• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Parking while black now.... maybe

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Minor traffic violations should not be reason for searches.

But to suggest that such violations not be cited is to simply oppose traffic rules entirely. A rule unenforceable is no rule at all.

Notice the underlying assumption of both the article and the OP himself: Some people should be allowed to violate rules with impunity. Parking or driving regulations or rioting, looting, burning, and assault or even murder. Where does it end if anarchy is demanded?

Penalties should fit the violation. Parking violations are not murder. Anyone who suggests I've equated the two is either an idiot or a liar.

But those who don't like being hassled for parking or driving infractions might consider on simply obeying the rules of the road.

Charles
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,337
Location
Nevada
... those who don't like being hassled for parking or driving infractions might consider on simply obeying the rules of the road...

And ignore all the cops breaking all those same traffic laws with impunity, especially in the areas with purposely overly restrictive laws to generate revenue.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
And ignore all the cops breaking all those same traffic laws with impunity, especially in the areas with purposely overly restrictive laws to generate revenue.

That police officers sometimes violate traffic laws without just cause is an issue to deal with. It is not an excuse to eliminate those laws.

Similarly with speed traps or other overly restrictive laws. Those need to be eliminated. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

What might seem overly aggressive laws in the moment, can sometimes make a lot more sense at the macro layer. How long do we want to see fire response delayed because some self-absorbed snowflake parked in front of a fire hydrant or blocked a fire lane while she ran into the store "for just a second"?

What might seem like innocent enough violations of rules against feeding parking meters can translate into significant losses of business when potential customers find all parking spots in a city perpetually filled, rather than having on-street parking turn over on a regular basis as metered spaces are supposed to do. (We'll ignore for a moment the overall bad policies in most cities of providing on-street metered parking rather than requiring businesses to provide sufficient parking for their customers. For now, everyone ought to play by the rules in place.)

My point is not to defend any particular law that may be over bearing or oppressive. You'll note that I specifically reject using minor traffic violations as an excuse for a search.

My point is that we have segments of our society who think no rules should apply to them. On the bottom end it is driving and parking rules. On the top end it is rioting, arson, theft, assault, and murder. The same attitude permits thoughtless violation of both. We do not hear reasoned arguments against excessively low speed limits on rural, controlled access freeways. There is not thoughtful discussion of whether a DL should expire every 5 years or every 25 years. Nary an intelligent word about why liability insurance should be required or what minimum limits should be if it is. And of course, there is no moral defense possible for crimes at the top end of the spectrum. What we read and hear, rather, are shallow demands that black men not be held to account because maybe cops are not ticketing white women at the same rate. Never any thought as to whether there might actually be a difference in driving habits that happens to correlate to race. Just demands that some be exempt from the rules.

And more than once, I've made a call to report violation of traffic rules by police officers or other government employees. Lacking good reason for violating traffic rules, I don't countenance rule breaking by anyone. But let's not get distracted by various anti-government ideology.

Charles.
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,337
Location
Nevada
That police officers sometimes violate traffic laws without just cause is an issue to deal with. It is not an excuse to eliminate those laws...

I didn't advocate eliminating the law. I'm pointing to their example to justify, however rightly or wrongly, my personal reasons for also driving my conscience and road conditions, tempered with the risks of getting caught in a mostly cat-and-mouse game that more often than not has nothing to do with road safety.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
I didn't advocate eliminating the law. I'm pointing to their example to justify, however rightly or wrongly, my personal reasons for also driving my conscience and road conditions, tempered with the risks of getting caught in a mostly cat-and-mouse game that more often than not has nothing to do with road safety.

Are you suggesting that if police officers never exceeded the posted limit except when responding to an emergency, you'd do likewise?

I grew up during Nixon's and Carter's federally imposed double-nickel. I get it. One cannot be expected to respect laws that are utterly contemptible, and enforced against all social mores and rational needs. As I made many a trip to Vegas for school or other shopping in the days when my home town's best shopping was a catalog store, I greatly appreciated how Nevada handled the federal mandate with their non-moving violation for "wasting a natural resource." The 55 mph speed limit was not only unnecessary, but downright dangerous on the long stretches of open freeway that are common here in the West.

My first speeding ticket was for driving a speed that is now perfectly legal on the section of freeway where the ticket was issued.

But with the federal mandate gone and States now free to set speed limits for themselves, the issue of foreign imposition of speed limits is no more. With rare exception, speed limits in Utah now reflect proper engineering judgement regarding what various sections of road can safely handle. On those rare occasions today when I exceed those limits I don't need any personal justification. I've driven faster than is generally considered prudent because I'm in a hurry, or bored, what to see how the car or bike performs, or whatever else. That someone else--even someone charged with enforcing the laws--does likewise doesn't excuse my behavior. And I don't whine if I get caught.

Most problems on our roads today are not a result of over-enforcement of traffic laws, but rather come from lack of enforcement. Lack of enforcing our "drivers in the left lane must yield to faster traffic coming from behind" law causes many needless delays and congestion. Not enforcing rules about working lights on trailers or burning headlights at night creates needless hazards. There are a couple of notable speed traps in Utah. And city officers too often focus on areas where violation of speed limits pose less hazard than in other areas simply because traffic volume allows more revenue generation. I'd like to correct these issues.

But at the core, the article the OP posted isn't about grossly unjust or needless traffic regulations. It is about some folks demanding that they be exempt from those regulations. It is very different than your position of playing cat and mouse with speed limits on mostly empty stretches of rural Nevada freeway. :)

Charles
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,169
Location
earth's crust
I do recall tickets of red camera violations being tossed in the trash when cops got the tickets .. caused a big stir [people hate these things].

http://city.milwaukee.gov/mpw/divisions/administrative/parking/ParkingCitations.htm#.V_H3jsnQOdU

In WI it appears that a parking offense is civil in nature ^^^

[In Connecticut, while traffic tickets are civil in nature they are heard by the criminal rules]

Many states have changed traffic ticket issues from criminal to civil matters. It looks like that the .govs want an easy stream of $$$ and still want to be able to easily search your vehicles.

The notion that vehicles can be afforded less protection than your dwelling is a court made up idea too...not one I proscribe to. Like children not having the same rights as adults in regards to searches.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Don't forget "red light cameras".

Fully agreed and sorry I missed articulating those specifically.

Red light cameras are a prime example of something that could do great good in theory, but in practice have been proven to be too easy to abuse far too often to be permitted. Their abuse leads to decreased traffic safety in addition to the violation of rights.

Thank you for pointing these out.

Charles
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,337
Location
Nevada
Are you suggesting that if police officers never exceeded the posted limit except when responding to an emergency, you'd do likewise?...

It's very difficult to discuss an overly simplified impossible theoretical. Suffice it to say that if cops were actually able to be forced to follow the law, they'd make sure the law was changed.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla
Not in my state. The legislature states that it is exempt from any records request .. all their records can be kept secret.
I don't know that I can believe that 'all their records can be kept secret; however, I did find the following - see Exceptions.

"Records in New Jersey include "any paper, written or printed book, document, drawing, map, plan, photograph, microfilm, data processed or image processed document, information stored or maintained electronically or by sound-recording or in a similar device, or any copy thereof, that has been made, maintained or kept on file."
Exemptions

Notable exemptions include but are not limited to:

  • information held by a legislator concerning a constituent or contacts between legislators and constituent
  • any communication within the legislature"
https://ballotpedia.org/New_Jersey_Open_Public_Records_Act
 
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,169
Location
earth's crust
I don't know that I can believe that 'all their records can be kept secret; however, I did find the following - see Exceptions.

"Records in New Jersey include "any paper, written or printed book, document, drawing, map, plan, photograph, microfilm, data processed or image processed document, information stored or maintained electronically or by sound-recording or in a similar device, or any copy thereof, that has been made, maintained or kept on file."
Exemptions

Notable exemptions include but are not limited to:

  • information held by a legislator concerning a constituent or contacts between legislators and constituent
  • any communication within the legislature"
https://ballotpedia.org/New_Jersey_Open_Public_Records_Act

Speaking to CT..not NJ ... sorry maybe I should have noted that.

But our legislature is relying on Art. 3 Sec. 15 of our state's constitution [ https://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/Content/constitutions/CTConstitution.htm ] .. and it included not only the general assembly members' records themselves but also records of our Office of Legislative Management (provides free services to members of the GA), the state's Office of Legislative Research, IT depts. of the legislature, etc...anything associated with the legislature.

I've even asked for records that included all the regular exemptions being excluded .... got nada ...

FYI the constituent services is basically not the business of the legislature...hence not public records of the body ... hence not available under FOIA. Under common law? That's another examination needed to be done.
Not kidding.
 
Top