.
Then there are criminal private entities who want my money in ANY way. Sometimes with a gun on a street, sometimes with a virus on site. Well, that is part of the life
And then there is government who can look for a lot more than money. They already can extract money in moral, somewhat moral and not so moral - but still legal - ways anyway; taxes,  fees, fines, taxation of fees on fines and what not. But they may want more. They may be looking for "suspicious patterns", and use that in funny ways - deny airline boarding, clearance, reporting on background check and what not. They have a lot of powers which can be abused - intentionally or by mistake. And they do not apologize for anything.
I would rather have money stolen than coming on the government radar..

[Beltway]

And tomorrow, they'll be hacked again. But they fear a story named 1984 more than actual reality.

They're coming at us from all sides.  There is no hope for America.

Are you looking at this from a Biblical worldview?  Or a humanist worldview?

[webny99]

Reminds me of a story that I saw in the Lexington Herald-Leader today. I would post the link, but that would be gratuitously inserting politics into this thread, and Abefroman and Webny99 would both have a fit. 

I think I'm over it 
I only had a fit, to the extent you can call it one,  because a good discussion almost got ruined.

Now abefroman has politics in his signature, too; it's only intuitive to assume that's the green light for anyone and everyone else to do the same.

[Scott5114]

Now abefroman has politics in his signature, too; it's only intuitive to assume that's the green light for anyone and everyone else to do the same.

Note that inaction does not necessarily mean that moderation is not going to take place–for larger issues affecting forum policy, a discussion needs to take place amongst the staff before a decision can be reached. This takes time.

[webny99]

Now abefroman has politics in his signature, too; it's only intuitive to assume that's the green light for anyone and everyone else to do the same.

Note that inaction does not necessarily mean that moderation is not going to take place–for larger issues affecting forum policy, a discussion needs to take place amongst the staff before a decision can be reached. This takes time.

I'm interested, naturally, in what constitutes a large issue.

[hotdogPi]

Now abefroman has politics in his signature, too; it's only intuitive to assume that's the green light for anyone and everyone else to do the same.

Note that inaction does not necessarily mean that moderation is not going to take place–for larger issues affecting forum policy, a discussion needs to take place amongst the staff before a decision can be reached. This takes time.

I'm interested, naturally, in what constitutes a large issue.

Single people can be dealt with individually without a change in forum policy (such as when I was asked to remove my support for candidate Doug Jones from my signature last December). Now that three users have politics-related signatures, and it was mentioned that the addition of the third one basically means that it is now de facto allowed for anyone to do it, it might require a change in forum policy.

[jeffandnicole]

Now abefroman has politics in his signature, too; it's only intuitive to assume that's the green light for anyone and everyone else to do the same.

Note that inaction does not necessarily mean that moderation is not going to take place–for larger issues affecting forum policy, a discussion needs to take place amongst the staff before a decision can be reached. This takes time.

I'm interested, naturally, in what constitutes a large issue.

Single people can be dealt with individually without a change in forum policy (such as when I was asked to remove my support for candidate Doug Jones from my signature last December). Now that three users have politics-related signatures, and it was mentioned that the addition of the third one basically means that it is now de facto allowed for anyone to do it, it might require a change in forum policy.

It's unfortunately that individuals need to try to find every loophole conceivable to do what they insist on doing.

There are tons of forums and websites where people can express their views on other topics, if they feel they must tell the world their opinions of such.

[abefroman329]

Now abefroman has politics in his signature, too; it's only intuitive to assume that's the green light for anyone and everyone else to do the same.

Note that inaction does not necessarily mean that moderation is not going to take place–for larger issues affecting forum policy, a discussion needs to take place amongst the staff before a decision can be reached. This takes time.

I'm interested, naturally, in what constitutes a large issue.

Single people can be dealt with individually without a change in forum policy (such as when I was asked to remove my support for candidate Doug Jones from my signature last December). Now that three users have politics-related signatures, and it was mentioned that the addition of the third one basically means that it is now de facto allowed for anyone to do it, it might require a change in forum policy.

Four - I was inspired by Beltway.

[webny99]

Now that three users have politics-related signatures...

Four - I was inspired by Beltway.

Unless ""-- Borders, Language and Culture" is somehow political, I don't see anything political in Beltway's signature.

[hotdogPi]

Now that three users have politics-related signatures...

Four - I was inspired by Beltway.

Unless ""-- Borders, Language and Culture" is somehow political, I don't see anything political in Beltway's signature.

He changed his signature.

[webny99]

Now that three users have politics-related signatures...

Four - I was inspired by Beltway.

Unless ""-- Borders, Language and Culture" is somehow political, I don't see anything political in Beltway's signature.

He changed his signature.

... which means we're back to three.

[abefroman329]

Now that three users have politics-related signatures...

Four - I was inspired by Beltway.

Unless ""-- Borders, Language and Culture" is somehow political, I don't see anything political in Beltway's signature.

He changed his signature.

... which means we're back to three.

And now we're back to two, huzzah.

[kkt]

However, if there is no moderator decision to the contrary, I for one might put a political message in my signature.  I didn't come to this forum to discuss politics, but I don't want newbies to feel that everyone on the board is of a certain political view or that other views would be unwelcome.

[hotdogPi]

However, if there is no moderator decision to the contrary, I for one might put a political message in my signature.  I didn't come to this forum to discuss politics, but I don't want newbies to feel that everyone on the board is of a certain political view or that other views would be unwelcome.

Part of the problem is that NE2 attacks anyone who is a Republican, including name calling. Countering arguments is fine, but going completely off topic to make a personal attack is not.

[abefroman329]

However, if there is no moderator decision to the contrary, I for one might put a political message in my signature.  I didn't come to this forum to discuss politics, but I don't want newbies to feel that everyone on the board is of a certain political view or that other views would be unwelcome.

I'm not sure how anyone could reach that conclusion based on the fact that two users have political messages in their signatures, one liberal, one conservative.