On 4/13/2019 12:53 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 04/12/2019 09:31 PM, wrote:
If you need a nav to find a place where you have the address, either
your addressing scheme is ****ed up or you don't understand it.
The reality is, I don't go that many places that I don't know how to
get to.

I would have killed for a GPS and cellphone when I was driving OTR,
particularly one of the Rand McNally versions that understands trucks.

Nothing like finally finding a pay phone where you can park an eighteen
wheeler, calling the consignee, and getting directions from the front
office ditz, which you transcribe on your pad. Halfway there you realize
the route that works for her Pinto ain't working for you.

I tended to collect city maps and had a big Tupperware container full. I
saw a cheap briefcase in a dumpster and figured it would be an upgrade.
Upon closer inspection I found the previous owner mush have been caught
short and had **** in it. Dumpster diving ain't all it's cracked up to be.



My house is a little out of the way but today when I call any service
man I do not have to give directions to find me.

wrote
Rod Speed wrote
wrote

Even just 1 or two a year is worth doing the
right way when its free, luddite dinosaur.

Nothing is free.

That's bull**** too. It costs no more to use it for that
when you already have the phone for other reasons.

I have a phone to use as a phone, it doesn't have a NAV,
broadband capability or anything like that, it is very
cheap to own, particularly when it is sitting at home

Yes, you actually are that luddite a dinosaur.

but if I bought a "smart phone" with a data plan,
GPS and all the "free ****" you are talking about
it would cost hundreds of dollars for the phone
and way more per year to have.

But when you have it already, because it is handy
to be able to get it to direct you to where you
need to go or just to check if the price you see
on offer is the best available and then you choose
to use it to work out which aisle something you
don't usually buy is in the supermarket etc,
THAT particular extra capability really is free.

And in fact my phone is MUCH cheaper per
year than the landline ever was. I was paying
$35 a month for the landline service alone,
with calls made extra cost. With the cellphone
it costs me just $10 per month with unlimited
FREE calls, texts and MMSs to any landline or
cellphone in the country and 1GB of data.

And I get the real advantage of having just
one set of contacts and having it all fully
automatically backed up to the cloud so
that if it dies, or gets lost or stolen I just
replace it and yawn and enter my ID and
have the new phone identical to the old
one content wise. And can use another
phone to find the original, or watch the
thief trying to use the stolen phone, all
for FREE.

Nothing is free.

Wrong, as always. Even breathing is still
free even in the land of the ripoff merchants.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 14:13:20 -0500, Mark Lloyd
wrote:

On 4/12/19 3:54 PM, wrote:

[snip]

I don't use nav in the car either. I know where I am going and if I
don't I will look at a map.
Kids there used to be these things called maps ;-)

There were also the crashes caused by a driver distracted by looking at
a map instead of the road.

If you have the memory of a fruit fly, you can look at the map,
remember it and drive there. Why is this so hard. It makes ne wonder
how we ever got around before phones got smarter than most of their
users.

Same way we managed before any phones were
ever invented, much less conveniently, luddite.

On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 04:24:42 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH 186 lines of the two driveling idiots' endless bull****

....and much better air in here again!

--
FredXX to Rot Speed:
"You are still an idiot and an embarrassment to your country. No wonder
we shipped the likes of you out of the British Isles. Perhaps stupidity
and criminality is inherited after all?"
Message-ID:

On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 04:25:39 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH senile asshole's latest troll****

....and nothing's left!

--
Bill Wright addressing senile Ozzie cretin Rot Speed:
"Well you make up a lot of stuff and it's total ******** most of it."
MID:

On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 04:23:27 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH yet more troll****

--
"Anonymous" to trolling senile Rot Speed:
"You can **** off as you know less than pig **** you sad
little ignorant ****."
MID:

On 04/13/2019 11:18 AM, wrote:
If I was delivering pizzas or something NAV might be useful but I
seldom go anywhere I have not been before and when I do I just print
out a map before I go if it is not obvious. The addressing scheme here
is very logical and usually just with the street name and number I can
drive right to it.

https://missoulian.com/news/local/wh...119ba4b45.html

The slant streets are mostly residential so I don't have to cope with
them frequently. South Hills is a newer section when the streets twist
around the canyons and many terminate in cul-de-sacs. I bought a bike
there and when I took it out for a test ride I told the woman if i
wasn't back in a reasonable amount of time I wasn't stealing it I was
just lost.

I've spent some time in Boston also, a city laid out around a five sided
square...

It has its drawbacks but when Brigham Young laid out Salt Lake he made
the streets wide enough to turn a team around. Or a truck. The numbering
scheme resembles bombing coordinates.

On 4/13/2019 3:23 PM, wrote:


The law is not silly in every condition.

The problem is the law has no "conditions".
In some states they could write you a ticket for using a phone,
sitting at a light. None talk about traffic conditions or will try to
decide what your conversation was about.
If the word comes down, "we aren't writing enough phone tickets", cops
will write tickets.



In CT, a couple of times they set up a spotter sitting up high and the
police would stop the car down the block.

On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 04:29:42 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH more of the usual senile troll****

--
dennis@home to retarded senile Rot:
"sod off rod you don't have a clue about anything."
Message-ID:

On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 04:49:24 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

Mindlessly ****ed by design.

Much like your brain.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag
or even get an usenet client working properly, Trump spawn.

I doubt there's ANYONE who would disagree with him, you totally ****ed up,
85-year-old, obnoxious, senile cretin!

--
Richard addressing Rot Speed:
"**** you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID:

On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 04:20:22 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Hang up and drive!

Go and **** yourself.

https://katv.com/news/local/arkansas...-while-driving

Texting isnt talking on the phone, ****wit.

Actually it's even more distracting, senile asshole!

--
FredXX to Rot Speed:
"You are still an idiot and an embarrassment to your country. No wonder
we shipped the likes of you out of the British Isles. Perhaps stupidity
and criminality is inherited after all?"
Message-ID:

On 4/13/2019 3:26 PM, wrote:


Nothing even remotely like as distracted as when they are drunk.

How "drunk"? 0.05? 0.08? .25?


On Live PD last night a guy got stopped for speeding, 110 mph. He had
his 3 year old with him. Driver admitted to having two 24 oz beers so
they did the test. He did well with the walking and leg hold, but the
breathalizer did him in. His wife came for the kid and off he went.

On 04/13/2019 11:20 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 4/13/2019 12:53 PM, rbowman wrote:

I would have killed for a GPS and cellphone when I was driving OTR,
particularly one of the Rand McNally versions that understands trucks.

Nothing like finally finding a pay phone where you can park an
eighteen wheeler, calling the consignee, and getting directions from
the front office ditz, which you transcribe on your pad. Halfway there
you realize the route that works for her Pinto ain't working for you.

There were also the drivers too cheap to get the proper device and
cheaped out on the standard Garmin. I worked near a low bridge and
could point them out.

I never hit a bridge but I did require an extraction when I tried to go
over Petit Jean Mountain in Arkansas. The switchback was so tight I
managed to get all 4 drivers on one side off the ground. There is a
limited slip mechanism between the front and rear axles but not side to
side.

In my defense, if you look at Arkansas in a truckers' atlas almost
everything is marked as a truck route. I have to assume it has something
to do with Federal dollars. The wrecker operator told me he'd had to
deal with an oversized load on the same hairpin the month before -- and
oversized loads are assigned a route by the state.

Pretty area if you're driving a Civic.

On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 04:46:08 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


I know many cell phones user who got into accidents.

None of the ones I know

You DON'T know anyone, you abnormal senile pest. The people and their
stories that you see on TV documentaries are NOT people you "know"!

--
Bill Wright addressing senile Ozzie cretin Rot Speed:
"Well you make up a lot of stuff and it's total ******** most of it."
MID:

On 04/13/2019 01:24 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 10:26:20 -0700 (PDT), A K
wrote:

On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 10:06:37 PM UTC-5, Rod Speed wrote:
"A K" wrote in message
...
On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 12:23:00 AM UTC-5, Bod wrote:
Mobile phone detectors are to be used by police to find drivers using
devices at the wheel.

The Thames Valley and Hampshire forces are rolling out the technology to
show when motorists are using their phones.

A sign will flash at the driver telling them to stop using their mobile
- but the detectors cannot tell if it is a driver or passenger using the
phone.

The detector picks up 2G, 3G and 4G signals and will therefore flash to
alert people in cars who are using phones to call, text or data.

If people are using a Bluetooth hands-free device, the detector will
recognise this and not flash.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-47896472

If it stops just one death, it has to be a good thing.

that's a great idea.

Bull**** it is when it can't work out whether it
is the driver or a passenger using the phone.

Drivers using cell phones are as distracted as drunk drivers.

Thats a lie too. Most drivers using a phone while driving
are no more distracted than when talking to a passenger and
are much less distracted than with unruly brats in the car.

Statistics say otherwise.

https://www.edgarsnyder.com/car-acci...tatistics.html

Andy

I know many cell phones user who got into accidents.

How many crashes happen with kids in the car?



Like the Heather Has Two Mommies family that drove their carload of
diversity off a cliff?

On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 05:56:32 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

Mark Lloyd wrote
Rod Speed wrote

That¢s a lie too. Most drivers using a phone while driving
are no more distracted than when talking to a passenger

That's not true.

Easy to claim.

1. You're in the same place, not (mentally) in some other place where that
other person is.

In my case I am normally talking to my mate

You got NO mate, you abnormal senile asshole! If you had, you wouldn't need
to GET UP every day between 1 and 4 am in Australia and log into your
computer just to have someone to talk to on Usenet!!!

--
"Anonymous" to trolling senile Rot Speed:
"You can **** off as you know less than pig **** you sad
little ignorant ****."
MID:

On 04/13/2019 01:19 PM, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 4/12/19 9:32 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 04/12/2019 06:27 PM, wrote:
Maybe you just can't look at a map and remember where you are going.
Around here I could draw a map. I worked 15 years on the road around
here and I know where things are.

I could draw a map but it wouldn't have much in the way of street names.

I could draw a map of the area I grew up in. It would lack the same
error that appeared on almost all city maps.



Geocaching is one of my hobbies. I delight in placing caches that appear
to be easy roadside stops. In some cases the bridge that is supposed to
be there washed out 20 years ago. In one case it must have been
someone's brain fart since the foot trail up the ridge would give a
mountain goat acrophobia. For others there may have been a logging road
in 1919.

On 04/13/2019 02:04 PM, Frank wrote:
On 4/13/2019 3:30 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 04:24:42 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
.

Even just 1 or two a year is worth doing the right way when its free,
luddite dinosaur.

Nothing is free.

That's bull**** too. It costs no more to use it for that
when you already have the phone for other reasons.

I have a phone to use as a phone, it doesn't have a NAV, broadband
capability or anything like that, it is very cheap to own,
particularly when it is sitting at home but if I bought a "smart
phone" with a data plan, GPS and all the "free ****" you are talking
about it would cost hundreds of dollars for the phone and way more per
year to have.
Nothing is free.

You can buy a smart Tracfone for as little as $20 and a years service
plan with several hundred minutes and 1 gig data for $125. My wife has
one and for data access only uses in the house where wifi costs nothing.

I have a Tracfone flip phone with thousands of rolled over minutes
costing $100 year. Blue toothed to car I can do hands free calling.

I've got a Tracfone flip with the same deal. Every year when I have to
buy another year i go into Verizon and as what their rock bottom
cheapest plan is. Last year it was $50 / month. No thanks. Nothing
against Verizon. My internet is over a Verizon MiFi with a 15 GB data
plan for $70. I just don't need a smart phone. When I travel, the Mifi
goes with me.

On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 06:08:31 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH yet more sick stinking troll****

....and much better air in here again!

--
dennis@home to retarded senile Rot:
"sod off rod you don't have a clue about anything."
Message-ID:

On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 06:11:07 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:



Same way we managed before any phones were
ever invented, much less conveniently, luddite.

Shove your idiotPhone up yours, senile asshole! BG

--
FredXX to Rot Speed:
"You are still an idiot and an embarrassment to your country. No wonder
we shipped the likes of you out of the British Isles. Perhaps stupidity
and criminality is inherited after all?"
Message-ID:

On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 05:56:32 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

Mark Lloyd wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Thats a lie too. Most drivers using a phone while driving
are no more distracted than when talking to a passenger

That's not true.

Easy to claim.

1. You're in the same place, not (mentally) in some other place where that
other person is.

In my case I am normally talking to my mate in his
car when I am in my car and we are both driving
up and down the street trying to work out which of
the houses the garage/yard sale will actually be at.

They mostly dont list their street number to
avoid someone showing up the day before etc.

2. The passenger sees what you see and can know when to be quiet.

Yes, but that is hardly ever reality and the law allows
you to use the phone hands free so the law clearly
doesnt consider that that is an important factor.

That gets back to what I said. People are just offended looking at you
talking on the phone. If you are just talking to yourself, they don't
care, even if you are using both hands to make your point.

On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 16:04:48 -0400, Frank "frank wrote:

On 4/13/2019 3:30 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 04:24:42 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
.

Even just 1 or two a year is worth doing the right way when its free,
luddite dinosaur.

Nothing is free.

That's bull**** too. It costs no more to use it for that
when you already have the phone for other reasons.

I have a phone to use as a phone, it doesn't have a NAV, broadband
capability or anything like that, it is very cheap to own,
particularly when it is sitting at home but if I bought a "smart
phone" with a data plan, GPS and all the "free ****" you are talking
about it would cost hundreds of dollars for the phone and way more per
year to have.
Nothing is free.

You can buy a smart Tracfone for as little as $20 and a years service
plan with several hundred minutes and 1 gig data for $125. My wife has
one and for data access only uses in the house where wifi costs nothing.

I have a Tracfone flip phone with thousands of rolled over minutes
costing $100 year. Blue toothed to car I can do hands free calling.

I pay about $100 a year and that ends up costing me over $2 a minute.
No data used at all. In fact since Verison to Verison is free it is
really more like $50 a minute. I usually rack up about 50 minutes a
year and it is almost all to people on my family plan.

On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 06:08:31 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

wrote
Rod Speed wrote
wrote

Even just 1 or two a year is worth doing the
right way when its free, luddite dinosaur.

Nothing is free.

That's bull**** too. It costs no more to use it for that
when you already have the phone for other reasons.

I have a phone to use as a phone, it doesn't have a NAV,
broadband capability or anything like that, it is very
cheap to own, particularly when it is sitting at home

Yes, you actually are that luddite a dinosaur.

but if I bought a "smart phone" with a data plan,
GPS and all the "free ****" you are talking about
it would cost hundreds of dollars for the phone
and way more per year to have.

But when you have it already, because it is handy
to be able to get it to direct you to where you
need to go or just to check if the price you see
on offer is the best available and then you choose
to use it to work out which aisle something you
don't usually buy is in the supermarket etc,
THAT particular extra capability really is free.

And in fact my phone is MUCH cheaper per
year than the landline ever was. I was paying
$35 a month for the landline service alone,
with calls made extra cost. With the cellphone
it costs me just $10 per month with unlimited
FREE calls, texts and MMSs to any landline or
cellphone in the country and 1GB of data.

And I get the real advantage of having just
one set of contacts and having it all fully
automatically backed up to the cloud so
that if it dies, or gets lost or stolen I just
replace it and yawn and enter my ID and
have the new phone identical to the old
one content wise. And can use another
phone to find the original, or watch the
thief trying to use the stolen phone, all
for FREE.

That is still not free. You have to buy the phone and pay the company
to use it. The fact that you have rationalized that your life would
not be complete without it does not make it free.
If my wife wasn't paying for my phone on her plan, I would throw it
away. I do just fine without it. I doubt I even have it with me more
than 10 times a year.

Nothing is free.

Wrong, as always. Even breathing is still
free even in the land of the ripoff merchants.

You pay taxes to be there so it isn't free.

On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 16:21:57 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 4/13/2019 3:23 PM, wrote:


The law is not silly in every condition.

The problem is the law has no "conditions".
In some states they could write you a ticket for using a phone,
sitting at a light. None talk about traffic conditions or will try to
decide what your conversation was about.
If the word comes down, "we aren't writing enough phone tickets", cops
will write tickets.


NV has a pending bill that if you are in an accident, the Po Po could
look into your phone to see if you were talking, texting, etc.. Not
sure of the status of it right now.


In CT, a couple of times they set up a spotter sitting up high and the
police would stop the car down the block.

I'd call entrapment on that. The Po Po writing the ticket is swearing
to the observed violation -- it was seen with their own eyes and not
from some radio call that Officer Pecker told him about. Mr Pecker
should be the one signing the citation.

On 4/13/2019 6:37 PM, Oren wrote:


In CT, a couple of times they set up a spotter sitting up high and the
police would stop the car down the block.

I'd call entrapment on that. The Po Po writing the ticket is swearing
to the observed violation -- it was seen with their own eyes and not
from some radio call that Officer Pecker told him about. Mr Pecker
should be the one signing the citation.


Maybe, but no different than the radar speed traps

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 05:56:32 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

Mark Lloyd wrote
Rod Speed wrote

Thats a lie too. Most drivers using a phone while driving
are no more distracted than when talking to a passenger

That's not true.

Easy to claim.

1. You're in the same place, not (mentally) in some other place where
that
other person is.

In my case I am normally talking to my mate in his
car when I am in my car and we are both driving
up and down the street trying to work out which of
the houses the garage/yard sale will actually be at.

They mostly dont list their street number to
avoid someone showing up the day before etc.

2. The passenger sees what you see and can know when to be quiet.

Yes, but that is hardly ever reality and the law allows
you to use the phone hands free so the law clearly
doesnt consider that that is an important factor.

That gets back to what I said. People are just
offended looking at you talking on the phone.

Only the luddite dinosaurs.

If you are just talking to yourself, they don't care,
even if you are using both hands to make your point.

Even sillier than you usually manage, and thats saying something.

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 06:08:31 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

wrote
Rod Speed wrote
wrote

Even just 1 or two a year is worth doing the
right way when its free, luddite dinosaur.

Nothing is free.

That's bull**** too. It costs no more to use it for that
when you already have the phone for other reasons.

I have a phone to use as a phone, it doesn't have a NAV,
broadband capability or anything like that, it is very
cheap to own, particularly when it is sitting at home

Yes, you actually are that luddite a dinosaur.

but if I bought a "smart phone" with a data plan,
GPS and all the "free ****" you are talking about
it would cost hundreds of dollars for the phone
and way more per year to have.

But when you have it already, because it is handy
to be able to get it to direct you to where you
need to go or just to check if the price you see
on offer is the best available and then you choose
to use it to work out which aisle something you
don't usually buy is in the supermarket etc,
THAT particular extra capability really is free.

And in fact my phone is MUCH cheaper per
year than the landline ever was. I was paying
$35 a month for the landline service alone,
with calls made extra cost. With the cellphone
it costs me just $10 per month with unlimited
FREE calls, texts and MMSs to any landline or
cellphone in the country and 1GB of data.

And I get the real advantage of having just
one set of contacts and having it all fully
automatically backed up to the cloud so
that if it dies, or gets lost or stolen I just
replace it and yawn and enter my ID and
have the new phone identical to the old
one content wise. And can use another
phone to find the original, or watch the
thief trying to use the stolen phone, all
for FREE.

That is still not free.

Corse it is when you already have the phone for other reasons.

You have to buy the phone and pay the company to use it.

But that actually saves me considerable money.

The fact that you have rationalized that your
life would not be complete without it

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

does not make it free.

But when it doesn't cost you a cent more to do that, it really is free.

If my wife wasn't paying for my phone on her plan,
I would throw it away. I do just fine without it.

Yes, but that's because you are a stupid luddite dinosaur.

I doubt I even have it with me more than 10 times a year.

Yes, but that's because you are a stupid luddite dinosaur.

Nothing is free.

Wrong, as always. Even breathing is still
free even in the land of the ripoff merchants.

You pay taxes to be there so it isn't free.

Plenty pay no taxes at all, so it is indeed free for them.

On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 20:10:07 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 4/13/2019 6:37 PM, Oren wrote:


In CT, a couple of times they set up a spotter sitting up high and the
police would stop the car down the block.

I'd call entrapment on that. The Po Po writing the ticket is swearing
to the observed violation -- it was seen with their own eyes and not
from some radio call that Officer Pecker told him about. Mr Pecker
should be the one signing the citation.


Maybe, but no different than the radar speed traps

The Po Po that operates the radar should sign the citation - they were
the witness. Not some person down the block told to cite the person.
Signing the citation ticket must be the witness to the violation.

On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 15:37:34 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 16:21:57 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 4/13/2019 3:23 PM, wrote:


The law is not silly in every condition.

The problem is the law has no "conditions".
In some states they could write you a ticket for using a phone,
sitting at a light. None talk about traffic conditions or will try to
decide what your conversation was about.
If the word comes down, "we aren't writing enough phone tickets", cops
will write tickets.


NV has a pending bill that if you are in an accident, the Po Po could
look into your phone to see if you were talking, texting, etc.. Not
sure of the status of it right now.


In CT, a couple of times they set up a spotter sitting up high and the
police would stop the car down the block.

I'd call entrapment on that. The Po Po writing the ticket is swearing
to the observed violation -- it was seen with their own eyes and not
from some radio call that Officer Pecker told him about. Mr Pecker
should be the one signing the citation.

All they need to do is have officer Pecker show up in court. That was
how they ran Radar in Maryland when I lived there. Officer Pecker was
sitting on a bridge with a gun and as soon as you came over the hill
they were stopping everyone. Officer pecker would tell them which ones
to keep and which ones to let go. It was usually everyone in that pack
of cars because he would swear he caught you all.
When you got to court Officer Pecker swore he saw you doing 66 in a
55, If you argued the judge would say there may be some wiggle room in
66 but he was sure you were going over 55 and he convicted you of 56
in a 55. Bang goes the gavel ... ($20 one point)

On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 17:55:01 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 20:10:07 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 4/13/2019 6:37 PM, Oren wrote:


In CT, a couple of times they set up a spotter sitting up high and the
police would stop the car down the block.

I'd call entrapment on that. The Po Po writing the ticket is swearing
to the observed violation -- it was seen with their own eyes and not
from some radio call that Officer Pecker told him about. Mr Pecker
should be the one signing the citation.


Maybe, but no different than the radar speed traps

The Po Po that operates the radar should sign the citation - they were
the witness. Not some person down the block told to cite the person.
Signing the citation ticket must be the witness to the violation.

No, the person witnessing the act is the one who testifies against
you. The summons is just a demand that you show up in court to fight
it or forfeit collateral. It does not have to be signed by the
charging officer. I have seen that defense tried and watched it fail.
There is the "lose sight, no cite" rule tho. If Officer Pecker loses
sight of you before he can tell Officer Dick you are the one or pulls
you over himself, he probably loses the case.

On 4/13/2019 9:22 PM, wrote:

When you got to court Officer Pecker swore he saw you doing 66 in a
55, If you argued the judge would say there may be some wiggle room in
66 but he was sure you were going over 55 and he convicted you of 56
in a 55. Bang goes the gavel ... ($20 one point)


YEARS ago I went to traffic court in Philadelphia. About 75 of us for
various citations.
Judge enters, bailif says "all rise, Honorable Judge Joe presiding. How
do you plead?" We all said Not Guilty. "Dismissed"

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
On 4/13/2019 9:22 PM, wrote:

When you got to court Officer Pecker swore he saw you doing 66 in a
55, If you argued the judge would say there may be some wiggle room in
66 but he was sure you were going over 55 and he convicted you of 56
in a 55. Bang goes the gavel ... ($20 one point)

YEARS ago I went to traffic court in Philadelphia. About 75 of us for
various citations.
Judge enters, bailif says "all rise, Honorable Judge Joe presiding. How
do you plead?" We all said Not Guilty. "Dismissed"

The US legal system has been broken for centurys now.

On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 22:51:22 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 4/13/2019 9:22 PM, wrote:

When you got to court Officer Pecker swore he saw you doing 66 in a
55, If you argued the judge would say there may be some wiggle room in
66 but he was sure you were going over 55 and he convicted you of 56
in a 55. Bang goes the gavel ... ($20 one point)


YEARS ago I went to traffic court in Philadelphia. About 75 of us for
various citations.
Judge enters, bailif says "all rise, Honorable Judge Joe presiding. How
do you plead?" We all said Not Guilty. "Dismissed"

During the double nickel my last 8 years or so in Maryland I stayed in
traffic trouble and I went to court every time. It was always worth
the "1 over and $20 plus a point" and occasionally you actually won.
My driving record was still 3 pages long. A lot of that was
administrative BS tho.
There was a trick that worked pretty well, postpone the case. Sometime
they would postpone you back then you had grounds to postpone them
back. It was always a couple months each. By the time you finally had
to go to court the cop would forget the details of his case, he would
have a new notebook that you weren't in and it was 50:50 that you got
an immediate dismissal if he looked confused enough. There was also a
good chance he was reassigned or didn't show up for some other reason.
There was another loophole. Points were assessed at the time of the
violation but they don't get posted until you are convicted. They just
sit there in limbo. In other words the clock was running on your
points from the day you got the ticket and they didn't get posted for
weeks after the trial because you were never convicted of anything. By
then there was a chance other points aged off.

When I moved to Florida that didn't work at all. When I went to court
here the judge stood up and said "You all could have just paid this
ticket and be done with it but you are here wasting my time. Let me
remind you the maximum fine for these offenses is 5 times what the
ticket costs, maybe even some jail. Do you feel lucky"?
"My bailiff will be giving the opportunity to post collateral in the
back of the room".
Then he took a short recess, we all paid our tickets and I guess he
did real trials the rest of the day.
Reagan repealed the double nickel and I didn't get tickets anymore.

On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 10:46:56 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH another load of the stinking senile troll's latest troll****

....and much better air in here again!

--
Bill Wright addressing senile Ozzie cretin Rot Speed:
"Well you make up a lot of stuff and it's total ******** most of it."
MID:

On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 13:03:45 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:



The US legal system has been broken for centurys now.

NOTHING could be as broken as your senile "mind", you filthy senile Ozzi
troll!

--
Kerr-Mudd,John addressing senile Rot:
"Auto-contradictor Rod is back! (in the KF)"
MID:

On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 10:41:06 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rot Speed,
the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH more the senile's asshole's troll****

....and much better air in here!

--
dennis@home to retarded senile Rot:
"sod off rod you don't have a clue about anything."
Message-ID:

On 4/13/19 11:03 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message ...
On 4/13/2019 9:22 PM, wrote:

When you got to court Officer Pecker swore he saw you doing 66 in a
55, If you argued the judge would say there may be some wiggle room in
66 but he was sure you were going over 55 and he convicted you of 56
in a 55. Bang goes the gavel ... ($20 one point)

YEARS ago I went to traffic court in Philadelphia.Â* About 75 of us for various citations.
Judge enters, bailif says "all rise, Honorable Judge Joe presiding.Â* How do you plead?"Â* We all said Not Guilty. "Dismissed"

The US legal system has been broken for centurys now.


Yes, the legal system has a nasty job to do.

Most of the riff-raff on the wrong side of the law are democrats.

The burden of funding the legal system is on the backs of Republican taxpayers.Â* I guess it's part of our "taxpayer privilege".

On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 15:44:06 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

Bod wrote

Mobile phone detectors are to be used by police to find drivers using
devices at the wheel.

Nope, to find a mobile phone being used in the car. It can't
work out whether its being used by the driver or a passenger.

I agree. I'm all for your right wing solution. Record all the
phone calls, stop the driver, run his voice through
Facebook/Apple/Google/M$/TLA voice-comparison recognition and shoot
him in the head if it matches the calls made while driving. Rich
people will be given a chance to bribe their way out of execution or
blackmailed if the call content is "sensitive".
It'll transfer tons of public money to the media
corporations/spy agencies.
Fsck saving lives.
A win-win situation.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

On 4/13/19 2:44 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 14:13:20 -0500, Mark Lloyd
wrote:

On 4/12/19 3:54 PM, wrote:

[snip]

I don't use nav in the car either. I know where I am going and if I
don't I will look at a map.
Kids there used to be these things called maps ;-)

There were also the crashes caused by a driver distracted by looking at
a map instead of the road.

If you have the memory of a fruit fly, you can look at the map,
remember it and drive there. Why is this so hard. It makes ne wonder
how we ever got around before phones got smarter than most of their
users.

Of course you could. That doesn't mean everybody does.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always
declares that it is his duty." -- George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)

On 4/13/19 3:36 PM, rbowman wrote:

[snip]

I've got a Tracfone flip with the same deal. Every year when I have to
buy another year i go into Verizon and as what their rock bottom
cheapest plan is. Last year it was $50 / month. No thanks. Nothing
against Verizon. My internet is over a Verizon MiFi with a 15 GB data
plan for $70. I just don't need a smart phone. When I travel, the Mifi
goes with me.

There's Ting, which charges $6/month (plus fees of course) to keep it
active. That's good for occasionally-used phones. Ting uses the Sprint
network (IIRC handle AT&T phones also).

I use very little data when not at home. I have a Karma 4G LTE device,
which costs nothing except for data. I bought 20GB about 3 years ago
(when data doesn't expire). According to what I've used, that's about 20
years worth. So, it's nearly free.

Also, my phone is with Verizon. They're about to require 4G phones, and
one can be used as a hotspot.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always
declares that it is his duty." -- George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)