![]() |
|
|
|
Registered
|
Drivers Bill of Rights
This latest traffic ticket by Dottore has got me thinking. Actually been thinking about it for a long time.
With all the financial crisis around the country,, armed revenue generation by state and local police forces will be rising dramatically (actually it already is). So I wonder why not a Drivers Bill or Rights that all states would have to address.. I have no idea how to get something going but here's a few ideas I have: Driving is a necessary right not a privelage in this society. You are entitled to a jury by your peers Standardized penalties for violations All fines and court costs may only go to road improvement and NOT into general funds Automated photo ticketing is not allowed All speed limits must be based on safety studies Speed traps must be clearly marked at least 1/2 mile in front of trap That's just a start,, of course the police and local government will never let it fly.. comments?
__________________
"Todd" 98 Tahoe ,2007 Saturn Vue 86 930 black and stock, 80 930 blue tracdog 91 Spec Miata (yeah I race a chick car) "life"ll kill ya" Warren Zevon |
||
![]() |
|
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: South of Heaven
Posts: 21,159
|
It would take armed revolt to make that happen.
|
||
![]() |
|
Registered
|
Yeah I know,, and I didn't even put the stuff in that would "be nice" like cops must have hair at least 1 inch long and uniforms can't include nazi gestopo boots, maybe a personality test to filter out the smalled dicked , insecure little F's that populate 98% of the police forces in this country..
__________________
"Todd" 98 Tahoe ,2007 Saturn Vue 86 930 black and stock, 80 930 blue tracdog 91 Spec Miata (yeah I race a chick car) "life"ll kill ya" Warren Zevon |
||
![]() |
|
Registered
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Higgs Field
Posts: 22,633
|
Actually, several courts have already ruled that personal travel, by the "conveyance of the day" is an inalienable right. Do a google search on "right to travel" for some very interesting reading on the matter.
In essence, your right to travel for personal reasons, and to transport your personal affects, should not be governed in any way by the authorities. Our Constitution states very clearly that any powers not expressly granted the federal government are reserved to the states, and any powers not expressly granted the states are reserved to the people. Personal travel is one such power. Our Constitution makes no mention of it, thereby defaulting any authority regarding such to the people. The clear implication here is that the states have no authority to license us for personal travel. The states like to present driving as a state granted priviledge, but they have no Constitutional grounds for that claim. The sheeple of America have accepted it since the first motor vehicle license was issued, so that would be one darn tough precedent to break. I do think, however, if one had the deep pockets and staying power necessary for such a fight, one would win on Constitutional gronds if one were to challenge the states' authority to license private travellers. That would sure be a game-changer, now wouldn't it?
__________________
Jeff '72 911T 3.0 MFI '93 Ducati 900 Super Sport "God invented whiskey so the Irish wouldn't rule the world" |
||
![]() |
|
Registered
|
Think Dueller would take the case pro-bono ??
__________________
"Todd" 98 Tahoe ,2007 Saturn Vue 86 930 black and stock, 80 930 blue tracdog 91 Spec Miata (yeah I race a chick car) "life"ll kill ya" Warren Zevon |
||
![]() |
|
Registered
|
Quote:
__________________
2022 BMW 530i 2021 MB GLA250 2020 BMW R1250GS |
||
![]() |
|
![]() |
Registered
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Long Beach CA, the sewer by the sea.
Posts: 37,791
|
Transportation is a right of the free society. Taking the responsibility for transporting yourself is still a privilege for me. I say that because so many out there don't drive well and most have no idea what the laws are.
In my neighborhood, there are hundreds of 4-way stops. I think half can't tell you who has the right of way. If you're on my right, just go. Don't sit there and wonder or I might drive across your bumper. Now, should I get a ticket for that? Some co**bite can't make a decision, so I make it for her? |
||
![]() |
|
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: South of Heaven
Posts: 21,159
|
Quote:
|
||
![]() |
|
Registered
|
One of these suggestions is not practical. Mandatory jury trial for every speeding violation would be crazy expensive, not to mention forcing lots more people to respond to jury summons. I'd be angry if my county taxes rose to pay for jurors' fees and additional courtrooms and prosecutors, and I had to miss work to repeatedly sit in a jury box for speeding violations.
In general, I think the answer is to set speed limits at realistic and reasonable levels. When highway speed limits were 55 mph, that was ridiculous and I was speeding all the time. On highways where the limit is now 70 mph, that seems more reasonable and I don't speed much. On some highways, I think the limit should be raised further, to 80 mph. Same on local streets, sometimes a 25 mph limit is sensible, other times a 35 mph limit is unrealistically low. The speed survey requirement makes sense (IIRC, in CA there is such a requirement for local roads of a certain size.) Also, the penalties have to be reasonable and on a sliding scale. 10 mph over in a 70 mph section should be a minor fine ($50?), 30 mph over should be a major fine ($500?). I'd also like records and logs of speed enforcement operations to be available to the public. So that media, watchdog citizen groups, etc can investigate and expose problems. If the speed limits and penalties are set properly, and outside scrutiny is enabled, I have no problem with vigorous enforcement.
__________________
1989 3.2 Carrera coupe; 1988 Westy Vanagon, Zetec; 1986 E28 M30; 1994 W124; 2004 S211 What? Uh . . . “he” and “him”? |
||
![]() |
|
Registered
|
They don't want higher speed limits, since that reduces the pool of folks from whom they can steal money when they need it. When EVERYONE is technically speeding, the state can just use motorists as their own ATM. Safety never had anything to do with it.
__________________
2022 BMW 530i 2021 MB GLA250 2020 BMW R1250GS |
||
![]() |
|
Non Compos Mentis
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Off the grid- Almost
Posts: 10,598
|
Quote:
Could an arguement be made that it is a "priviledge" to use government-owned roads? Maybe there can be no licensing requirement as long as we travel the wilderness in a covered wagon (or Jeep). Just wondering out loud...... |
||
![]() |
|
Registered
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Higgs Field
Posts: 22,633
|
Quote:
A jury trial, with reasonable doubt restored as the standard of evidence, would leave police looking for better things to do. Right now, it is simply too easy for them. No need to produce any sort of evidence whatsoever. No need to convince our fellow citizens of our alleged missdeeds. Today, one agent of the state only has to "convince" another agent of the state, and there is money in it for the state. Anyone see a conflict of interest here? The citizen must be returned to the loop. If the state has any allegations against a citizen, the state must be held to proving those allegations to our fellow citizens. Not itself. That is the very cornerstone of our justice system. Anything less is un-Constitutional. Too bad if it's expensive and inconvenient for the state - like I said, it would force them to drastically re-think traffic enforcement. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Then I asked him why I never see their speed traps in residential neighborhoods. Every county sheriff speed trap I have ever seen is out on a lonely country road with an artificially low speed limit. Better yet, where the speed limit suddenly drops 10-20 mph for no apparent reason. I challenged him on the point that I really doubt their complaints come from those areas, but yet their enforcement is focused in them. Because it is an easy ticket. He had no response for that observation. So, yes - some oversight. Where do the complaints originate, vs. where do they choose to enforce? I would bet you a new hat the two are not the same. In the end, they can hold up a fistful of tickets and exclaim they are "doing something". But the complaints continue to come in, because they are doing nothing in the areas where people actually care.
__________________
Jeff '72 911T 3.0 MFI '93 Ducati 900 Super Sport "God invented whiskey so the Irish wouldn't rule the world" |
||||
![]() |
|
![]() |
Registered
|
Quote:
The key is to keep the $$ from going directly into the pockets of local government, hence it should go directly to road improvement or schools maybe on a national level.
__________________
"Todd" 98 Tahoe ,2007 Saturn Vue 86 930 black and stock, 80 930 blue tracdog 91 Spec Miata (yeah I race a chick car) "life"ll kill ya" Warren Zevon |
||
![]() |
|
is this thing on?
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Franklin, NJ
Posts: 2,527
|
the police enforcement is horrifying in nj...we rated #1 in the worst states to drive in. with the way things are going there is a chance of a revolt as it is in the non dem areas (re the areas that pay for everything else)
the only way of getting off a ticket is to have a video syste on the car...or hope the cop does not show for court
__________________
"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both" ~Benjamin Franklin |
||
![]() |
|
Registered
|
Quote:
__________________
2022 BMW 530i 2021 MB GLA250 2020 BMW R1250GS |
||
![]() |
|
Registered
|
Quote:
__________________
1989 3.2 Carrera coupe; 1988 Westy Vanagon, Zetec; 1986 E28 M30; 1994 W124; 2004 S211 What? Uh . . . “he” and “him”? |
||
![]() |
|
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: South of Heaven
Posts: 21,159
|
Quote:
|
||
![]() |
|
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: South of Heaven
Posts: 21,159
|
Quote:
|
||
![]() |
|
Registered
|
Probably not as bad as you'd fear. The typical judge or commissioner (especially if you pull them from the civil side) has no great affinity for traffic enforcement officers, and certainly the typical volunteer attorney doesn't (you could even pull them from the defense bar).
In theory, the "fairest" trial would be from 12 jurors. If jurors and their time were free, great. But for cost reasons and juror availability reasons, I don't think its practical.
__________________
1989 3.2 Carrera coupe; 1988 Westy Vanagon, Zetec; 1986 E28 M30; 1994 W124; 2004 S211 What? Uh . . . “he” and “him”? |
||
![]() |
|
Registered
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Higgs Field
Posts: 22,633
|
Quote:
Again, I think the only reason so many tickets get written is because it is so easy to prosecute them. Re-establishment of the proper relationship between the citizen and his state - where the state is answerable to the citizen, not the other way around - would leave the state looking for better things to do. I would venture to guess that the vast majority of traffic tickets are written in situations where, if the motorist were allowed to continue, absolutely no harm would come of it to anyone. So why bother? Simple, it's the money. And the ease with which it is collected. Re-establish our rights in traffic court, and only those cases that truly represent a danger to the rest of us would ever make it that far.
__________________
Jeff '72 911T 3.0 MFI '93 Ducati 900 Super Sport "God invented whiskey so the Irish wouldn't rule the world" |
||
![]() |
|