Today, I was down in McDonough (GA), touring the McDonough Square (US 23/SR 20/42/81). I recorded video from all approaches of the square. I then got out and took photos of the traffic light assemblages, which are mast arm assemblies (YAY!). I saw this McDonough police car pass through the square three or four times. When I finished touring the Square, I head SR 20 West/81 West toward I-75. I was putting my camera back on the dashboard when I noticed a McDonough police car behind me. He followed me for about a half mile, until he pulled me over.
I pulled over to the side, trying to figure out why I was being pulled over. I wasn't speeding. I wasn't driving erraticly, so I didn't understand why I was being pulled over. The officer got out of his car and came toward me. I asked him why he had pulled me over. He told me to come back to his patrol car. He then told me I fit a description of a robbery suspect: black male, blue shirt (I had on a blue hoodie) and a white car (I drive a white Dodge Neon). He asked if could pat down. I said, "Yes." He asked if he could search my vehicle. I was on the fence on this, but decided to give consent.
I was a bit nervous while he was talking to me -- I kept putting my hands in my hoodie (a big "no-no," I know). I then put my hands to my side.
The other officer, I guess, trying to make conversation asked me what I was doing with my camera. I told him I take pictures and video of different roads and put it up on YouTube. He then said, "That's it?" I said, "Yes."
So, in short, I was stopped for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Be well,
Bryant
While it hasn't happened to me personally, i think Jake has been pulled over a time or two by the local yokels...
in part, they get confused as to why we would want to photograph such things as signs and signals...but in part, because crime is up, coupled with post-9-11 paranoia over unknown strangers taking photos of things
(railfans have encountered the same thing from the railroad cops in recent years...paranoia over harmless picture taking...maybe the rail cops are afraid the bad guys are somehow involved and getting piccys of the rail network to determine what nasty things can be done to us and where...who knows...)
*g* that is why when i go 'sign shopping, i ALWAYS ask for the business card of the guys i deal with....so if i am stopped and searched, a quick phone call can verify my information...
What a weird concidence! Thanks for sharing.
I also tend to get my camera out of sight when I see a cop car around, but that's mostly because they might think you're doing different things than driving (like using a cell phone is forbidden while driving).
Did you guys also note (talking about the post 9-11 paranoia), that Google Streetview does not cover the bridges to Manhattan? Only the on/offramps, but it stops on the bridge itself...
When I see a cop come up behind me while roadgeeking I turn at the first intersection, wait 5 minutes, and then get back on the road because I don't feel like explaining why I'm taking pictures of road signs and then risking him being in a bad mood and giving me a ticket for inattentive driving
^^ That's why I'm not going to use my handheld camera anymore, while driving. I'm just going to use the dashboard mounted one. That one's just push-and-go.
This time, I was using my dashboard-mounted camera. I just got out of the car and walked around to take some photos.
Be well,
Bryant
During the final day of the National Meet in 2006, I was leading the group on a walk along the then unopened PA Turnpike 576. As soon as we made it up the northbound on-ramp at 30, I saw the vector bar of a State Police cruiser speeding southbound and knew it was a matter of time until he made the U-turn at 22. Sure enough he caught up to us and just politely told us to walk back to the interchange.
There is a huge movement to try and make photography into some kind of crime. When you have cameras out as large as mine you get people to look at you very strange sometimes. You did nothing wrong, don't let them tell you otherwise.
^^ They really didn't say much to me about the camera, except what I was doing with it. For all they knew, I could've been with the History Channel or National Geographic :-D. In any event, you're right, nothing wrong with walking around with a camera.
Be well,
Bryant
Here's video of the traffic stop. I forgot that the camera was still rolling.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQvfa8-T7J4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQvfa8-T7J4)
Be well,
Bryant
At least you have the evidence. :crazy:
^^ Yeah, the officers weren't rude or anything. Just more of an inconvience than anything else.
Be well,
Bryant
In the future you really ought to pull into a parking lot (like that BP lot) when you can
^^ I thought about that after the fact.
Thanks.
Be well,
Bryant
Sometimes the panic response takes over and you don't do exactly what you're supposed to.
Very good point
I've never been pulled over though.
I've been pulled over 5 times (only twice was I ticketed for anything). One time I was warned, and the other two times were on the basis of 'suspicious activity' where they run your license, ask where you're going, waste 15 minutes of your day (or in my case, night), and let you on your way.
I understand the reason, but it still is discriminatory.
Sykotyk
I've been followed and my plates run by cops while roadgeeking, but I've never actually been pulled over. Hopefully my luck will continue.
I've never heard of being pulled over and fined for roadgeeking...then again, I don't drive...
The idea of driving around taking pictures of road signs isn't exactly "normal" behavior and it raises suspicion from the cops.
The most fun I've had is when clinching Washington's state routes, I also had to ride a ton of ferries.
Take pictures of the ferries is fun... because you're guaranteed to be questioned if you're not incredibly discrete about it. If you stand outside and take pictures of the scenery it is fine, but when you start taking pictures of the inside of the ferries, the car deck, and things like the lifeboat they really, really don't like it.
I take pictures all of the time and they don't mind.
Been looked at suspiciously by both Amtrak workers and I believe both Norfolk Southern and CSX Railroad Police while railfanning, but never had anyone question my roadgeeking.
And Bryant, I got a good laugh out of that video! That cop's tone was pretty funny.
^^ Yeah, he was kind rumbling and stumbling when I asked him, "What's wrong?"
Be well,
Bryant
I was stopped at the southern stub end of NY 135. As I was taking photos a plainclothesman pulled up on the other side, unmarked car, flashed a badge and asked what I was doing. While I explained it someone else pulled up. He was very nice and said that I wasn't doing anything wrong and I should check out the northern stub end (I told him I planned to do that but not stop there, which was true, it's not as interesting). He said I could get stopped up there and just tell them the same thing I told him. The only one time I was ordered to stop and delete photos was a place I really wasn't supposed to have taken them, so I wasn't about to complain. Nuff said.
Heh, you've sparked my curiosity, now I want to know where that was... :-P
^^ It was at the beginning, right after where I turned the music down. It wasn't a big rumble and stumble, it was just a little bit of stammer. (He didn't really rumble, stumble, fall down.)
Be well,
Bryant
How about these roadgeeks :sombrero:
Dutch Police pulls over a streetview car in Venray:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi33.tinypic.com%2F6ieczs.jpg&hash=12198a596ea542d14d6dcc3b94647019c80860e3)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi35.tinypic.com%2Fbe77n.jpg&hash=249cdcc0ceab9bc6ece9be0e8c9e706553dd8c0e)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi37.tinypic.com%2F34q016v.jpg&hash=0695188bf3e897014366d725cdde693e8b844e7a)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi38.tinypic.com%2F11bhypy.jpg&hash=4771e358a4652b499438c3ee59362517434cb1c9)
^^ Lol, why?
Be well,
Bryant
I've not been pulled over per se, but questioned a time or two while taking photos. Usually after I explain, they leave me alone... except once in Baton Rouge when I was taking gas station photos. The owner or manager came out and ordered me to leave.
The only time I had a run in with the cops, is when the cop gave me a dirty look when I held my camera out to take the photo. The cop didn't pull us over, so its not really a run in, but it could count. Here is the sign I was taking a photo of:
http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/MaineTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5377326545072767490 (http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/MaineTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5377326545072767490)
Quote from: PennDOTFan on November 11, 2009, 09:12:28 PM
The only time I had a run in with the cops, is when the cop gave me a dirty look when I held my camera out to take the photo. The cop didn't pull us over, so its not really a run in, but it could count. Here is the sign I was taking a photo of:
http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/MaineTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5377326545072767490 (http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/MaineTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5377326545072767490)
I looked at the photo and can't see what the problem was. There was certainly no visible "threat to national security" there!
Quote from: mightyace on November 11, 2009, 09:20:36 PM
Quote from: PennDOTFan on November 11, 2009, 09:12:28 PM
The only time I had a run in with the cops, is when the cop gave me a dirty look when I held my camera out to take the photo. The cop didn't pull us over, so its not really a run in, but it could count. Here is the sign I was taking a photo of:
http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/MaineTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5377326545072767490 (http://picasaweb.google.com/Iansignal/MaineTrafficSignalsAndRoadSigns#5377326545072767490)
I looked at the photo and can't see what the problem was. There was certainly no visible "threat to national security" there!
There's no problem with the sign. I guess he just thought it was odd since I was only a kid and was taking photos of road signs. I guess that may come out to the cop as "bizzare".
I got pulled over, but I was speeding! :wow:
That's something I've always been afraid of while roadgeeking. How do you tell an officer "I'm just trying to see where this road ends"? The cop would never believe you anyways, so I might be tempted to lie a little bit. "I was just going to get a couple of burgers at Wendy's" Of course, I would get in worse trouble once the cop finds out the address on my driver's license is a hundred miles away.
One time my mom and I were roadgeeking on SH-66 when we got pulled over for speeding around Luther. The cop sort of asked what we were doing, though in more of a curious than demanding way. We just sort of said we were checking out Route 66 and that seemed good enough for him.
By the way, my mom was the one driving. She's such a good influence. :P
QuoteWe just sort of said we were checking out Route 66 and that seemed good enough for him.
I have a hunch that line works better then any other one- plenty of non-roadgeeks check out old Route 66.
It's good to have a website, I think. Most cops these days have an internet in their car, so if I were to get pulled over on suspicion and the cop didn't believe me, I'd say "Well, check out wyomingroutes.org- that's my website" and he'd see I'm just insane and not a threat to national security
I'd be afraid they'd see the pictures and try to cite me for distracted driving :roll:
I would not consent to a search.
Quote from: Chris on March 29, 2009, 03:04:39 PM
I also tend to get my camera out of sight when I see a cop car around, but that's mostly because they might think you're doing different things than driving (like using a cell phone is forbidden while driving).
Did you guys also note (talking about the post 9-11 paranoia), that Google Streetview does not cover the bridges to Manhattan? Only the on/offramps, but it stops on the bridge itself...
I thought I was the only one who noticed that. The GW bridge doesn't have GSV. Also all of the Staten Island bridges don't have GSV. There might be some other NYC bridges without streetview.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 25, 2015, 01:42:32 PM
I would not consent to a search.
I'm no admin, but I don't think this post meets AARoads' "useful contribution" article, which requires new posts to old threads to be, uhh, useful. At least some context would have been nice.
It's not unique to the USA - over here in Merrie ol' England, I spent a day up in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and spent several hours doing trips through the central area, particularly paying attention to the double-deck section of the Central Motorway (the longest double decker expressway in the UK, at all of maybe 0.75 miles).
Two days later, bearing in mind I live over 100 miles away from Newcastle and it's in a different police jurisdiction, two officers from my own police force area came to question me about what I was doing in Newcastle. I ended up showing them my then website, and they went away happy.
I found it easier to take photos in London, even immediately outside of Parliament. The paranoia levels are absurd.
Quote from: ctsignguy on March 29, 2009, 01:11:48 PMin part, they get confused as to why we would want to photograph such things as signs and signals...but in part, because crime is up, coupled with post-9-11 paranoia over unknown strangers taking photos of things
(railfans have encountered the same thing from the railroad cops in recent years...paranoia over harmless picture taking...maybe the rail cops are afraid the bad guys are somehow involved and getting piccys of the rail network to determine what nasty things can be done to us and where...who knows...)
Aviation enthusiasts (aka
plane spotters) have encountered similar as well; especially right after 9/11/2001. While some encounters at airports have waned (one known PHL spotter (not me) talked with one of the Philadelphia Police lieutenants regarding such and things have gotten better over at PHL); some have not.
Even today, should one try to take pictures of planes around EWR at the nearby Ikea Lot in Newark; one can
still expect police to show up and harass one stating that they
"can't take pictures of planes".
When I did an autocross at Wimington (OH) Airpark, they told us specifically not to take pictures of the parked airplanes.
edit: changed "on" to "of"
Quote from: jakeroot on June 25, 2015, 02:13:02 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 25, 2015, 01:42:32 PM
I would not consent to a search.
I'm no admin, but I don't think this post meets AARoads' "useful contribution" article, which requires new posts to old threads to be, uhh, useful. At least some context would have been nice.
We'll let it pass this time because it allowed some people to post 'useful' posts after his who might have not seen this thread in the first place.
Never really been stopped by police while road geeking, but one time I was taking pictures of traffic lights on Redstone Arsenal when a police officer showed up and said I wasn't allowed to take pictures of the traffic lights for "security reasons". Fortunately, they did not ask me to delete my photos.
Most of my encounters with the police have been while I've been railfanning. Usually, it's because someone sees me standing trackside and calls the police on me because they think I'm acting suspicious or suicidal. However, my encounters with the police have left me with a couple of funny stories, including one where I found out I have a doppelganger.
I was on Roosevelt Blvd in Philly, car pulled up onto the grassy median between the local and express lanes to take a pic of this sign:
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8701/17059441441_198773ba5f_z.jpg)
After I took the pic with my iPhone, a cop drove up to ask if everything was ok and I said yes and pretended to check my tires and then got in my car and on I went.
I figured if the cop questioned me more I'd just tell them I take pics of roads scenes and signs and show them my iPhone which has tons of sign pics on it. I figured I'd be on a list of stories cops have heard over the years..."this one time I stopped a guy who takes pics of roads signs..."
I've gotten questioned just exploring more than photographing anything. In April my sleep was off one night and I was wide awake at 2am and decided to go see how much snow was left in the big piles in South Boston. Apparently this is Not Alright and a state trooper started following me out of there, at which point I did the standard defuse of asking him for directions.
I've never been quizzed by cops but I did have one irritable neighbor demand to know what I was taking pictures of once.
Quote from: Bryant5493 on March 29, 2009, 01:03:35 PM
He then told me I fit a description of a robbery suspect: black male, blue shirt (I had on a blue hoodie) and a white car (I drive a white Dodge Neon).
The other officer, I guess, trying to make conversation asked me what I was doing with my camera. I told him I take pictures and video of different roads and put it up on YouTube. He then said, "That's it?" I said, "Yes."
This goes back some six years to the first post, but the "fit a description" thing is shaky as hell, and there is no such thing as an officer "making conversation" during an encounter.
Quote from: Mergingtraffic on July 03, 2015, 12:18:32 PM
I was on Roosevelt Blvd in Philly, car pulled up onto the grassy median between the local and express lanes
doing that on the Boulevard sounds like having a death wish.
Not yet, but when railroading I get asked a lot. Considering there are more railfans out there than anything, you would figure that the cops would all know this by now, but that is another story.
I do put my camera away around stopped law enforcement or if one is next to me at a stoplight, as I do not want to explain my reasons as our hobby is not even close to being as popular as rail buffing.
Never got pulled over, but I got held up at the Canadian border in Houlton, ME, three years ago. I had my camera out when I crossed the border, intending to get a picture of the first southbound sign on I-95. I think they thought I was photographing the customs station. I showed them my camera contents and even showed them what I wanted a picture of, and they let me go; I got a really good picture on the way back to my rental car.
Quote from: corco on March 31, 2009, 11:57:27 AM
The idea of driving around taking pictures of road signs isn't exactly "normal" behavior and it raises suspicion from the cops.
What the actual fuck is wrong with taking a few pictures? How is someone photographing a sign "suspicious" at all? The police should focus on actual crimes being committed, not hobbyists enjoying their day if they're not blocking traffic.
Quote from: Molandfreak on July 10, 2015, 10:28:41 AM
Quote from: corco on March 31, 2009, 11:57:27 AM
The idea of driving around taking pictures of road signs isn't exactly "normal" behavior and it raises suspicion from the cops.
What the actual fuck is wrong with taking a few pictures? How is someone photographing a sign "suspicious" at all? The police should focus on actual crimes being committed, not hobbyists enjoying their day and not blocking traffic.
Roadgeeking isn't exactly a household hobby. And many roadgeeking hobbyists are pulled over in odd spots, or stopped in odd spots, taking pictures of really minor details. A cop will have no clue that a sign used FHWA B or Clearview Modified or whatever. He just knows that you standing there taking a picture of that sign is probably the first time anyone in his department has ever seen someone taking a picture of that sign!
For what it's worth, many a criminal has been caught for a major crime while stopped for something minor.. You also have to look at the point of view of others: In a store for example, you probably put your hands in your pockets numerous times without a 2nd thought. To store security, every time you do that is a possible instance of you pickpocketing something.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on June 26, 2015, 09:05:44 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 25, 2015, 02:13:02 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on June 25, 2015, 01:42:32 PM
I would not consent to a search.
I'm no admin, but I don't think this post meets AARoads' "useful contribution" article, which requires new posts to old threads to be, uhh, useful. At least some context would have been nice.
We'll let it pass this time because it allowed some people to post 'useful' posts after his who might have not seen this thread in the first place.
If you see something say something
Quote from: Molandfreak on July 10, 2015, 10:28:41 AM
Quote from: corco on March 31, 2009, 11:57:27 AM
The idea of driving around taking pictures of road signs isn't exactly "normal" behavior and it raises suspicion from the cops.
What the actual fuck is wrong with taking a few pictures? How is someone photographing a sign "suspicious" at all? The police should focus on actual crimes being committed, not hobbyists enjoying their day if they're not blocking traffic.
Doesn't the NJ turnpike regulation sign say taking pictures is prohibited? I remember that at the toll booth
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 03, 2015, 01:10:34 PM
I've gotten questioned just exploring more than photographing anything. In April my sleep was off one night and I was wide awake at 2am and decided to go see how much snow was left in the big piles in South Boston. Apparently this is Not Alright and a state trooper started following me out of there, at which point I did the standard defuse of asking him for directions.
That time if night they are looking for drunk drivers
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 10, 2015, 10:38:11 AMFor what it's worth, many a criminal has been caught for a major crime while stopped for something minor..
This, unfortunately, is an argument used to justify a fair amount of police harassment. I do understand the line is fine, but "Question anyone doing anything out of the ordinary, just to be safe" is the start of a slippery slope.
Quote from: jwolfer on July 10, 2015, 06:22:02 PM
Doesn't the NJ turnpike regulation sign say taking pictures is prohibited? I remember that at the toll booth
According to their online regulations (which is 63! Pages! Long) it only says photos are prohibited if you slow down to take them.
I wonder if the policy changed due to the ubiquity of cameras.
No. It's how people interpreted the law, which was usually interpreted incorrectly. The rule hasn't changed since it's inception.
Never been pulled over, but I have tried to explain myself to Customs when spending more time then they'd like in Canada because I tried to clinch some roads instead of using the QEW
My handheld camera is a sleek black color so sometimes I worry some idiot (either a cop or civilian) will mistake it for a handgun. But as of yet nothing has happened.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 10, 2015, 07:50:21 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 10, 2015, 10:38:11 AMFor what it's worth, many a criminal has been caught for a major crime while stopped for something minor..
This, unfortunately, is an argument used to justify a fair amount of police harassment. I do understand the line is fine, but "Question anyone doing anything out of the ordinary, just to be safe" is the start of a slippery slope.
Questioning people doing suspicious things is good police work. The slippery slope doesn't start until they start bugging people who aren't doing suspicious things, or detaining people who have a reasonable explanation for their suspicious behavior.
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on July 10, 2015, 08:28:25 PM
Quote from: jwolfer on July 10, 2015, 06:22:02 PM
Doesn't the NJ turnpike regulation sign say taking pictures is prohibited? I remember that at the toll booth
According to their online regulations (which is 63! Pages! Long) it only says photos are prohibited if you slow down to take them.
Looking for America on the New Jersey Turnpike (http://www.amazon.com/Looking-America-New-Jersey-Turnpike/dp/0813519551) (by Angus Kress Gillespie and Michael Aaron Rockland) goes in to some detail about an incident where someone was charged with violation of the New Jersey Administrative Code for taking photographs of the Turnpike. The photographer was convicted in a trial court, but pn appeal (with assistance from the New Jersey ACLU) the conviction was vacated and at least some provisions of the administrative code were invalidated for being "too broad."
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 12, 2015, 12:57:38 PM
Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on July 10, 2015, 08:28:25 PM
Quote from: jwolfer on July 10, 2015, 06:22:02 PM
Doesn't the NJ turnpike regulation sign say taking pictures is prohibited? I remember that at the toll booth
According to their online regulations (which is 63! Pages! Long) it only says photos are prohibited if you slow down to take them.
Looking for America on the New Jersey Turnpike (http://www.amazon.com/Looking-America-New-Jersey-Turnpike/dp/0813519551) (by Angus Kress Gillespie and Michael Aaron Rockland) goes in to some detail about an incident where someone was charged with violation of the New Jersey Administrative Code for taking photographs of the Turnpike. The photographer was convicted in a trial court, but pn appeal (with assistance from the New Jersey ACLU) the conviction was vacated and at least some provisions of the administrative code were invalidated for being "too broad."
Why would taking pictures of the turnpike be against the law?
Quote from: Molandfreak on July 13, 2015, 06:46:37 PM
Quote from: dfwmapper on July 11, 2015, 09:26:44 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 10, 2015, 07:50:21 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 10, 2015, 10:38:11 AMFor what it's worth, many a criminal has been caught for a major crime while stopped for something minor..
This, unfortunately, is an argument used to justify a fair amount of police harassment. I do understand the line is fine, but "Question anyone doing anything out of the ordinary, just to be safe" is the start of a slippery slope.
Questioning people doing suspicious things is good police work. The slippery slope doesn't start until they start bugging people who aren't doing suspicious things, or detaining people who have a reasonable explanation for their suspicious behavior.
Taking a fucking picture isn't "suspicious behavior." It's just taking a picture.
Welcome to Post-9/11 America.
Quote from: dfwmapper on July 11, 2015, 09:26:44 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 10, 2015, 07:50:21 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 10, 2015, 10:38:11 AMFor what it's worth, many a criminal has been caught for a major crime while stopped for something minor..
This, unfortunately, is an argument used to justify a fair amount of police harassment. I do understand the line is fine, but "Question anyone doing anything out of the ordinary, just to be safe" is the start of a slippery slope.
Questioning people doing suspicious things is good police work. The slippery slope doesn't start until they start bugging people who aren't doing suspicious things, or detaining people who have a reasonable explanation for their suspicious behavior.
I don't disagree with this. I have a problem with the overly broad interpretation of "suspicious" that seems commonplace (even pre-9/11, but especially post-).
Quote from: Molandfreak on July 13, 2015, 06:46:37 PM
Quote from: dfwmapper on July 11, 2015, 09:26:44 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 10, 2015, 07:50:21 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 10, 2015, 10:38:11 AMFor what it's worth, many a criminal has been caught for a major crime while stopped for something minor..
This, unfortunately, is an argument used to justify a fair amount of police harassment. I do understand the line is fine, but "Question anyone doing anything out of the ordinary, just to be safe" is the start of a slippery slope.
Questioning people doing suspicious things is good police work. The slippery slope doesn't start until they start bugging people who aren't doing suspicious things, or detaining people who have a reasonable explanation for their suspicious behavior.
Taking a fucking picture isn't "suspicious behavior." It's just taking a picture.
iPhone
That's what Big Brother has been trying to say all along. But suddenly, people want their privacy while out in public.
Quote from: Molandfreak on July 14, 2015, 07:33:01 AM
"9-1-1, what is your emergency?" "This weird guy is taking pictures of a sign." The police shouldn't be responding to calls as silly as this. If they want to know what you're doing while you're pulled over to the side (which should only be for safety reasons-or if they suspect you've broken down), "I like this sign, so I'm photographing it" should be a reasonable enough explanation.
"If you see something, say something!"
Although honestly, once the police receive a call like this, I believe they *have* to at least do a drive by. It would be a major issue if they received a 911 call, didn't check it out, and then sometime disastrous occurred.
Besides, your issue is with the wrong person, and why being a cop is so hard in the first place. Why give the person that called 911 a free pass? That person was the one wasting everyone's time by calling it in in the first place. Which goes back to "If you see something, say something". Unfortunately, people are ready to say too much sometimes.
This is the kind of thing that drives me and a lot of photographers absolutely batshit...since 9-11 "If you see something say something" has been applied in some of the most ludicrous situations ever, especially if you happen to be packing a digital SLR. Forget about going to the airport anymore to shoot (especially after our great DHS director created a poster with someone carrying a digital SLR and telephoto [and yes, it was a Canon-I own Canon gear] lurking around an airport)...if you do anything that could be considered sketchy you could have people in your face telling you not to shoot them or anyone around you...and they're assholes about it.
I remember reading a post on the photography forum I'm on where the poster was accosted by a woman at a playground who loudly screamed that he was a pedophile and that he needed to get away from shooting those children...except 1) he was shooting his own DAUGHTER and 2) all the parents around the playground knew him and his daughter.
I had a situation a few years ago when I went to a marina with my DSLR and a supertelephoto zoom to shoot the boats there; when I found a place to park I saw a disreputable-looking van with a scruffy-looking guy in overalls parked nearby that made me nervous, so I took a wide berth around it to get to the vantage point in the park I was in to get my shots. About five minutes into my shooting I suddenly hear behind me "Sir?"
I turned, and there's Mr. Scruffy standing behind me. "Why are you taking pictures of the boats?"
Fighting down an eyeroll and a sarcastic remark, I said "Um...because they're there? It's what I like to do."
Apparently that satisfied him, but I was so disgusted at the time that after another ten minutes I went back to my car, packed up my gear and went home.
And don't get me started on the way too many times folks with DSLR's are told they can't take pictures of scenes/persons while the folks with smartphones are busy shooting away.
Welcome to Amerika. Your papers please!
These days "suspicious" means "anything that isn't normal". And being a roadgeek is NOT considered normal. Most people think that if you've seen one sign, you've seen them all. We live in a "guilty until proven innocent" society.
Quote from: DeaconG on July 14, 2015, 01:47:17 PM
This is the kind of thing that drives me and a lot of photographers absolutely batshit...since 9-11 "If you see something say something" has been applied in some of the most ludicrous situations ever, especially if you happen to be packing a digital SLR.
I take photos at airports of planes, from inside planes, parking garages, of buildings, and various roadgeekery on/off the road, but I've never really been bothered by anyone. A few times, folks have pulled over to ask "is everything okay?", but never harassed* by cops or anyone else. I avoid photographing strangers or most people in the line of work directly; while some folks are pretty good at the whole "street photography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_photography)" thing, I tend to avoid it...it would annoy me because I own my own image and its modelling rights. I could see where people go nuts over the
"if you see something weird because you're ignorant and can't be bothered to even casually investigate, rat them out and allow them to be hassled"; I've heard that some airport authorities drive away as many aviation enthusiasts as possible from the perimeters, but others are more welcoming so as long as you aren't disrupting anyone.
This is going to come to a head at some point, but it seems privacy is soon to be a thing of the past...because the camera-phone generation videos everything, regardless of privacy or principles, and post it without permission.
* Ignoring speeding tickets, that is. Although once I was pulled over by a sheriff's van; I received a warning, and he saw my camera bag in the back seat. Turns out the officer had a ton of photographic equipment in his vehicle, and he was proud to show me some of lenses, bodies, tripods, et al. Unfortunately, his job was mostly to photograph crime scenes ranging from the mundane to the grizzly and horrific.
Quote from: formulanone on July 14, 2015, 09:48:47 PM
Quote from: DeaconG on July 14, 2015, 01:47:17 PM
This is the kind of thing that drives me and a lot of photographers absolutely batshit...since 9-11 "If you see something say something" has been applied in some of the most ludicrous situations ever, especially if you happen to be packing a digital SLR.
I take photos at airports of planes, from inside planes, parking garages, of buildings, and various roadgeekery on/off the road, but I've never really been bothered by anyone. A few times, folks have pulled over to ask "is everything okay?", but never harassed* by cops or anyone else. I avoid photographing strangers or most people in the line of work directly; while some folks are pretty good at the whole "street photography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_photography)" thing, I tend to avoid it...it would annoy me because I own my own image and its modelling rights. I could see where people go nuts over the "if you see something weird because you're ignorant and can't be bothered to even casually investigate, rat them out and allow them to be hassled"; I've heard that some airport authorities drive away as many aviation enthusiasts as possible from the perimeters, but others are more welcoming so as long as you aren't disrupting anyone.
This is going to come to a head at some point, but it seems privacy is soon to be a thing of the past...because the camera-phone generation videos everything, regardless of privacy or principles, and post it without permission.
* Ignoring speeding tickets, that is. Although once I was pulled over by a sheriff's van; I received a warning, and he saw my camera bag in the back seat. Turns out the officer had a ton of photographic equipment in his vehicle, and he was proud to show me some of lenses, bodies, tripods, et al. Unfortunately, his job was mostly to photograph crime scenes ranging from the mundane to the grizzly and horrific.
For the most part I don't get hassled when I'm out with my gear; usually when I do get a comment it's along the lines of "nice camera!" It's also nice to be able to meet up with fellow photographers, especially here when there's a launch at KSC or CCAFS; one of the more pleasant moments was meeting a young lady and her dad, she had a Canon EOS 60D w/18-135 to try to take a picture of a launch and I pulled my 70-200 2.8 IS Mark 1 out of the bag and said "Here little lady, try THIS!" Her eyes lighting up when she started shooting like a madman made my day.
Unfortunately, I agree with you on the privacy issue; amateurs used to plane spot at Orlando International Airport at Conway Road for years...try it now and either Orange County or Orlando PD will tell you to beat feet.
Darn it, DeaconG...the Mk. 1 should be all the credentials one should ever need! I'm down in the 1100D-lot.
Quote from: formulanone on July 15, 2015, 02:47:16 PM
Darn it, DeaconG...the Mk. 1 should be all the credentials one should ever need! I'm down in the 1100D-lot.
:-D
It does whatever I need it to do and I don't have upgradeitis! My 50D and 5D II aren't going anywhere.
Quote from: DeaconG on July 15, 2015, 03:00:35 PM
Quote from: formulanone on July 15, 2015, 02:47:16 PM
Darn it, DeaconG...the Mk. 1 should be all the credentials one should ever need! I'm down in the 1100D-lot.
It does whatever I want!
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/58/ab/9d/58ab9d580b07f5ffcf75764bb8576b7c.jpg)
FTFY
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on July 15, 2015, 03:02:30 PM
Quote from: DeaconG on July 15, 2015, 03:00:35 PM
Quote from: formulanone on July 15, 2015, 02:47:16 PM
Darn it, DeaconG...the Mk. 1 should be all the credentials one should ever need! I'm down in the 1100D-lot.
It does whatever I want!
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/58/ab/9d/58ab9d580b07f5ffcf75764bb8576b7c.jpg)
FTFY
:-D :clap: :sombrero:
Quote from: Molandfreak on July 13, 2015, 06:46:37 PM
Taking a fucking picture isn't "suspicious behavior." It's just taking a picture.
That depends on the context of the picture taking. If you're pulled over on the side of the highway and hanging around a bunch of signs, there is a concern that you might be there to vandalize or steal the signs. If a cop pulls over and asks what you're doing, that's OK, as long as "I like to take pictures of neat signs to show my friends on the Internet" is an acceptable answer and you don't get told to leave or stop doing it or whatever.
Quote from: dfwmapper on July 16, 2015, 02:33:00 PM
If you're pulled over on the side of the highway and hanging around a bunch of signs, there is a concern that you might be there to vandalize or steal the signs.
It makes no sense to take a picture of a sign that you're going to steal later. There's no reason to take a picture of something that'll be hanging in your home soon enough.
Also, it's kind of hard to cut down a sign with a camera.
Yeah, I'm a member of the "taking pictures is harmless" camp.
Quote from: Rothman on July 16, 2015, 04:50:24 PM
Quote from: dfwmapper on July 16, 2015, 02:33:00 PM
If you're pulled over on the side of the highway and hanging around a bunch of signs, there is a concern that you might be there to vandalize or steal the signs.
It makes no sense to take a picture of a sign that you're going to steal later. There's no reason to take a picture of something that'll be hanging in your home soon enough.
Also, it's kind of hard to cut down a sign with a camera.
Yeah, I'm a member of the "taking pictures is harmless" camp.
You can't take everything at face-value. Hence why we have police in the first place.
Also, taking a photo of something you're going to steal makes a lot of sense. It helps you plan the heist (understanding the surrounding environment is helpful beforehand).
Casing a sign beforehand, like casing a convenience store?
:rofl:
In this case, one really is innocent until proven guilty. The suspicion is unwarranted and there's more important things the cop should do besides bother a guy taking pictures of a road sign.
Quote from: Rothman on July 16, 2015, 04:50:24 PM
Quote from: dfwmapper on July 16, 2015, 02:33:00 PM
If you're pulled over on the side of the highway and hanging around a bunch of signs, there is a concern that you might be there to vandalize or steal the signs.
It makes no sense to take a picture of a sign that you're going to steal later. There's no reason to take a picture of something that'll be hanging in your home soon enough.
Also, it's kind of hard to cut down a sign with a camera.
Yeah, I'm a member of the "taking pictures is harmless" camp.
You're being logical. In the minds of many police officers, that makes you a suspicious character.
Quote from: kkt on July 16, 2015, 05:11:56 PM
Quote from: Rothman on July 16, 2015, 04:50:24 PM
Quote from: dfwmapper on July 16, 2015, 02:33:00 PM
If you're pulled over on the side of the highway and hanging around a bunch of signs, there is a concern that you might be there to vandalize or steal the signs.
It makes no sense to take a picture of a sign that you're going to steal later. There's no reason to take a picture of something that'll be hanging in your home soon enough.
Also, it's kind of hard to cut down a sign with a camera.
Yeah, I'm a member of the "taking pictures is harmless" camp.
You're being logical. In the minds of many police officers, that makes you a suspicious character.
Whoa. You're right.
Quote from: Rothman on July 16, 2015, 05:11:21 PM
Casing a sign beforehand, like casing a convenience store? ... The suspicion is unwarranted and there's more important things the cop should do besides bother a guy taking pictures of a road sign.
Why not? Reconnaissance is necessary before any sort of crime. Ideally, you stop crimes before they happen, hence police inquiries.
Quote from: Rothman on July 16, 2015, 05:11:21 PM
In this case, one really is innocent until proven guilty
No one is being labelled guilty of a crime, here. The police are simply interested in your behavior, given the odd nature of it. Perhaps you don't consider it odd, but most people I've met do find roadgeeking strange. It's just how it is.
So note the license plate and move on. If the sign is stolen shortly thereafter, that person becomes the prime suspect.
No reason to interrogate a person not doing anything illegal. If life is at stake it's okay to ask what's up, but when the worst case scenario is a stolen sign that's not acceptable.
Quote from: corco on July 16, 2015, 05:32:03 PM
So note the license plate and move on. If the sign is stolen shortly thereafter, that person becomes the prime suspect.
No reason to interrogate a person not doing anything illegal.
^This. Bugging someone about taking a picture of a sign or airplane just seems unnecessary.
Quote from: corco on July 16, 2015, 05:32:03 PM
So note the license plate and move on. If the sign is stolen shortly thereafter, that person becomes the prime suspect. ... No reason to interrogate a person not doing anything illegal.
That's perfectly reasonable to me. But odd behavior is odd ... police are in the right to ask questions. It's their job.
Quote from: corco on July 16, 2015, 05:32:03 PM
If life is at stake it's okay to ask what's up, but when the worst case scenario is a stolen sign that's not acceptable.
How would you know beforehand which was going to happen? Someone could be planning on blowing up a sign*. You never know.
*I know that sounds absolutely ludicrous, and I would agree with that, but police and investigators alike are trained to recognize even the most benign situations as potential crimes (post-9/11). I know it sucks, but it's just the way it is.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 16, 2015, 05:45:45 PM
Quote from: corco on July 16, 2015, 05:32:03 PM
If life is at stake it's okay to ask what's up, but when the worst case scenario is a stolen sign that's not acceptable.
How would you know beforehand which was going to happen? Someone could be planning on blowing up a sign*. You never know.
You have a point but I don't think people would decide to blow up a sign.
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on July 16, 2015, 05:51:51 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 16, 2015, 05:45:45 PM
Quote from: corco on July 16, 2015, 05:32:03 PM
If life is at stake it's okay to ask what's up, but when the worst case scenario is a stolen sign that's not acceptable.
How would you know beforehand which was going to happen? Someone could be planning on blowing up a sign*. You never know.
You have a point but I don't think people would decide to blow up a sign.
But blowing up a sign could be the most destructive thing a terrorist could ever do. Here's how:
-Terrorist puts bomb on sign.
-Terrorist looks at bomb on sign.
-Non-roadgeeks feel that if you've seen one sign, you've seen them all. Since their is a 99.99% chance the terrorist is not a roadgeek, the bomb is now on every sign in existance.
-The bomb goes off, it goes off on every sign in existance, creating a multi-flashpoint explosion apocalypse.
Quote from: vdeane on July 16, 2015, 07:53:32 PM
But blowing up a sign could be the most destructive thing a terrorist could ever do. Here's how:
-Terrorist puts bomb on sign.
-Terrorist looks at bomb on sign.
-Non-roadgeeks feel that if you've seen one sign, you've seen them all. Since their is a 99.99% chance the terrorist is not a roadgeek, the bomb is now on every sign in existance.
-The bomb goes off, it goes off on every sign in existance, creating a multi-flashpoint explosion apocalypse.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Foi60.tinypic.com%2F2v3na4l.jpg&hash=cdf2eb305b07715e82b54ed3948e16bc755537da)
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on July 16, 2015, 07:57:45 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 16, 2015, 07:53:32 PM
But blowing up a sign could be the most destructive thing a terrorist could ever do. Here's how:
-Terrorist puts bomb on sign.
-Terrorist looks at bomb on sign.
-Non-roadgeeks feel that if you've seen one sign, you've seen them all. Since their is a 99.99% chance the terrorist is not a roadgeek, the bomb is now on every sign in existance.
-The bomb goes off, it goes off on every sign in existance, creating a multi-flashpoint explosion apocalypse.
"not sure if serious"
Either way, it wraps back to the original discussion. Valerie demonstrates how a sign could very easily become a lethal weapon, despite you and Rothman's conclusions that signs are not dangerous. The fact is, they could be very dangerous, and police have the right to keep the travelling motorists safe by investigating odd behavior related to the given roadway.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 16, 2015, 08:04:20 PM
Either way, it wraps back to the original discussion. Valerie demonstrates how a sign could very easily become a lethal weapon, despite you and Rothman's conclusions that signs are not dangerous. The fact is, they could be very dangerous, and police have the right to keep the travelling motorists safe by investigating odd behavior related to the given roadway.
I mean, strapping a bomb to anything (or the ground, even) pretty much turns it into a deadly weapon. However, I respect most police officers, and them questioning activity that is a bit odd is fine by me.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 16, 2015, 08:04:20 PM
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on July 16, 2015, 07:57:45 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 16, 2015, 07:53:32 PM
But blowing up a sign could be the most destructive thing a terrorist could ever do. Here's how:
-Terrorist puts bomb on sign.
-Terrorist looks at bomb on sign.
-Non-roadgeeks feel that if you've seen one sign, you've seen them all. Since their is a 99.99% chance the terrorist is not a roadgeek, the bomb is now on every sign in existance.
-The bomb goes off, it goes off on every sign in existance, creating a multi-flashpoint explosion apocalypse.
"not sure if serious"
Either way, it wraps back to the original discussion. Valerie demonstrates how a sign could very easily become a lethal weapon, despite you and Rothman's conclusions that signs are not dangerous.
Your sarcasm detector is malfunctioning.
Quote from: Rothman on July 16, 2015, 09:17:00 PM
Your sarcasm detector is malfunctioning.
Nothing says "I was wrong" quite like "I was being sarcastic".
Quote from: Molandfreak on July 16, 2015, 11:00:26 PM
People take pictures of literally everything.
Except road signs. What we, as roadgeeks do, is
strange and
odd. Things that are
strange and
odd are indicative of suspicious activity.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 16, 2015, 11:07:25 PM
Except road signs. What we, as roadgeeks do, is strange and odd. Things that are strange and odd are indicative of suspicious activity.
Acting strangely or oddly is not necessarily indicative of someone participating in illegal activity. Taking a picture of a sign may be strange or odd, but it's not indicative of anything illegal and is therefore, not something to warrant serious suspicion of nefarious behavior.
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on July 16, 2015, 05:51:51 PM
You have a point but I don't think people would decide to blow up a sign.
Really? Because I'm all for blowing up ISIS signs in Iraq and Syria.
Why the fuck would you make a bomb out of a sign? An effective bomb will contain shrapnel, in order to cause maximum damage.
Quote from: bugo on July 17, 2015, 12:08:22 AM
Why the fuck would you make a bomb out of a sign? An effective bomb will contain shrapnel, in order to cause maximum damage.
You would have to be absolutely fucking mental, but people make bombs out of all sorts of things these days. Lots of times, they aren't necessarily looking for complete utter destruction, just a little here and there. Just enough to kill some people and panic the rest.
I hope the FBI doesn't watch this page.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 17, 2015, 01:31:47 AM
Quote from: bugo on July 17, 2015, 12:08:22 AM
Why the fuck would you make a bomb out of a sign? An effective bomb will contain shrapnel, in order to cause maximum damage.
You would have to be absolutely fucking mental, but people make bombs out of all sorts of things these days. Lots of times, they aren't necessarily looking for complete utter destruction, just a little here and there. Just enough to kill some people and panic the rest.
I hope the FBI doesn't watch this page.
Sup FBI, my name is corco and I'm lurking this forum to find sign gantries to blow up. I've driven five states worth of state highway systems and inventoried all the shields in preparation for the greatest terrorist attack of all time.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 17, 2015, 01:31:47 AM
Quote from: bugo on July 17, 2015, 12:08:22 AM
Why the fuck would you make a bomb out of a sign? An effective bomb will contain shrapnel, in order to cause maximum damage.
You would have to be absolutely fucking mental, but people make bombs out of all sorts of things these days. Lots of times, they aren't necessarily looking for complete utter destruction, just a little here and there. Just enough to kill some people and panic the rest.
Nobody is going to make a bomb out of a fucking sign. It wouldn't do much except to put a dent in the sign. Quit being so juvenile.
Quote from: corco on July 17, 2015, 01:53:06 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 17, 2015, 01:31:47 AM
Quote from: bugo on July 17, 2015, 12:08:22 AM
Why the fuck would you make a bomb out of a sign? An effective bomb will contain shrapnel, in order to cause maximum damage.
You would have to be absolutely fucking mental, but people make bombs out of all sorts of things these days. Lots of times, they aren't necessarily looking for complete utter destruction, just a little here and there. Just enough to kill some people and panic the rest.
I hope the FBI doesn't watch this page.
Sup FBI, my name is corco and I'm lurking this forum to find sign gantries to blow up. I've driven five states worth of state highway systems and inventoried all the shields in preparation for the greatest terrorist attack of all time.
:-D :-D :-D
I'm pretty sure the FBI respects privacy. Also, do NOT knock on the bathroom door. I'm still in there and I'm out of toilet paper.
On topic, I was only browsing (tilting my head for) old signs on Industrial Drive in Chambersburg (no pictures), but then a cop just pulled us over for minor things (well, vehicle insurance was something).
Quote from: bugo on July 17, 2015, 12:08:22 AM
Why the fuck would you make a bomb out of a sign?
That's as ludicrous as making a bomb out of a shoe, or a bottle of water you brought in from Costco and didn't pay $3 for.
People do shoot at signs (usually bullets; I haven't seen a sign with an arrow sticking out of it); it's not inconceivable that someone would blow up a "Speed Limit 55" sign because yeehaw freedom.
Quote from: kurumi on July 17, 2015, 10:03:50 AM
Quote from: bugo on July 17, 2015, 12:08:22 AM
Why the fuck would you make a bomb out of a sign?
That's as ludicrous as making a bomb out of a shoe
But that's exactly what someone did.
Quote from: Truvelo on July 17, 2015, 10:58:08 AM
Quote from: kurumi on July 17, 2015, 10:03:50 AM
Quote from: bugo on July 17, 2015, 12:08:22 AM
Why the fuck would you make a bomb out of a sign?
That's as ludicrous as making a bomb out of a shoe
But that's exactly what someone did.
If you can easily carry something you can make it a bomb.
Quote from: bugo on July 17, 2015, 03:05:33 AM
Nobody is going to make a bomb out of a fucking sign. It wouldn't do much except to put a dent in the sign. Quit being so juvenile.
I'm not saying it's likely. I'm just saying it's possible.
People make bombs to get past airport security using the most odd things (the back part of a shoe etc). I think people could make a bomb out of a sign, but it doesn't make sense to. What am I going to do, bomb a gantry on a major highway and tie up traffic for an hour? Wow... pretty damaging.
Quote from: Rothman on July 16, 2015, 11:22:40 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 16, 2015, 11:07:25 PM
Except road signs. What we, as roadgeeks do, is strange and odd. Things that are strange and odd are indicative of suspicious activity.
Acting strangely or oddly is not necessarily indicative of someone participating in illegal activity. Taking a picture of a sign may be strange or odd, but it's not indicative of anything illegal and is therefore, not something to warrant serious suspicion of nefarious behavior.
No one is saying it should warrant serious suspicion of nefarious behavior. But that also isn't the standard that needs to be met for a police officer to ask you a simple question. Cop is driving by at 55mph, sees someone pulled over on the side of the highway with some unidentified object in their hand, pointing it at the sign. Maybe it's a camera, maybe it's a pistol, maybe it's a can of spray paint, who knows. Worth taking 30 seconds to pull over and ask what they're doing. Not enough to hassle them or tell them to leave or even ask them for their ID, but enough to ask a question. Or are cops not allowed to talk to anyone who they haven't seen commit a crime?
Quote from: dfwmapper on July 17, 2015, 02:09:47 PM
Quote from: Rothman on July 16, 2015, 11:22:40 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 16, 2015, 11:07:25 PM
Except road signs. What we, as roadgeeks do, is strange and odd. Things that are strange and odd are indicative of suspicious activity.
Acting strangely or oddly is not necessarily indicative of someone participating in illegal activity. Taking a picture of a sign may be strange or odd, but it's not indicative of anything illegal and is therefore, not something to warrant serious suspicion of nefarious behavior.
No one is saying it should warrant serious suspicion of nefarious behavior. But that also isn't the standard that needs to be met for a police officer to ask you a simple question. Cop is driving by at 55mph, sees someone pulled over on the side of the highway with some unidentified object in their hand, pointing it at the sign. Maybe it's a camera, maybe it's a pistol, maybe it's a can of spray paint, who knows. Worth taking 30 seconds to pull over and ask what they're doing. Not enough to hassle them or tell them to leave or even ask them for their ID, but enough to ask a question. Or are cops not allowed to talk to anyone who they haven't seen commit a crime?
The object in the hand could be someone taking a picture...or it could be someone trying to look at a text and is holding the phone in such a manner where it appears they are taking a picture of a sign. But in reality, the motorist is broken down, and would welcome a cop to pull up and offer assistance.
Quote from: SignGeek101 on July 17, 2015, 01:49:15 PM
What am I going to do, bomb a gantry on a major highway and tie up traffic for an hour? Wow... pretty damaging.
A coordinated attack could damage cars below the sign as well. And as we've learned from Boston, any bombing resulting in the death of even only a few civilians is not taken lightly.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 17, 2015, 02:55:26 PM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on July 17, 2015, 01:49:15 PM
What am I going to do, bomb a gantry on a major highway and tie up traffic for an hour? Wow... pretty damaging.
A coordinated attack could damage cars below the sign as well. And as we've learned from Boston, any bombing resulting in the death of even only a few civilians is not taken lightly.
Or it could destroy pavement. And if the US is trying to move Military Vehicles down it then they are stuck and then it might give terroists the oppurtunity to bomb something much larger.
Much detail. How deep. Very concerning. Such unsure. Wow
This happened to me yesterday, taking a pic of a sign on the shoulder of a road and a cop was in an adjacent parking lot and said what are you doing?
I responded taking a pic of a sign and said crazy right?
He responded no weird.
He then told me to be careful and that was that.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 17, 2015, 02:55:26 PM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on July 17, 2015, 01:49:15 PM
What am I going to do, bomb a gantry on a major highway and tie up traffic for an hour? Wow... pretty damaging.
A coordinated attack could damage cars below the sign as well. And as we've learned from Boston, any bombing resulting in the death of even only a few civilians is not taken lightly.
At some point though, as a country we need to know where to draw the line between being completely paranoid and perserving some semblance of freedom to exist. I feel like assuming that people standing with an object in their hand near a sign are mounting bombs to sign gantries, when that's a really stupid place to put a bomb, is on the tin-foil hat side of that line. Even if not a bomb, there is no realistic reason to believe that somebody standing by a sign with ANYTHING in their hands represents a risk to life, which is why I say that if a cop is suspicious, they should note the license plate and move on.
We can come up with absurd hypotheticals for anything. A person walking down the street at a suspicious pace with something in their hand might have a vial of anthrax in their hand. If I drive down the street in my car and stop abruptly, it might have a Back to the Future 2 style hover conversion on it so that I can fly it into a building 9/11 style. If I like to watch airplanes, I might be radioing somebody down the street who has a bazooka so that they can shoot down the plane. A black guy walking through a rich white neighborhood admiring the houses is probably casing the homes so that he can rape all the women in them later. If I'm standing by a road sign with something in my hand, I might be strapping a bomb to it.
We're never going to live in a world without evil. People will die at the hands of others. No matter how many police there are, this will continue to happen. Is the pursuit of an evil-free world worth the annoyance of assuming that everybody doing anything even slightly unusual (but with no semblance of evidence they could be doing something illegal) is a terrorist?
Bombs are only allowed on Clearview signs, right? :bigass:
Quote from: corco on July 17, 2015, 07:44:59 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 17, 2015, 02:55:26 PM
Quote from: SignGeek101 on July 17, 2015, 01:49:15 PM
What am I going to do, bomb a gantry on a major highway and tie up traffic for an hour? Wow... pretty damaging.
A coordinated attack could damage cars below the sign as well. And as we've learned from Boston, any bombing resulting in the death of even only a few civilians is not taken lightly.
At some point though, as a country we need to know where to draw the line between being completely paranoid and perserving some semblance of freedom to exist. I feel like assuming that people standing with an object in their hand near a sign are mounting bombs to sign gantries, when that's a really stupid place to put a bomb, is on the tin-foil hat side of that line. Even if not a bomb, there is no realistic reason to believe that somebody standing by a sign with ANYTHING in their hands represents a risk to life, which is why I say that if a cop is suspicious, they should note the license plate and move on.
We can come up with absurd hypotheticals for anything. A person walking down the street at a suspicious pace with something in their hand might have a vial of anthrax in their hand. If I drive down the street in my car and stop abruptly, it might have a Back to the Future 2 style hover conversion on it so that I can fly it into a building 9/11 style. If I like to watch airplanes, I might be radioing somebody down the street who has a bazooka so that they can shoot down the plane. A black guy walking through a rich white neighborhood admiring the houses is probably casing the homes so that he can rape all the women in them later. If I'm standing by a road sign with something in my hand, I might be strapping a bomb to it.
We're never going to live in a world without evil. People will die at the hands of others. No matter how many police there are, this will continue to happen. Is the pursuit of an evil-free world worth the annoyance of assuming that everybody doing anything even slightly unusual (but with no semblance of evidence they could be doing something illegal) is a terrorist?
Gawd, someone with common sense. There's gotta be a law against that somewhere! :clap: :-D :poke:
Quote from: corco on July 17, 2015, 07:44:59 PM
At some point though, as a country we need to know where to draw the line between being completely paranoid and perserving some semblance of freedom to exist.
You're using a public website to voice your opinion without retribution. You're walking out your front door, driving, and no one is stopping you. You probably take thousands of pictures, and no one bats an eye.
I think you have just about an unlimited amount of freedom. The paranoia comes from people wanting to believe their lives are being disrupted, even though they have never been disrupted, or out of fear that they will be disrupted.
A few decades ago, people's lives were disrupted all the time for little things. Today, people have way more freedoms than they ever have, and almost every minor wrong is ignored. People don't want big brother watching them, yet, they are more than willing to pull out their cell phone and record everyone else's actions. People complain more today about their lack of freedom than ever before, even though you'll be hard pressed to find anything that prohibits their freedom.
This is the Castor Bean plant, grown wild and in gardens worldwide (mine included) for its showy foliage and attractive fruits.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flubbockonline.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimagecache%2Fsuperphoto%2F9581600.jpg&hash=f90af86a0b9d1d6b3904676e531f0e670534c585)
It is also is the producer of the deadly poison ricin, of which less than 2mg will kill you. Ricin is used periodically by assassins, nutjobs, and terrorists. Someone mailed the president some a few years ago.
Somehow we're able to live comfortably as a society without harassing people who grow deadly poison because it looks nice. Why can't we achieve the same with people taking pictures?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 18, 2015, 08:28:02 AM
Quote from: corco on July 17, 2015, 07:44:59 PM
At some point though, as a country we need to know where to draw the line between being completely paranoid and perserving some semblance of freedom to exist.
You're using a public website to voice your opinion without retribution. You're walking out your front door, driving, and no one is stopping you. You probably take thousands of pictures, and no one bats an eye.
I think you have just about an unlimited amount of freedom. The paranoia comes from people wanting to believe their lives are being disrupted, even though they have never been disrupted, or out of fear that they will be disrupted.
A few decades ago, people's lives were disrupted all the time for little things. Today, people have way more freedoms than they ever have, and almost every minor wrong is ignored. People don't want big brother watching them, yet, they are more than willing to pull out their cell phone and record everyone else's actions. People complain more today about their lack of freedom than ever before, even though you'll be hard pressed to find anything that prohibits their freedom.
We Americans, I have to admit, do take our freedoms for granted. Why else do other countries want to cross our borders and come live here? We can go to these other countries where might makes right and see how your moves are even more policed. We still have it good for now!
Quote from: roadman65 on July 18, 2015, 03:43:30 PM
Why else do other countries want to cross our borders and come live here?
It's pretty easy to get a job that will support yourself and allow you to send money home, if you're willing to do dirty work.
Quote from: hbelkins on July 17, 2015, 10:39:39 PM
Bombs are only allowed on Clearview signs, right? :bigass:
Nope. Helvetica.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on July 18, 2015, 03:32:41 PM
This is the Castor Bean plant, grown wild and in gardens worldwide (mine included) for its showy foliage and attractive fruits.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flubbockonline.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimagecache%2Fsuperphoto%2F9581600.jpg&hash=f90af86a0b9d1d6b3904676e531f0e670534c585)
It is also is the producer of the deadly poison ricin, of which less than 2mg will kill you. Ricin is used periodically by assassins, nutjobs, and terrorists. Someone mailed the president some a few years ago.
Somehow we're able to live comfortably as a society without harassing people who grow deadly poison because it looks nice. Why can't we achieve the same with people taking pictures?
Excellent example. But I doubt this plant is as common for murders etc, as other types of poison, so it isn't looked at by authorities. I don't know much about it though.