Saturday, March 26, 2011
At the risk of being upstaged by world events
In terms of blogging material I had nothing today (Libya/Tsunami, been there done that) so I went home before and opened up my mailbag, a daily ritual I hate btw ("URGENT - Open at Once", well can I take a dump first? cat might be hungry) and got one of those Gotcha! pictures in full color and couple of different angles too detailing exactly where I made an illegal right hand turn by not making a complete stop during the red phase of some traffic light even though otherwise you could make a Right on Red there at the intersection of Odell and Nepperhan Ave. The return address on the stub said City of Yonkers Red Light Traffic Safety Program PO Box 742503 Cincinnati OH 45274-2503 (didn't know the city of Cincinnati and the big YO had a connection, hmmm) and the amount of the infraction was 50 bucks. Now I said quite recently that I probably never would blog about a traffic ticket, not the merits of one anyway as you'll always get the dutiful right-winger from the Law Enforcement wing of the party and overall Good Citizen who points out "but Z you deserved that ticket, could've hit some 14-year old Catholic schoolgirl coming home from school" (visions of the bookbag flying) but there was something in the letter...they gave me my own PIN # and a web address where I can view a VIDEO of my moving violation online. Must everything be online these days??? Yeah I know only I can access it but it's weird and creepy in a vague way. Well if my vid can be online so can my commentary. Now I was always in my bones against these traffic light cams as being somehow a violation of Something although I never felt the spirit move me to blog about it (there are always more important things you know) and always felt these tiny encroachments on our liberty and/or privacy would someday amount to some big cumulative nightmare on the spirit of our freedom but the prob here is if you complain let's say that in a couple years you won't be able to get an incandescent light bulb because our friend Bush signed a law doing away with them in favor of the compact fluorescent you risk sounding like Charlie Sheen in a militia uniform so at the risk of sounding hyperdramatical at what point in time can we say (and apply your own special pet peeve here) this and no more? makes me trepidatious. Can we conversate?:)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Few years back, I was heading up a local hill and some duffus in the left lane was going 20 in a 35 zone. Normally a placid type, I got fed up and went into 'road rage',
ReplyDeletepassing on the right and zipping on up. Then I heard a siren and saw flashing gumballs to I pulled into McDonalds at the top of the hill. Little kids with their noses pressed to the windows and I hear on the patrol loudspeaker. "Keep your hands on the wheel where I can see them!"
Officer claims I was going 60. So, welcome to the traffic club, a lose-lose situation....
I used to have this great license plate cover thing that was clear plastic with grooves in it and the redlight cameras couldn't read the plate number.
ReplyDeleteI don't remember where I got it but I bet if you looked around you'd find it.
We don't have red lights here (okay we have a few) much less red light cameras.. if we did the cops would have NOTHING to do...
Great Song, BB; Appropriate and Funny.
ReplyDeleteOne Frustrating Thing that is Currently Happening in Our Area is that someone has been Shooting Dogs, that is People's Pets, just because they Happened to get Out of Their Yard and Walk Across his Property. He has Chickens, but Only Three of them and there is Many a Family Dog that is Worth Far more than the Price of Three Chickens. He Could Use a BB Gun or Pellet Gun, but no. He Shoots to Kill.
He has Shot Two Dogs so Far and Both were Pets and So Far the Sheriff has not done anything about it. Yet if you Miss a Red Light by just a Few Seconds, well now, that is a True Criminal. The World is so Messed Up.
One thing that strongly motivates and inspires my blogging is I'm against anything that mildly or even remotely can point us in a totalitarian direction. What I find more offensive here is that my video is online. I don't feel our medical records should be online either, what about hackers? So do red light cameras and our online video infractions mean we are living in bondage? Of course not but a moderate is someone who doesn't mind our losing our freedoms and privacy in small incremental steps like the proverbial frog being slowly simmered in a pot. I'm gonna break it down into two before I go for my daily walk...
ReplyDeleteI was thinking about this last night and it's kinda sad but when you get a ticket from a cop do you slowly lose respect for the profession? Not necessarily but for me if I judge the offense to be rather trivial (you're not a reckless driver by any stretch) and more importantly if I feel the ticket given is part of a quota system then yeah I do slowly lose respect. The late libertarian Aaron Russo once asked his audience when you're driving along and a cop is behind you does that meke you feel safe and secure or uncomfortable? Most said uncomfortable of course so why is that? No let me break it down into three, something about bikini weenie wagons...
ReplyDeleteUsed to have about three here in the big YO run by a Yonkers cop, a detective. Anyway me and my Korean friend used to patronize his wagon in our neck of the woods, the dogs were high but it was pay-per-view and so the cop was at the wagon a couple times and we all chatted. FF a few years down the road and I'm out driving and get told to pull over by guess who for not making a full stop. A girl was also pulled over ahead of me, you can't tell me it wasn't a quota but point I'm getting at is he still gave me a ticket after about a year of buying weenies. That's the prob with the planet today, nobody's cool:)
ReplyDeleteZ-Man,
ReplyDeleteAny Time in which either Expectations, or Laws are not Realistic, this Causes a Lose of Respect. We Respect what is Reasonable and Lose Respect for what is not.
As to the Frog in Boiling Water. The Way to Avoid this is to Draw Definite Lines that you will not Cross, nor Compromise. The Lines, However, do not have to Reflect Extremism. They Can Reflect Moderation.
Here's my question for you:
ReplyDeleteLately, in any given situation where Group A disagrees with Group B, Group A's chosen pejorative is that Group B 'hates America and wants to destroy it'.
How is this a logical statement? Group B lives in America, same as Group A, raises their children here, works here, has family here, has spent their lives and possibly can trace their genealogy back over multiple generations in America.
How is it that these people 'hate America and want to destroy it'? Where would they go? They LIVE here.
Why is 'change' equivocated with 'hating America and wanting to destroy it'? It's one of the more illogical statements I hear often and I got to wondering how people can seriously with a straight face use it.
I Think that what is Actually being Said, Satyavati, is that there are People here who Hate what America Originally Stood for. They Hate Capitalism and want to Destroy it. Since Capitalism is what America was Originally Based on, the Hatred of Capitalism, in a lot of People's Minds, is the same as the Hatred of America.
ReplyDeleteRed light cameras are unconstitutional. They used to be operable in in Minneapolis. They got struck down. You could probably contest it illustrating this point.
ReplyDeleteThey have Actually Adjusted the Timing of the Yellow Light and of the Camera and Found that the Shorter the Yellow Light, the More Money they could Make. When, due to the Controversy, they had to Make the Yellow Light Longer, they were not Making Enough Money in Smaller Cities to Make the Cameras Worth it and that is why these Cameras are Only Used in Large Cities.
ReplyDeleteLista: "to Draw Definite Lines that you will not Cross, nor Compromise"
ReplyDeleteHere's my line, the video of my moving infraction should not be online at the Yonkers PVB website they gave me even though they also gave me a PIN. Sure footage will exist of the offense but I would have expected the PVB would have the footage handy if I wanted to go down there and see it myself but not at some website for my convenience. Haven't viewed it yet, have more important things to do people. Didn't know red light cams were ruled unconstitutional in Minneapolis soapie. Interesting, on that grounds?
People who hate America and want to destroy her, God that's such a grey area. I can't get inside a person's head. Michael Moore it can probably be said hates America even though he has gotten rich here. Let's see, who else? Alec Baldwin was supposed to move, Gwinnie Paltrow said something once, I can't remember what...right-wingers have many social criticisms of life and society here, out-of-control abortions, rampant promiscuity etc. so do they hate America? Righties and lefties both have criticisms but Hannity comes out the patriot in the end. It's just the way it works, them be the apples.
ReplyDeleteThe Minn Supreme Court findings seem to
ReplyDeletebe based on the presumption of guilt, the
presumption that the car owner was the driver, and
out-of-state drivers unaware of Mpls traffic
camera ordnance, in addition to conflict with
certain state laws. (Dang,
I'll miss those gunfights
at 7Elevens they show on the man channel)
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/16/1688.asp
ReplyDelete"The court also struck down the "rebutable presumption" doctrine that lies at the heart of every civil photo enforcement ordinance across the country.
"The problem with the presumption that the owner was the driver is that it eliminates the presumption of innocence and shifts the burden of proof from that required by the rules of criminal procedure," the court concluded. "Therefore the ordinance provides less procedural protection to a person charged with an ordinance violation than is provided to a person charged with a violation of the Act. Accordingly, the ordinance conflicts with the Act and is invalid."
I kind of understand it now.
ReplyDeleteIn California, the Cameras are Situated so that they can Take a Picture of the Drivers Face. Some Cities are Putting them on the Side Now, rather than Over Head because too many People were Putting their Visors Down in Front of their Face as they Realized that they were Driving Through on a Yellow Light.
ReplyDeleteLike I said, though, in Smaller Cities, it just wasn't Bringing in enough Revenue to Pay for the Operating Expenses of the Cameras. In Our Town, they had them in for Awhile and then Took them Out.
Soap and I are waiting for the Minn Supreme Court to
ReplyDeletetake up groping of air
travelers....
All in the name of freedom and keeping us safe of course.
ReplyDeleteoverweening government:)
At least make it okay for everyone. I mean come on...!
ReplyDeleteSo in my letter from the City of Yonkers they said there would be no points against my license. That's swell but it points to some money-making scheme in my book. I mean no points for an ordinary traffic offense, I'm not complaining but just pay up and we'll let you off the hook. What a racket and it almost invites corruption.
ReplyDelete"...it points to some money-making scheme in my book."
ReplyDeleteWell yeah! Same goes for violations of smoking bans, writing tickets for seatbelt non-compliance and so on and so on.
Anyone that tells me we need the state for this, that, or other thing isn't paying attention.
On the bright side....if you ever wanted to be in films....
ReplyDeleteOut this way the legislature again shot down a bill on texting while driving, so you can text, laptop or sleep all ya want behind the wheel.
ReplyDeleteThey also pushed through a bill prohibiting college
admins from banning guns on campus...until the GOP
chair dumped it: his son was killed at a campus
party by a CC kid....
Funny state, they also
banned any citizen from
suing them.
The hilarity lies in the fact that politicians think they can simply pass a law and POOF! suddenly texting while driving, et al simply vanishes.
ReplyDeleteYup soap. In New York State you can no longer talk on your cell while driving unless it's in the dash or something and everyday I see folks yapping away on their cells. Funny thing about the Odell and Nepperhan Ave. red light cams, it's situated in a major and popular shopping area anchored by a supermarket and Walgreen's and I imagine they've issued quite a few tickets already so if I'm a consumer and got a ticket I'd probably take my business elsewhere. I mean if someone in the Yonkers PVB is analyzing footage that closely to determine that I didn't make a full stop...maybe the local merchants there could put an end to this. You save money at the supermarket only to have it cancelled out by your 50 dollar ticket, who needs problematic shopping?
ReplyDeleteAs for Texting and Talking on the Cell Phone While Driving. Laws are Designed to Cut Down on Crime, not Stop Crime. Why is it that such a Common Libertarian Argument is to Claim that Imperfection is the Same Thing as Lack of Improvement. It is not.
ReplyDelete"Why is it that such a Common Libertarian Argument is to Claim that Imperfection is the Same Thing as Lack of Improvement. It is not."
ReplyDeleteAnd why is it that your argument(s) portends to suggest that a crime has occured (i.e. talking on a cell phone) when one has not?
At the point when the use of a cell phone while driving is attributable to an accident, and when this can be proven in a court of law, then you might have an argument.
What skin is it off your ass if I talk on a cell phone while driving?
If my doing so causes me to be distracted and I then end up in your lane and crash into your car then make your case in a court of law. Otherwise you have no case.
I guess 'distracted' is the keyword. Knew a guy
ReplyDeletedrove into a ravine when
his groceries tipped over in the front seat and he
tried to pick them up. Most of us have had a hornet buzzing around in the car and everyone changes their radio station. I've seen people reading a book on downtown freeways. Know a guy that has terrible claustrophobia and has never used his seatbelt.
And, the data on texting
laws indicates no change
in accident rate. Fairly common for folks to get
any number of DUIs, despite the law (these folks also carry no insurace because their rates are sky high) so,
yes, legislating good
driving is ineffective.
Soap,
ReplyDeleteA Crime is the Breaking of a Law, so Making Something against the Law Makes it into a Crime, yet I Know that what you are Suggesting is that it should not be a Crime, so Let me Rephrase. I didn't Use the Word Crime in the Sentence that you Quoted, though, so I'll have to Include the Sentence Before that when I Rephrase...
"Laws are Designed to Cut Down on, not Stop, (the Hazards on the Road). Why is it that such a Common Libertarian Argument is to Claim that Imperfection is the Same Thing as Lack of Improvement? It is not."
Ok, now Quit Changing the Subject and Answer my Question.
What you are Suggesting is that the Government should not be Concerned with Road Safety, yet that is the Entire Reason behind Traffic Laws and in this Case, we are not Talking about Only the Safety of the Driver, so this is another Category besides that of Helmets and Seat Belts.
You also Appear to be Suggesting that Careless, Irresponsible, Negligence, should not be a Crime and to Keep this Argument Consistent, you would have to Also Legalize Drunk Driving, even though there is no Logical Reason for doing so. Laws Against Carelessness do Save Lives, Soap, therefore I Believe that it Makes Perfect Sense to Make Obvious Forms of Carelessness while Driving a Crime.
"What skin is it off your ass if I talk on a cell phone while driving?"
The Answer to that is Easy, Soap. You Add to my Risk while on the Road, so Yes, I believe that Careless Negligence should be a Crime even on the Days in which you get Lucky and Nothing Happens.
Now Granted, we Can Not Get Rid of all Distractions, nor make them all Illegal, such as some of the Things that BB Mentions, yet Again we are Talking about Lack of Perfection being a Justification for not Striving for Improvement and that Argument does not Hold Up.
"so, yes, legislating good driving is ineffective."
Wait a Minute, BB. Drunk Driving Laws have Saved Lives. You're not going to be Able to Deny that One.
I don't believe driving while drunk should be a crime either. If you crash and injure someone then get back to me.
ReplyDeletePeople fall and break their hips in showers and babies sometimes drown in bathtubs. We should probably ban showers and tubs too.
Come to think of it, children burn themselves when they get to close to the stove where a kettle of water is boiling. Thus we should ban pots and pans and stoves as well.
Lastly, there have been instances (albeit they are RARE) wherein people have been seriously injured and in some cases killed BECAUSE they were wearing their seatbelt.
Therefore, certain states which have mandatory seatbelt laws have, through such legislation, directly injured and/or killed people through their stated policy.
"Wait a Minute, BB. Drunk Driving Laws have Saved Lives.
ReplyDeleteThere is absolutely 100% NO WAY in which to prove this often touted claim.
You may be able to claim that it has resulted in fewer people driving while intoxicated but there again, you've no way of knowing whether or not those individuals would have gotten in an accident.
I lean more towards Lista on this one. What is so damn important that you have to text while driving anyway (to mention nothing of sexting)?
ReplyDelete"People fall and break their hips in showers and babies sometimes drown in bathtubs. We should probably ban showers and tubs too."
ReplyDeleteThat's yet another, "Life's not Perfect and we can not Make it Perfect, therefore, Let's not Take Steps to Improve it" Argument. Baths, Showers and also Stoves are Necessary. Drunk Driving is not. Just Because we can not Eliminate all Risk does not Mean that it is Wrong to Improve on some of the Risks.
Seat Belts is a Separate Subject, because the Risk Only Involves the Person who is or is not Wearing a Seat Belt. These other Driving Issues, though, have to do with the Safely of Others as well.
"There is absolutely 100% NO WAY in which to prove this often touted claim."
Yes there is. They have Records of the Number of Drunk Driving Accidents Before and After Certain Laws are in Place, as well as the Injuries and/or Death Caused by such Accidents. Now you are just Plain being Silly.
Well, Z-man, if you decide to fight it, stay away from the court of Judge Judy. She is damn mean...you could end up with 5 months waterboarding....
ReplyDeleteI read a Drudge Report headline (yesterday was it...?) something about her being rushed to the hospital.
ReplyDeleteThe beauty of Twitter.
I'm really not into her, she just hams it up for the camera and has become a multimillionaire because of it. Not fighting it BB, sent in my check the first day. If there were points attached I probably would fight it. The way I look at it is if I'm paying taxes and now tickets too the least damn thing the city of Yonkers can do is fix the potholes:)
ReplyDeletesoap: "I don't believe driving while drunk should be a crime either..."
ReplyDeleteIf I ever decide to do a Soapie's Notable Quotables this would head the list. You've said so many provocative things over time it'd take the better part of a day. Maybe on my next vacation.
I just call it how I see it. I've grown quite comfortable in this skin over the past 38 years. I figure if someone's got a problem with it then screw it...let them deal with it.
ReplyDeleteI would of course be honored. I might even buy you a beer.