|
|
|
peeders outgun new limits
By Rick Hampson and Paul Overberg, USA TODAY
LANCASTER, Pa. - Barry Landis was doing 109 mph when the radar detector on the
dash of his '97 Dodge Avenger started to beep and blink. That's when he saw the
police cruiser.
By Eileen Blass, USA TODAY
Why was he driving so fast? Because he was in such a good mood.
Why was he in such a good mood? Because he was driving so fast.
"It's a cyclical kind of thing," he says.
To Landis, who once pushed his little Dodge to 130 mph, it boils down to this:
"I like to go fast on a snowboard. I like to go fast on a bike.
"I just like to go fast."
So do many other drivers - so many that the state police here have started
releasing to the news media the names of speeders ticketed at 90 mph or more.
The idea: shame them into slowing down. (Related graphic: Life in the fast lane)
At another time in another land, it might work. But not today. Not in Lead Foot
Nation, where drivers hit speeds that once seemed out of reach to everyone but
race-car drivers, stuntmen and moonshiners. Here, many drivers regard the posted
limit as a minimum, not a maximum.
USA TODAY analyzed 1.2 million speeding tickets issued in 2002 on interstate
highways in 18 states - or about 40% of the interstate system. When compared
with similar tickets from 1991 and 1996, they confirm what many suspect:
..We're speeding faster than ever - in some cases, much faster.
..Even though highway speed limits have been raised by as much as a third over
the past decade, we speed further above these new limits than we did above the
old ones.
..Despite official promises that higher limits would be more strictly enforced,
we're getting more leeway from the police, who all but ignore speeders 10 to 15
mph over the limit.
Most striking is the rise in extreme speeding - driving over 90 mph, or 15 mph
above any speed limit. In 1991, just 2% of ticketed drivers topped 90 mph; in
2002, 10% did.
Even what police call "The Century Club" - those driving 100 mph or faster - is
getting much less exclusive. In 1991, just one driver in 300 was ticketed at or
above 100; in 2002, the ratio was down to one in 100.
In an attempt to slow traffic, judges in Sutter County, Calif., have tripled the
fine for driving 100 mph to almost $1,000.
So many Sutter commuters use triple-digit speeds to shorten their morning drives
to Sacramento or the San Francisco Bay Area that the state police have added a 5
a.m. patrol.
It's the great paradox of the American road. Traffic is getting heavier, there's
less open road, and gasoline costs more. That should slow us down.
But we want to drive faster, and we do it every chance we get.
So why do we speed?
Because we have a full bladder or an empty cooler. Because the cake is in the
oven. Because class starts in five minutes. Because the day care center is
closing, and it's a dollar a minute after 6 o'clock.
We speed because we want to get away or because we want to win a race. Because
we think we're James Dean or James Bond. We speed because we believe F=ma: Fun
equals mass times acceleration.
We speed because our engines are bigger, our tires better, our suspensions
firmer, our cabins quieter, our roads smoother.
We speed because we don't realize how fast we're going - at least, that's what
we tell the trooper.
Here in Lancaster County, where the Amish still travel by horse and buggy, the
state police say they get so many complaints about speeding that they've
borrowed an old vice squad tactic: fight prostitution by embarrassing the johns.
But the strategy assumes people are ashamed to speed.
When friends of Barry Landis found his name in the local newspaper, they cut out
the story, presented it to him for his scrapbook with their congratulations and
offered their own tales of high-speed brushes with the law. "It sorta made me a
celebrity," Landis, 26, says sheepishly.
The trooper who stopped him, Phillip Matson, acknowledges the limits of
publicity: "People's feelings aren't hurt by it. Some of 'em take pride in it."
Why do we speed? Because everyone else does, especially our leaders
A decade ago, South Dakotans who had never met or seen the governor knew Bill
Janklow was a speeder. He had received a dozen speeding tickets and had been
involved in a half-dozen accidents.
Part of it was functional. He had a lot of ground to cover between church
suppers and county fairs.
Part was political. Speed seemed to be Janklow's trademark; he even made light
of it in his State of the State speech in 1999. It was a populist calling card
that helped make him a man of the people, even after he went to Washington last
year to serve in the House of Representatives.
But in August, Janklow ran a stop sign while driving at least 16 mph over the
speed limit and hit and killed a motorcyclist. He was convicted in December of
manslaughter and sentenced last month to 100 days in jail and fined $5,750. He
resigned his House seat.
One of the surest measures of speeding's social acceptance is that politicians
feel free to do it. An analysis of the driving records of a million motorists
done for insurance companies ranked the occupations of drivers most likely to
speed. Politicians finished fourth. Only students, military personnel and
laborers beat them.
No surprise, then, that a proposal to reduce the speed limit on Interstate 80 in
Nebraska probably will die in committee; or that Texas legislators last year
refused to increase fines for driving more than 25 mph over the limit; or that
in half the states drivers cannot block others in the left lane - even if
they're at or above the limit.
We all vote with our right foot, and that includes moms in minivans and pops in
pickups.
A speeding ticket has roughly the same stigma as an overdue notice from the
library. There's no Mothers Against Fast Driving. But there is the Speed
Channel.
Speed kills, but it also sells: cars, beer, movies, songs. That's how it is in
Lead Foot Nation, home to Larry Ford of Franklin, Ind., who souped up his 1940
Ford Coupe with a 396-cubic-inch engine that gets it up to 100 mph. And to C.J.
"Pappy" Hart, who was 87 a few years ago when stopped for going 85 in a 55-mph
zone. He wasn't driving his motor home at the time, but he has done 85 in that,
too.
Most highway-safety advocates focus on "belts and booze" - seat belt laws and
drunken driving - and ignore speeding. "Everybody sort of does it," says Alan
Williams of the Insurance Institute for Traffic Safety. "It's a folk crime."
Marion Emslie made this discovery when her 15-year-old daughter was killed six
years ago.
Talia was riding in a car driven by a high school classmate when it left
Interstate 495 outside Boston and hit a tree. Police estimated that it was going
about 85 mph.
Emslie says she demanded that criminal charges be filed against t
|
| |
| |
Scott Weiser wrote:
A Usenet persona calling itself => Vox Populi wrote:
I certainly hope so. I'd much prefer that they do that than enact a
KRETP law.
I guess it would depend on how much of an issue they think it is.
Given the bill currently pending, I don't see it as at all unlikely,
if someone bothers to make a rational argument to a representative as
to why it would be a good idea.
Classic. Absolutely classic. You have just confirmed everything I've
told the Senate about scofflaws and their arrogant attitudes.
I'm going to forward your missive as well, it's perfect.
Thanks!
Glad to be of service, just be sure to source it properly to
- Vox Populi
--
A multitude of laws in a country is like
a great number of physicians,
a sign of weakness and malady
-- Voltaire
|
| |
| |
Scott Weiser <HeyCR@kissmyass.org> wrote in message news:<BC602614.5A79%HeyCR@kissmyass.org>...
A Usenet persona calling itself => Vox Populi wrote:
I certainly hope so. I'd much prefer that they do that than enact a KRETP
law.
What's wrong with doing *BOTH?* That would be the ideal situation.
Safe, yet reasonably fast and efficient roads for everyone. Of course
STKR is already the law in most places which is a reasonable
substitute for KRETP in most situations.
I guess it would depend on how much of an issue they think it is. Given the
bill currently pending, I don't see it as at all unlikely, if someone
bothers to make a rational argument to a representative as to why it would
be a good idea.
Why does there need to be a bill? All that needs to be done is for
the states to actually follow the MUTCD guidelines and other
regulations with which they are supposedly already in substantial
compliance.
Classic. Absolutely classic. You have just confirmed everything I've told
the Senate about scofflaws and their arrogant attitudes.
I'm going to forward your missive as well, it's perfect.
Thanks!
You miss the whole point, Scott. The point is that exceeding the
number on a sign is no more nor less dangerous than getting out of bed
in the morning in and of itself. There's really *no* danger
whatsoever, or if there is it's so infinitesimally small that it makes
no difference, to a reasonably competent driver. Now were the speed
limits posted to the 85th percentile, then they might mean something
useful rather than just defining a revenue collection set point.
nate
|
| |
| |
A Usenet persona calling itself Nate Nagel wrote:
What's wrong with doing *BOTH?* That would be the ideal situation.
Safe, yet reasonably fast and efficient roads for everyone. Of course
STKR is already the law in most places which is a reasonable
substitute for KRETP in most situations.
Because I deny that there is any credible evidence that KRETP laws enhance
either highway safety or efficiency. I believe they do the exact opposite.
Why does there need to be a bill?
Because the state legislature is the body which has the authority to make
such decisions.
All that needs to be done is for
the states to actually follow the MUTCD guidelines and other
regulations with which they are supposedly already in substantial
compliance.
The MUTCD is merely federal advisory policy, not a requirement. It's a
little thing called "state's rights."
You miss the whole point, Scott. The point is that exceeding the
number on a sign is no more nor less dangerous than getting out of bed
in the morning in and of itself. There's really *no* danger
whatsoever, or if there is it's so infinitesimally small that it makes
no difference, to a reasonably competent driver. Now were the speed
limits posted to the 85th percentile, then they might mean something
useful rather than just defining a revenue collection set point.
This is the most asinine denial of facts I've seen recently.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser
"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
Friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM
2004 Scott Weiser
|
| |
| |
A Usenet persona calling itself BTR1701 wrote:
In article <BC6026A3.5A7B%HeyCR@kissmyass.org>, Scott Weiser
<HeyCR@kissmyass.org> wrote:
Oh, so you just want to make the roads even *more* dangerous. I see.
A person obeying the law does not create any additional danger because of
the illegal and dangerous conduct of others. The responsibility for added
danger is upon the scofflaw.
Traffic scofflaws are bullies, and nothing good ever came from backing down
from bullies. It just makes them bully all the more.
Well, I guess it's a good thing that half the states have laws that make
busy-bodying behavior like that illegal.
Also, in my state, the speed limit law doesn't actually prohibit driving
above the posted limit. It merely creates a rebuttable presumption that
doing so is unsafe. If you can prove by clear and convincing evidence in
court that it was safe to drive at the speed you were cited, then the
citation will not stand.
Nitpicking, pettifogging sophistry.
Therefore, behavior like yours-- making snap judgements on the road
about who is speeding and who isn't-- is not merely unsafe, it's also
not in accordance with the law.
Wrong.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser
"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
Friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM
2004 Scott Weiser
|
| |
| |
Scott Weiser wrote:
A Usenet persona calling itself Nate Nagel wrote:
Because I deny that there is any credible evidence that KRETP laws
enhance either highway safety or efficiency. I believe they do the
exact opposite.
Got some cites to stats that compare and contrast States the
do and don't have KRETP ...?
Because the state legislature is the body which has the authority to
make such decisions.
The MUTCD is merely federal advisory policy, not a requirement. It's a
little thing called "state's rights."
Sure, a State can be as inbred and stupid as it wants to be.
Remember Colorado DID pass Amendment 2 by popular vote.
This is the most asinine denial of facts I've seen recently.
You've not posted any facts, Scott, merely your unsupported opinion
as usual.
--
Texas Constitution
ARTICLE VIII.
Slaves.
SEC. 1. The legislature shall have no power to pass laws for the emancipation of
slaves
without the consent of their owners, nor without paying their owners, previous
to such
emancipation, a full equivalent in money for the slaves so emancipated. They
shall have
no power to prevent emigrants to this State from bringing with them such persons
as are
deemed slaves by the laws of any of the United States, so long as any person of
the same
age or description shall be continued in slavery by the laws of this State:
Provided, That
such slave be the bona fide property of such emigrants: Provided, also, That
laws shall be
passed to inhibit the introduction into this State of slaves who have committed
high crimes
in other States or Territories. They shall have the right to pass laws to permit
the owners of
slaves to emancipate them, saving the rights of creditors, and preventing them
from becoming
a public charge. They shall have full power to pass laws which will oblige the
owners of slaves
to treat them with humanity; to provide for their necessary food and clothing;
to abstain from all
injuries to them, extending to life or limb; and, in case of their neglect or
refusal to comply with
the directions of such laws, to have such slave or slaves taken from such owner
and sold for the
benefit of such owner or owners. They may pass laws to prevent slaves from being
brought into
this State as merchandise only.
|
| |
| |
BTR1701 wrote:
In article <BC6026A3.5A7B%HeyCR@kissmyass.org>, Scott Weiser
<HeyCR@kissmyass.org> wrote:
Oh, so you just want to make the roads even *more* dangerous. I see.
Well, I guess it's a good thing that half the states have laws that
make busy-bodying behavior like that illegal.
Also, in my state, the speed limit law doesn't actually prohibit
driving
above the posted limit. It merely creates a rebuttable presumption
that
doing so is unsafe. If you can prove by clear and convincing evidence
in
court that it was safe to drive at the speed you were cited, then the
citation will not stand.
Therefore, behavior like yours-- making snap judgements on the road
about who is speeding and who isn't-- is not merely unsafe, it's also
not in accordance with the law.
Oh my! BTR1701 actually posted something lucid and logical ...
Where am I ...?
--
To put it in perspective, here are 9 ways Bush got favored treatment in the
service due to his political connections (he
was then son of a Congressman and grandson of a former Senator):
1) He got into the Guard by pulling strings, avoiding the year and a half
waiting list;
http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#got in
2) He took a 2-month vacation in Florida after just 8 weeks, (1 of 3 leaves), to
work on a political campaign;
http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#firstleave
3) Bush skipped Officer Candidate School and got a special commission as a 2nd
Lieutenant, without qualifications;
http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#2ndLt
4) He was assigned to a safe plane (being phased out of active service), the
F-102 ;
http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#f102
5) During flight school, he was flown on a government jet to Washington for a
date with President Nixon's daughter Tricia ;
http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#date
6) Bush got an illegal transfer (later overruled) to a base with no work;
http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#moreleave
7) He simply didn't show up for a YEAR, AWOL with no penalty;
http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#AWOL
8) George W. skipped all his medical exams after they started drug tests, and
was removed from flight status;
http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#drugtest
9) He ended his service 10 months early to go to Harvard Business School;
http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#discharge
|
| |
| |
Scott Weiser wrote:
A Usenet persona calling itself BTR1701 wrote:
A person obeying the law does not create any additional danger
because of
the illegal and dangerous conduct of others. The responsibility for
added danger is upon the scofflaw.
So you admit then that the scofflaw Jaywalker assumes the responsibility
for their illegal behavior, and that the lawfull driver of a car owes
no legal duty to alter their legal behavior to avoid hitting them?
Traffic scofflaws are bullies, and nothing good ever came from
backing down from bullies. It just makes them bully all the more.
Scofflaw Jaywalkers are bullies ... etc.
Nitpicking, pettifogging sophistry.
Whiny Cuntism.
Wrong.
Note: There is nothing that defines "normal speed of traffic" as that which
is also at or below the posted speed. Your continued abject failure to
cite ANY case/statute in Colorado law that indicates same completly
destroys the basis for your entire argument.
42-4-1001. Drive on right side - exceptions.
Statute text
(1) Upon all roadways of sufficient width, a vehicle shall be driven upon the
right half of the roadway, except as follows:
(a) When overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction
under the rules governing such movement;
(b) When an obstruction exists making it necessary to drive to the left of the
center of the highway; but any person so doing shall yield the right-of-way to
all vehicles traveling in the proper direction upon the unobstructed portion of
the highway within such distance as to constitute an immediate hazard;
(c) Upon a roadway divided into three lanes for traffic under the rules
applicable thereon; or
(d) Upon a roadway restricted to one-way traffic as indicated by official
traffic control devices.
(2) Upon all roadways any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of
traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be
driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic or as close as
practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except when
overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when
preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
(3) Upon any roadway having four or more lanes for moving traffic and providing
for two-way movement of traffic, no vehicle shall be driven to the left of the
center line of the roadway, except when authorized by official traffic control
devices designating certain lanes to the left side of the center of the roadway
for use by traffic not otherwise permitted to use such lanes or except as
permitted under subsection (1) (b) of this section. However, this subsection (3)
does not prohibit the crossing of the center line in making a left turn into or
from an alley, private road, or driveway when such movement can be made in
safety and without interfering with, impeding, or endangering other traffic
lawfully using the highway.
(4) Any person who violates any provision of this section commits a class A
traffic infraction.
History
Source: L. 94: Entire title amended with relocations, p. 2357, 1, effective
January 1, 1995.
Annotations
Editor's note: This section was formerly numbered as 42-4-901 and the former
section 42-4-1001 was relocated to section 42-4-1101.
Annotations
ANNOTATION
Annotations
Am. Jur.2d. See 7A Am. Jur.2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic, 269, 271.
C.J.S. See 60A C.J.S., Motor Vehicles, 556-560.
Annotator's note. Since 42-4-1001 is similar to 42-4-901 as it existed prior
to the 1994 amending of title 42 as enacted by SB 94-1, relevant cases
construing that provision have been included with the annotations to this
section.
Driving on the left side of the road is presumptive evidence of negligence.
Globe Cereal Mills v. Scrivener, 240 F.2d 330 (10th Cir. 1956).
Driving to the left of center may give rise to a presumption of negligence.
Sanchez v. Staats, 34 Colo. App. 243, 526 P.2d 672 (1974), aff'd, 189 Colo. 228,
539 P.2d 1233 (1975).
Violation of a statute or ordinance regulating the use of highways is negligence
as a matter of law. Ankeny v. Talbot, 126 Colo. 313, 250 P.2d 1019 (1952).
But the presumption of negligence may be rebutted by evidence showing that the
conduct was reasonable under the circumstances. Sanchez v. Staats, 34 Colo. App.
243, 526 P.2d 672 (1974), aff'd, 189 Colo. 228, 539 P.2d 1233 (1975).
Issues of fact. Whether conduct in driving left of the center line was
reasonable under the circumstances and, if not, whether that conduct was a
proximate cause of the accident are clearly issues of fact which should be left
to the jury to determine. Sanchez v. Staats, 34 Colo. App. 243, 526 P.2d 672
(1974), aff'd, 189 Colo. 228, 539 P.2d 1233 (1975).
Last clear chance doctrine applicable. If violation of this section is the
proximate cause of an accident, such negligent person cannot recover unless the
doctrine of last clear chance is applicable. Ankeny v. Talbot, 126 Colo. 313,
250 P.2d 1019 (1952).
One of the essential conditions to application of the doctrine of last clear
chance is that the person relying on the doctrine is unable to extricate himself
from a position of peril. Ankeny v. Talbot, 126 Colo. 313, 250 P.2d 1019 (1952).
|
| |
| |
In article <BC60D4F9.5AE3%HeyCR@kissmyass.org>, Scott Weiser
<HeyCR@kissmyass.org> wrote:
A Usenet persona calling itself BTR1701 wrote:
Traffic scofflaws are bullies, and nothing good ever came from backing
down from bullies. It just makes them bully all the more.
Cry me a river, sally.
Well, I guess it's a good thing that half the states have laws that
make busy-bodying behavior like that illegal.
Also, in my state, the speed limit law doesn't actually prohibit
driving above the posted limit. It merely creates a rebuttable presumption that
doing so is unsafe. If you can prove by clear and convincing evidence
in court that it was safe to drive at the speed you were cited, then the
citation will not stand.
Nitpicking, pettifogging sophistry.
It's also the law, thesaurus-boy. Calling it names doesn't change that.
Therefore, behavior like yours-- making snap judgements on the road
about who is speeding and who isn't-- is not merely unsafe, it's also
not in accordance with the law.
Wrong.
Cite? If you think it's wrong, then please provide the law in question
and show me how I'm mistaken.
Oh, wait. I never even told you what state I was talking about so
there's no way you can do that and know way you can know that I'm wrong,
making your response absolutely meaningless.
|
| |
| |
Orwellian Prophecy wrote:
=> Vox Populi wrote:
Pennsylvania is another great example of a corrupt Right Wing state
whole law enforcement is much more itnerested in revenue enhancement
than enforcing the spirit of the law.
God, I hated living in PA. Just like Colorado, it's filled with
irrational Right Wing rednecks and intolerant dip#@($s.
Dude, PA is so far right and intolerant compared to Colorado,
even the neo-con Southern Colorado, it's like comparing North
Korea to The Netherlands ...
Besides, the weather if far more enjoyable in Colorado, and
at least the Right Wing Rednecks are somewhat rational Rednecks.
--
"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."
- Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall
|
| |
| |
Ken Smith wrote:
Duder, check out my letter to the editor in today's Rocky. Should
make Spammy chew his George W. Bush Metric Dollar.... ;)
Actually, Franco wouldn't be worse then Bu$h ...
Kerry couldn't be worse than Bush
Who is John Kerry? And why do we care? No matter what he tells you, you can
count on getting something completely different if he moves into 1600
Pennsylvania Ave.
Remember candidate George W. Bush? You know, the fellow who preached fiscal
responsibility? The one who told us he wouldn't send our troops all over the
globe to fight wars of liberation? What does he believe?
President Bush believes his trillion-dollar deficits don't matter. He believes
in no-bid contracts for his friends and lavish tax breaks for his contributors.
He believes the tax code should create jobs in Delhi, not Denver. He believes
you should have to pay a $1,000-plus bribe for the privilege of sitting in the
same room with him. And while he believes that our fine men and women should
fight and die to secure the blessings of liberty for the people of Iraq and
their posterity, he won't lift a finger to secure them for lowly American
citizens like me.
I can't imagine Kerry being much worse. And I'm a Republican.
Ken Smith
Golden
--
"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."
- Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall
|
| |
| |
Arif Khokar wrote:
BTR1701 wrote:
Well, he does have a 2% chance of being able to pick the correct
state. I already know which state it is (given your posting
history) :)
The State of Delusion ...
--
"It's evolutionary, going from governor to president, and this is a significant
step, to be able to vote for yourself on the ballot, and I'll be able to do so
next fall, I hope."
-In an interview with the Associated Press, March 8, 2000
(Thanks to Joshua Micah Marshall.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"My plan is one, by the way, joined by Democrats as well as Republicans, that
understands by taking advantage of the compounding rate of interest, younger
workers will be able to have some -- have benefits that are -- that we
anticipate a promise for the long run."
-- Interview, Fox news, May 18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"States should have the right to enact reasonable laws and restrictions
particularly to end the inhumane practice
of ending a life that otherwise could live."
-Cleveland, June 29, 2000 (Thanks to Douglas Basford.) Compassionate
Conservatism
???
WOULD THAT BE AN ADMISSION THAT CONSERVATISM ITSELF IS RUTHLESS ??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is not Reaganesque to support a tax plan that is Clinton in nature.''-Los
Angeles, Feb. 23, 2000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I don't have to accept their tenants. I was trying to convince those college
students to accept my tenants. And I reject any labeling me because I happened
to go to the university."-Today, Feb. 23, 2000
Cartoons
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I understand small business growth. I was one"
-New York Daily News, Feb. 19, 2000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The mission must be to fight and win war and therefore to prevent war from
happening in the first place,''
--The day before Super Tuesday in San Diego, Mr. Bush was talking about the
need to give the military a new mission
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The senator has got to understand if he's going to
have - he can't have it both ways. He can't take the high horse and then claim
the low road."
-To reporters in Florence,S.C., Feb. 17, 2000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Really proud of it. A great campaign. And I'm really pleased with the
organization and the thousands of South Carolinians that worked on my behalf.
And I'm very gracious and humbled."
-To Cokie Roberts, This Week, Feb. 20, 2000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I don't want to win? If that were the case why the heck am I on the bus 16
hours a day, shaking thousands of hands, giving hundreds of speeches, getting
pillared in the press and cartoons and still staying on message to win?"
- Newsweek, Feb. 28, 2000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I thought how proud I am to be standing up beside my dad. Never did it occur to
me that he would become the gist for cartoonists."- ibid.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If you're sick and tired of the politics of cynicism and polls and principles,
come and join this
campaign."- Hilton Head, S.C., Feb. 16, 2000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"How do you know if you don't measure if you have a system that simply suckles
kids through?"
- Explaining the need for educational accountability
in Beaufort, S.C., Feb.16, 2000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We ought to make the pie higher."
- South Carolina Republican Debate, Feb. 15, 2000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| |
| |
Ken Smith wrote:
Duder, check out my letter to the editor in today's Rocky. Should make
Spammy chew his George W. Bush Metric Dollar.... ;)
In the "Letters to the Editor" section of the _Rocky_Mountain_News_ (a
tabloid) of 24 February 2004, Ken Smirh wrote:
Kerry couldn't be worse than Bush
Who is John Kerry? And why do we care? No matter what he tells you,
you can count on getting something completely different if he moves
into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Something MUCH worse. He will turn the fight on terror again into a law
enforcement instead of a military endeavour. Been there, done that, didn't
work. (That's how we got into the mess that we're in in the first place.)
Remember candidate George W. Bush? You know, the fellow who preached
fiscal responsibility? The one who told us he wouldn't send our troops
all over the globe to fight wars of liberation? What does he believe?
In getting reelected. (Like all politicians. You can't take the politics
out of politics.)
President Bush believes his trillion-dollar deficits don't matter. He
believes in no-bid contracts for his friends and lavish tax breaks for
his contributors.
To the victor go the spoils. The Dems aren't any different.
He believes the tax code should create jobs in Delhi, not Denver. He
believes you should have to pay a $1,000-plus bribe for the privilege
of sitting in the same room with him. And while he believes that our
fine men and women should fight and die to secure the blessings of
liberty for the people of Iraq and their posterity, he won't lift a
finger to secure them for lowly American citizens like me.
Oh? What is it that you want him to do? Do you want him to order the
Colorado Supreme Court to grant you a licence to practise law? Is that what
this is about?
I can't imagine Kerry being much worse. And I'm a Republican.
Yeah, a "RINO" republican.
Ken Smith
Golden
Ken needs to get his head screwed on.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
|
| |
| |
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
In the "Letters to the Editor" section of the _Rocky_Mountain_News_ (a
tabloid) of 24 February 2004, Ken Smirh wrote:
Kerry couldn't be worse than Bush
Who is John Kerry? And why do we care? No matter what he tells
you, you can count on getting something completely different if he
moves into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Something MUCH worse. He will turn the fight on terror again into a
law enforcement instead of a military endeavour. Been there, done
that, didn't work. (That's how we got into the mess that we're in in
the first place.)
Remember candidate George W. Bush? You know, the fellow who
preached fiscal responsibility? The one who told us he wouldn't
send our troops all over the globe to fight wars of liberation?
What does he believe?
In getting reelected. (Like all politicians. You can't take the
politics out of politics.)
President Bush believes his trillion-dollar deficits don't matter.
He believes in no-bid contracts for his friends and lavish tax
breaks for his contributors.
To the victor go the spoils. The Dems aren't any different.
He believes the tax code should create jobs in Delhi, not Denver.
He believes you should have to pay a $1,000-plus bribe for the
privilege of sitting in the same room with him. And while he
believes that our fine men and women should fight and die to
secure the blessings of liberty for the people of Iraq and their
posterity, he won't lift a finger to secure them for lowly
American citizens like me.
Oh? What is it that you want him to do? Do you want him to order the
Colorado Supreme Court to grant you a licence to practise law? Is
that what this is about?
I can't imagine Kerry being much worse. And I'm a Republican.
Yeah, a "RINO" republican.
Ken Smith
Golden
Ken needs to get his head screwed on.
Why don't you get your baseball bat and do it for him, Teddy ...?
What are you afraid of?
--
JOHN ADAMS: "This would be the best of all possible worlds,
if there were no religions in it."
JOHN ADAMS: Letters to F.A. Van Der Kamp 1809-1816. "How has it
happened that millions of myths, fables, legends and tales have been
blended with Jewish and Christian fables and myths and have made them
the most bloody religion that has ever existed? Filled with the sordid
and detestable purposes of superstition and fraud?"
THOMAS JEFFERSON: Notes on Religion, passed in the Assembly of
Virginia, in the Year, 1786. "Millions of innocent men, women and
children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt,
tortured, fined, and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this
coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half
hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."
THOMAS JEFFERSON: Letter to Thomas Whittemore, June 5, 1822:
"Christian creeds and doctrines, the clergy's own fatal inventions,
through all the ages has made of Christendom a slaughterhouse,
and divided it into sects of inextinguishable hatred for one another."
JAMES MADISON: "The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep
forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil
of Europe with blood for centuries."
GEORGE WASHINGTON--Treaty of Tripoli 1796: The government of the United
States not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.
|
| |
| |
his is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------080505010306070506050407
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Uncle Samuel wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 04:44:11 GMT, Ken Smith <forget@it.com> wrote:
So you lied in print,
Identify one lie, Voxie. Just one.
time and again you make the Colorado Bar look
positively omniscient in asking you for a psych eval.
.....because I'm not a certifiable Nazi like you. As I said, political
harassment. ("Cocaine Mary" Mullarkey hates all Republicans, which is
why her band of thugs gerrymandered the districts to give the 'RATs an
even-money chance at the Seventh District.)
You want a REAL family of throw-away-the-key loonies? See the Kaldis
Family. "They're creepy and they're spooky....
--------------080505010306070506050407
Content-Type: message/rfc822;
name="tedstopten.eml"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline;
filename="tedstopten.eml"
From - Tue Feb 17 21:36:05 2004
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Path: newsspool2.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net.POSTED!ba2a9a51!not-for-mail
Message-ID: <40324116.4090900@it.com>
From: Ken Smith <forget@it.com>
Reply-To: Ranger57@concentric.net
Organization: ?????
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel,ca.general,alt.true-crime,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Top Ten Reasons Why Cam Brown Couldn't Have Murdered His Illegitimate
Daughter
References: <402EDB4C.EBC59AF6@worldnet.att.net> <20040215040549.28324.00002074@mb-m15.aol.com> <402F75EF.8030900@it.com> <102v1sb7slngmde@corp.supernews.com> <402F9FDA.34061870@worldnet.att.net> <102vc8anngvikd0@corp.supernews.com> <x0PXb.399$kR3.34@bignews4.bellsouth.net> <402FC9E6.167FFFA1@worldnet.att.net> <V85Yb.9787$kR3.5857@bignews4.bellsouth.net> <40310396.B475890D@worldnet.att.net> <40312F9A.2020908@it.com> <qlaYb.8260$fE4.254@bignews5.bellsouth.net> <40313A31.98957B56@worldnet.att.net> <403159D8.4090207@it.com> <K9dYb.63702$8a5.26872@bignews1.bellsouth.net> <4031812E.5050106@it.com> <4031A164.7E79F878@worldnet.att.net> <4031FFC7.5030300@it.com>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="------------010500030208070406090901"
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 16:29:02 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.234.239.227
X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net
X-Trace: newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net 1077035342 67.234.239.227 (Tue, 17 Feb 2004 08:29:02 PST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 08:29:02 PST
Xref: news.earthlink.net misc.legal:410425 alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel:178834 ca.general:103643 alt.true-crime:831465 alt.politics.homosexuality:721313
X-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 08:29:02 PST (newsspool2.news.pas.earthlink.net)
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------010500030208070406090901
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Top Ten Reasons Why Cameron Brown Couldn't
Have Murdered His Illegitimate Daughter
10. The cops lusted after his Mike Ditka autograph.
9. Is this (http://www.freecambrown.org/pictures/xPix06.jpg) the face
of a murd-- (er, on second thought, strike that!)
8. It was the carpet-munching swarthy dot-head fat chick behind the
grassy knoll (see some of Teddi's Greatest Hits, attached).
7. Assistant D.A. Craig Hum is a "stealth candidate" for L.A.
District Attorney. (http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/03/02/ca/la/county.html)
6. They couldn't find enough LEGITIMATE crimes in L.A. to investigate.
5. If no one saw it, it couldn't have happened.
4. The State's expert witness was paid.
3. "BULL-F***IN'-S*IT! ... Wipe your f***in' @ss with your opinion,
b*tch. ... you must have some bug up your @ss. B*tch. ... You know
sh*t." [Widdle Baby Jesus just ***LOVES*** ast*r*sks. :) ]
2. It is reasonable to think a four-year-old girl would get a running
start and take a flying leap off that cliff. [I'm not making this up --
Ted actually suggested this!]
1. God TOLD Ted Kaldis while he was reading his Bible on the #@($ter.
Teddi, get a @$#*in' grip!!!!! You are totally out of control, Dude!
--------------010500030208070406090901
Content-Type: text/plain;
name="tedracistnew.txt"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline;
filename="tedracistnew.txt"
Subject: Re: It Really IS About Ken Smith ...
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 07:44:03 -0500
From: John Hattan <john@thecodezone.com>
Organization: The Code Zone
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.fan.bob-larson
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
I have never expressed malice, online or otherwise.
I have the necessary qualifications to speak on behalf of Jesus.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
What "cute" hindu chick? Sorry, but I think the swarthy dot-heads are
dogs. I wouldn't even f*** her with your d***.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
Hey, they let ragheads and towelheads and slapheads and camel jockeys
in. Why shouldn't they let me in? At least I'm not from a completely
alien culture.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
Darling, you're just wound a little too tight. And I know exactly
what'll loosen you up.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
But no towel-heads, no slap-heads, no rag-heads, no camel jockeys, and
no bloody swarthy wogs!
--Theodore A. Kaldis
What other words are there? "Gook". "Slope". "Slant-eye". The list
continues further downhill from here.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
BTW, you're not ugly, or a fat chick, now are you?
--Theodore A. Kaldis
I do not use the word "nigger", nor do I use the word "coon"
--Theodore A. Kaldis
At that rate, assuming there are somewhere between 25 to 50 million
blacks in the U.S. (and I don't know what the exact figure is, but I
would surmise that it falls somewhere within that range), they each get
between US$140 to $280. Chump change. With that they would only be
"nigger rich".
--Theodore A. Kaldis
I've already been assaulted a couple of times, but both times by Guido's
rather than by coons.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
Raghead women are too ugly to become flight attendants.
--Theodore A. Kaldis
That's easy. This is yet an
|
| |
| |
his is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------020000040908020007030500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
In the "Letters to the Editor" section of the _Rocky_Mountain_News_
(a tabloid)
Lying sack of adipose tissue! You've lived here long enough to know
that Denver is a two-newspaper town, and the two dailies (the Post and
News) have about equal circulation (400,000+, if memory serves).
of 24 February 2004, Ken Smirh wrote:
Kerry couldn't be worse than Bush
(Not my original title. Only editing they did, except for excising a
short closing paragraph. It happens.)
Who is John Kerry? And why do we care? No matter what he tells you,
you can count on getting something completely different if he moves
into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Something MUCH worse. He will turn the fight on terror again into a law
enforcement instead of a military endeavour. Been there, done that, didn't
work. (That's how we got into the mess that we're in in the first place.)
Arguably preferable to it being morphed into Bush's disastrous global
quest for hegemony. It's difficult to estimate what a President Gore or
Kerry would have done as a reaction to 9/11, but it's probably along the
lines of what we did in Afghanistan. Would we have gone into Iraq? No.
Should we have gone into Iraq, without meaningful international
support (i.e., with only the "coalition of the bribed")? Again, no.
Remember candidate George W. Bush? You know, the fellow who preached
fiscal responsibility? The one who told us he wouldn't send our troops
all over the globe to fight wars of liberation? What does he believe?
In getting reelected. (Like all politicians. You can't take the politics
out of politics.)
But he doen't either give a #@($ about doing the job competently, or
is simply not up to the job. As I said, though I'm not sanguine about
Kerry, he couldn't be worse.
President Bush believes his trillion-dollar deficits don't matter. He
believes in no-bid contracts for his friends and lavish tax breaks for
his contributors.
To the victor go the spoils. The Dems aren't any different.
And the ultimate loser is the American people. They might call John
"Cash and Kerry," but King George II has elevated bribery and cronyism
to an art form.
He believes the tax code should create jobs in Delhi, not Denver. He
believes you should have to pay a $1,000-plus bribe for the privilege
of sitting in the same room with him. And while he believes that our
fine men and women should fight and die to secure the blessings of
liberty for the people of Iraq and their posterity, he won't lift a
finger to secure them for lowly American citizens like me.
Oh? What is it that you want him to do?
Protect our individual liberties! The quest for justice, both for
yourself and others, is part and parcel of what politics is all about.
I'm not likely to throw my illegitimate four-year-old daughter off a
cliff any time soon, but I deem it necessary for the accused to get a
fair trial, and to not be imprisoned without good cause.
The Republican Party is the party of civil rights -- or perhaps more
accurately, WAS -- because we recognize that individual liberty is the
cornerstone of a just and prosperous society. It's Milton's struggle.
Let truth prevail in the marketplace of ideas! We rebel at the thought
of being forced into a life of conformity and submission. And we'll
take the risks of freedom. Gladly.
It seems perfectly logical, if you are absolutely convinced of your
immaculate misconceptions, to force them upon others, by advancing the
lives of those who agree with you, and injuring those who do not. But
the problem with so doing is that you set a precedent -- one which can
and probably will be used against you. Defending the rights of those
you disagree with is, by proxy, defending your very own.
I want Asscrack to enforce our civil rights laws, instead of
stressing about whether Minnie Lou's or Janet Jackson's breast is
exposed. Bush and his thugs have been turning America into a police
state, and turned influence-peddling into an art form. For some reason,
you seem to have no problem with this -- becaust it advances your
Christianazi vision of AmeriKKKa.
Do you want him to order the
Colorado Supreme Court to grant you a licence to practise law? Is that what
this is about?
He couldn't do it if he wanted to. But if he was consistent about
the enforcement of international law, he could lob a cruise missile into
the Colorado Supreme Court building.... :)
I can't imagine Kerry being much worse. And I'm a Republican.
Yeah, a "RINO" republican.
You call everyone who doesn't agree with you a RINO. Fact is, you're
part of our local Taliban.
Ken Smith
Golden
Ken needs to get his head screwed on.
As if you're qualified to talk (see attached)....
--------------020000040908020007030500
Content-Type: text/plain;
name="tedexorcize.txt"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline;
filename="tedexorcize.txt"
Subject: The Ted Kaldis EXORCIZE Video (was Re: The non-Evidence Question
Date: 14 May 2002 14:25:45 GMT
From: Ken Smith <Ranger57@concentric.net>
Organization: Concentric Internet Services
Newsgroups: alt.fan.bob-larson,alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel,alt.atheism
"Theodore A. Kaldis" wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
The key word here in Ken's statement is "afraid". Ken is deathly afraid that
the Gospel is true. For Ken does not see the Gospel for what it is -- that
God can wipe al
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 07:43:00 -0800, "Theodore A. Kaldis"
<kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:
In the "Letters to the Editor" section of the _Rocky_Mountain_News_ (a
tabloid) of 24 February 2004, Ken Smirh wrote:
Kerry couldn't be worse than Bush
Who is John Kerry? And why do we care? No matter what he tells you,
you can count on getting something completely different if he moves
into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Something MUCH worse. He will turn the fight on terror again into a law
enforcement instead of a military endeavour. Been there, done that, didn't
work. (That's how we got into the mess that we're in in the first place.)
Remember candidate George W. Bush? You know, the fellow who preached
fiscal responsibility? The one who told us he wouldn't send our troops
all over the globe to fight wars of liberation? What does he believe?
In getting reelected. (Like all politicians. You can't take the politics
out of politics.)
President Bush believes his trillion-dollar deficits don't matter. He
believes in no-bid contracts for his friends and lavish tax breaks for
his contributors.
To the victor go the spoils. The Dems aren't any different.
He believes the tax code should create jobs in Delhi, not Denver. He
believes you should have to pay a $1,000-plus bribe for the privilege
of sitting in the same room with him. And while he believes that our
fine men and women should fight and die to secure the blessings of
liberty for the people of Iraq and their posterity, he won't lift a
finger to secure them for lowly American citizens like me.
Oh? What is it that you want him to do? Do you want him to order the
Colorado Supreme Court to grant you a licence to practise law? Is that what
this is about?
I can't imagine Kerry being much worse. And I'm a Republican.
Yeah, a "RINO" republican.
Ken Smith
Golden
Ken needs to get his head screwed on.
That's what the Colorado Bar thought too...
|
| |
| |
Nate Nagel wrote:
Bless their little hearts.
I still think that lane discipline is better on the Jersey 'pike at
least in my experience. Of course, I hate the PA turnpike for so many
other reasons... the crappy surface... the endless construction
zones... the X-band radar source in every @$#*ing electronic sign...
I just take the extra hour and take 68 to Morgantown and then 79 north
from there whenever I want to go home. Better roads, better scenery,
and much less frustration. Plus the speed limit in WV is 70 MPH.
Holy #@($, you want to talk about scary places? ... let's talk WV !
nate
--
"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."
- Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall
|
| |
| |
Kingfish. wrote:
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear.
Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect
so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If
your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being
disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are
helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths,
Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)
The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his
duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they
are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required
from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from
those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)
(notes for Ep 6:5, 1 Timothy 6:1-2, usage) Traditionally, "Servants"
(KJV). Though dou'lo" (doulos) is often translated "servant," the
word does not bear the connotation of a free individual serving
another. BDAG notes that "'servant' for 'slave' is largely confined
to Biblical transl. and early American times.in normal usage at the
present time the two words are carefully distinguished" (BDAG 260
s.v.). The most accurate translation is "bondservant" (sometimes
found in the ASV for dou'lo"), in that it often indicates one who
sells himself into slavery to another. But as this is archaic, few
today understand its force.
so, it was a business arangement.
How's the business of Rape and Plunder ...?
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NAB
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged,
he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young
woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB
If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has
relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and
there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help
though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.
2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB
Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house.
I will take your wives (plural) while you live to see it, and will give them to
your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have
done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all
Israel,
and with the sun looking down.'
Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord."
Nathan answered David: "The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin:
you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed,
the child born to you must surely die." (The child dies seven days later.)
Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NLT
Suppose you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God
hands them over to you and you take captives. And suppose you see
among the captives a beautiful woman, and you are attracted to her and
want to marry her. If this happens, you may take her to your home,
where she must shave her head, cut her fingernails, and change all
her clothes. Then she must remain in your home for a full month,
mourning for her father and mother. After that you may marry her.
But if you marry her and then decide you do not like her, you must
let her go free. You may not sell her or treat her as a slave,
for you have humiliated her.
|
| |
| |
A Usenet persona calling itself => Vox Populi wrote:
Scott Weiser wrote:
Wrong again Scott ... why do you deliberately lie? It makes
you look like the cocksucker GW Bu$H ... you've already
posted, many times, the valid exceptions to the posted
Speed Limit signs.
Pettifoggery. The emergency exception does not constitute the rule.
Stupid enough to believe they are anything other than
revenue collection agents for the Gov't ...hapless
pawns and dupes.
It's kind of interesting you mention this, because the actual effect of
enacting this law in Colorado won't be freeing-up of the left lane, it means
that the police now have yet one more law to enforce against not just
"LLBers" but against scofflaw speed-demons who like to cruise in the left
lane.
They will soon be eligible for yet another ticket. Assuming they get caught.
It's amusing that the scofflaws have been supporting passing yet another
"revenue generation" law which can be wielded against them as easily as it
can be wielded against others. Rather hypocritical and short-sighted, if you
ask me.
Now, instead of being able to cruise, the scofflaws will have to pull in
behind other traffic as soon as it is safe to do so, which means slowing
down. This gives others the chance to cut the scofflaw off from getting into
the left lane again. Should result in a lot of jockeying for position and
even more highway danger.
Most likely, however, is that it'll be used by the police to stop yet more
carloads of Mexicans for drug searches and little else.
You see, all someone has to do is go 10 inches per hour faster than the car
next to them and they are legally "passing," and can stay in the "passing
lane" for as long as it takes them to complete the pass safely...even if
they are going substantially *below* the legal limit...because the left lane
will soon be designated as the "passing lane" in Colorado, and everybody
gets to use it if they need to pass...even slowpokes passing slowpokes.
Then again, some citizens may simply join you in your scofflawry and engage
in "civil disobediance" towards this new law which may result in even more
*deliberate* left-lane blocking. Given the dearth of enforcement on Colorado
highways, it's as easy to get away with deliberately blocking speeders as it
is to speed in the first place.
I'd be quite surprised if as many as 50 tickets are written a year in
Colorado even after the bill passes (which it's highly likely to do at this
point).
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser
"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
Friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM
2004 Scott Weiser
|
| |
| |
Scott Weiser wrote:
A Usenet persona calling itself Dave C. wrote:
A person obeying the law does not create any additional danger
because of the illegal and dangerous conduct of others.
But at the moment, it's perfectly legal for me to be in the left lane
so long as I'm not driving below the legal limit.
Wrong again liar. The Colorado KRETP law makes NO mention whatsoever
of the legal posted limit, to wit:
Note: Driving on the Right side is the law, with specific, limited exceptions
42-4-1001. Drive on right side - **exceptions**.
Statute text
(1) Upon all roadways of sufficient width, a vehicle shall be driven upon the
right half of the roadway, EXCEPT as follows:
(a) When overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction
under the rules governing such movement;
(b) When an obstruction exists making it necessary to drive to the left of the
center of the highway; but any person so doing shall yield the right-of-way to
all vehicles traveling in the proper direction upon the unobstructed portion of
the highway within such distance as to constitute an immediate hazard;
(c) Upon a roadway divided into three lanes for traffic under the rules
applicable thereon; or
(d) Upon a roadway restricted to one-way traffic as indicated by official
traffic control devices.
***** Here's the pertinent section Scott, and not a single word about "posted"
or "legal" speed limit! *********
(2) Upon all roadways any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of
traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be
driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic or as close as
practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except when
overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when
preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
*****************************
You lose again Scott, your whole specious argument is built upon a
bogus and false premise. There is NOTHING in the Colorado Traffic law that
equates
Normal = Legal. Never was, never will be. IF the legislature intended it to be
so,
it would have been quite simple to phrase the first sentence as follows:
"Upon all roadways any vehicle proceeding at less than the POSTED LEGAL SPEED
LIMIT ..."
But of course they didn't state that, only you, in your pathetic lies and
deceptions, have
made such a preposterous, and false, claim.
-----------------------------------
(3) Upon any roadway having four or more lanes for moving traffic and providing
for two-way movement of traffic, no vehicle shall be driven to the left of the
center line of the roadway, except when authorized by official traffic control
devices designating certain lanes to the left side of the center of the roadway
for use by traffic not otherwise permitted to use such lanes or except as
permitted under subsection (1) (b) of this section. However, this subsection (3)
does not prohibit the crossing of the center line in making a left turn into or
from an alley, private road, or driveway when such movement can be made in
safety and without interfering with, impeding, or endangering other traffic
lawfully using the highway.
(4) Any person who violates any provision of this section commits a class A
traffic infraction.
History
Source: L. 94: Entire title amended with relocations, p. 2357, 1, effective
January 1, 1995.
Annotations
Editor's note: This section was formerly numbered as 42-4-901 and the former
section 42-4-1001 was relocated to section 42-4-1101.
However, it does look like the Colorado Legislature is going to pass
HB 1076, and you will get what you wished for...though it probably
won't result in what you expect.
The bill passed 2nd reading in the Senate yesterday, and third reading
today. Next it goes to the Governor's desk, and it appears that the
Governor will sign it. < | | |
