US federal government imposing traffic fines

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by richard, Jan 26, 2010.

  1. richard

    richard Guest

    It has been long established that the United States federal government does
    not mandate the fines paid for infractions of the law while driving a
    vehicle.

    Until now.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a3nTM_b0Aicw

    The popularity of the cellphone has now become the mainstay of
    communication with friends and family throughout the world. As technology
    changed, so did the cellphones. My first cellphone I had to carry like a
    briefcase. Now, they fit in your shirt pocket with room to spare.
    As the popularity increased, states became more aware and began imposing
    restrictions on their use while driving.

    The next step was to include a keyboard so you could send short messages
    and thus cut down on your airtime. This feature became known as "texting".

    In 1992 the US federal government mandated that every truck driver in the
    US have a special "Commercial Drivers License" (CDL), which would show that
    they passed a knowledge test and a skills test. But the license would be
    issued by the states. Enforcement of the new laws would also be handled
    through the states as well the fines.

    But that has now changed.

    As far as I know, as I was a commercial truck driver, for 10 year, this is
    the first instance where the US government has declared exactly what the
    fine is going to be. A whopping $2,750 per instance. Ouch!

    In my puny little opinion, this sucks. As there is a clause in the United
    States Constitution which forbids the posting of excessive fines. This fine
    meets that clause. As practically no state has ever imposed such an
    outrageous fine for a minor misdemeanor traffic offense.

    Is the federal government now going to push for more outrageous fines like
    this against CDL owners and perhaps other drivers? I can only hope that
    someone will kick the government's high and mighty ass hard with a lawsuit
    and show that this kind of law enforcement should remain with the states.
     
    richard, Jan 26, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. richard

    Jordon Guest

    richard wrote:
    > It has been long established that the United States federal government does
    > not mandate the fines paid for infractions of the law while driving a
    > vehicle.
    >
    > Until now.
    >
    > http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a3nTM_b0Aicw
    >
    > The popularity of the cellphone has now become the mainstay of
    > communication with friends and family throughout the world. As technology
    > changed, so did the cellphones. My first cellphone I had to carry like a
    > briefcase. Now, they fit in your shirt pocket with room to spare.
    > As the popularity increased, states became more aware and began imposing
    > restrictions on their use while driving.
    >
    > The next step was to include a keyboard so you could send short messages
    > and thus cut down on your airtime. This feature became known as "texting".
    >
    > In 1992 the US federal government mandated that every truck driver in the
    > US have a special "Commercial Drivers License" (CDL), which would show that
    > they passed a knowledge test and a skills test. But the license would be
    > issued by the states. Enforcement of the new laws would also be handled
    > through the states as well the fines.
    >
    > But that has now changed.
    >
    > As far as I know, as I was a commercial truck driver, for 10 year, this is
    > the first instance where the US government has declared exactly what the
    > fine is going to be. A whopping $2,750 per instance. Ouch!
    >
    > In my puny little opinion, this sucks. As there is a clause in the United
    > States Constitution which forbids the posting of excessive fines. This fine
    > meets that clause. As practically no state has ever imposed such an
    > outrageous fine for a minor misdemeanor traffic offense.


    The fine meets that clause, only in your puny little opinion.

    > Is the federal government now going to push for more outrageous fines like
    > this against CDL owners and perhaps other drivers? I can only hope that
    > someone will kick the government's high and mighty ass hard with a lawsuit
    > and show that this kind of law enforcement should remain with the states.


    You, are an idiot. You can't see that texting while piloting
    40 tons down public roads can easily lead to the same outcome
    as driving while intoxicated while piloting 40 tons down public
    roads?

    I say make the fine higher and yank their CDL!

    --
    Jordon
     
    Jordon, Jan 26, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. richard

    richard Guest

    On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 10:39:11 -0800, Evan Platt wrote:

    > On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 11:01:12 -0700, richard <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>The next step was to include a keyboard so you could send short messages
    >>and thus cut down on your airtime. This feature became known as "texting".

    >
    > Wow, thanks for your history on cell phones. I'm sure that was very
    > informative... to someone who's been living in a cave or been in a
    > coma for the past 30 years.
    >
    >>In 1992 the US federal government mandated that every truck driver in the
    >>US have a special "Commercial Drivers License" (CDL), which would show that
    >>they passed a knowledge test and a skills test. But the license would be
    >>issued by the states. Enforcement of the new laws would also be handled
    >>through the states as well the fines.
    >>
    >>But that has now changed.
    >>
    >>As far as I know, as I was a commercial truck driver, for 10 year, this is
    >>the first instance where the US government has declared exactly what the
    >>fine is going to be. A whopping $2,750 per instance. Ouch!

    >
    > Grammar, fail.
    >
    >>In my puny little opinion,

    >
    > Indeed.
    >
    >>this sucks. As there is a clause in the United States Constitution which forbids the posting of excessive fines. This fine
    >>meets that clause.

    >
    > Define "Excessive".
    >
    > There's a difference between commercial drivers and 'regular' drivers.
    > Commercial drivers are held to a higher standard. They are required to
    > take more difficult tests. To take physicals. As such, they have
    > greater responsibilities than the person driving the 2 door coupe.
    >
    > And, think about it. That person at the 2 door coupe texts while
    > driving, how much damage can he do?
    > Now, think of the guy driving the - what, 25 ton semi? How much damage
    > can HE do?
    >
    > Or the guy driving the train.
    >
    > I'd say the fine is far from "excessive".
    >
    >>As practically no state has ever imposed such an
    >>outrageous fine for a minor misdemeanor traffic offense.

    >
    > "minor misdemeanor traffic offense" ?
    >
    > That "minor misdemeanor traffic offense" can easily turn into a
    > accident costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, and potentially
    > cause multiple fatalities.


    "Excessive fine" has been defined by the courts.

    "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor
    cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. "

    In other words, fines shall be imposed to fit the severity of the crime.
    While many states have rather stiff penalties for such mundane infractions
    as no seatbelt, the federal government has never before stated precisely
    what a fine should be for any law it imposes on vehicles or drivers.

    For instance, it is a federal requirement for every vehicle produced to
    have seatbelts. Yet, no fine has been imposed by the federal government.
    Stating what the fine shall be has always been given to the states.

    Truckers, are not allowed to have radar detectors. Yet, the federal
    government does not impose a mandatory fine. Truckers are required to wear
    seat belts, again, no mandatory fine.

    AFAIK, it is still legal for truckers to talk on cell phones while driving
    in states that allow it. So why all of a sudden has the federal government
    insist on such a ban and fine? Lobbyists. Somebody just got a nice fat
    paycheck for having the law passed for sure.

    So are you going to sit by and let the federal government slowly take your
    rights as a person in a free democratic society? Or are you going to get
    off your lazy high and mighty ass and do something about it?
     
    richard, Jan 26, 2010
    #3
  4. richard

    Jordon Guest

    richard wrote:
    > "Excessive fine" has been defined by the courts.
    >
    > "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor
    > cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. "


    That in no way defines excessive bail or excessive fines
    or cruel and unusual punishment. In order to define what
    those things, are you need limits. The word excessive, by
    itself, is only an opinion. And yours sucks.

    > In other words, fines shall be imposed to fit the severity of the crime.


    Right! And doing something that foolish can kill people
    just like driving under the influence and the penalty for
    that is usually a lot more.

    > So are you going to sit by and let the federal government slowly take your
    > rights as a person in a free democratic society? Or are you going to get
    > off your lazy high and mighty ass and do something about it?


    You really want the right to be able to endanger the lives
    of other motorists?

    --
    Jordon
     
    Jordon, Jan 26, 2010
    #4
  5. richard

    chuckcar Guest

    richard <> wrote in
    news:18n8btk11wjqe.1sjf2pbjdfru9$:

    > It has been long established that the United States federal government
    > does not mandate the fines paid for infractions of the law while
    > driving a vehicle.
    >
    > Until now.
    >
    > http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a3nTM_b0Aicw
    >
    > The popularity of the cellphone has now become the mainstay of
    > communication with friends and family throughout the world. As
    > technology changed, so did the cellphones. My first cellphone I had to
    > carry like a briefcase. Now, they fit in your shirt pocket with room
    > to spare. As the popularity increased, states became more aware and
    > began imposing restrictions on their use while driving.
    >



    Interstate traffic. Exactly what *is* covered by the Federal Government.
    As for people who cell phones and esp. texting while driving - screw
    them to the wall. Doubly so for 18+ wheelers. I'd have no problems with them
    permanently losing their licence on the first offence with the later - texting.

    --
    (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
     
    chuckcar, Jan 26, 2010
    #5
  6. richard wrote:

    > It has been long established that the United States federal government
    > does not mandate the fines paid for infractions of the law while
    > driving a vehicle.


    You are too tightly focused with that statement. *Speeding* is an
    "infraction of the law while driving a vehicle."

    U.S. federal officers have been issuing speeding tickets and fines in
    national parks for years. Next time you switch motels, go through a
    national park and disobey the speed limit. You will pay your fine to a
    federal authority.

    > Until now.


    Until decades ago.

    --
    -bts
    -Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul
     
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Jan 26, 2010
    #6
  7. richard

    richard Guest

    On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 18:07:54 -0500, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

    > richard wrote:
    >
    >> It has been long established that the United States federal government
    >> does not mandate the fines paid for infractions of the law while
    >> driving a vehicle.

    >
    > You are too tightly focused with that statement. *Speeding* is an
    > "infraction of the law while driving a vehicle."
    >
    > U.S. federal officers have been issuing speeding tickets and fines in
    > national parks for years. Next time you switch motels, go through a
    > national park and disobey the speed limit. You will pay your fine to a
    > federal authority.
    >
    >> Until now.

    >
    > Until decades ago.


    FYI, smartboy, the NP police are actually authorized by the state within
    which they are assigned.
    A few years back I asked the NP director that very question. What authority
    do the officers have outside of a national park?
    His response was the same authority any state trooper has. So you could be
    on I-5 in California speeding down at 90mph, pass an NP car and get pulled
    over and cited.
     
    richard, Jan 27, 2010
    #7
  8. richard

    Aardvark Guest

    On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 10:39:11 -0800, Evan Platt wrote:

    > That "minor misdemeanor traffic offense" can easily turn into a accident
    > costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, and potentially cause multiple
    > fatalities.


    Using a mobile phone while driving increases the chance of the driver
    having an accident by a factor of four. About the same as someone who's
    over the alcohol limit for driving.

    Nothing 'minor' about it.



    --
    Algy met a bear
    The bear was bulgy
    The bulge was Algy
     
    Aardvark, Jan 27, 2010
    #8
  9. richard

    Aardvark Guest

    On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 12:30:33 -0700, richard wrote:

    > AFAIK, it is still legal for truckers to talk on cell phones while
    > driving in states that allow it. So why all of a sudden has the federal
    > government insist on such a ban and fine? Lobbyists. Somebody just got a
    > nice fat paycheck for having the law passed for sure.
    >


    Talking on a cell phone while driving is no different from drinking and
    driving. They put other road users and pedestrians in exactly the same
    danger.

    > So are you going to sit by and let the federal government slowly take
    > your rights as a person in a free democratic society?


    So, you're saying that you have the constitutional right to behave in away
    that is reckless and likely to put others in lethal danger?

    Fucking strange constitution you've got there.

    > Or are you going
    > to get off your lazy high and mighty ass and do something about it?



    I'd certainly support that law.

    In this country using a mobile phone while driving gets you a £60 fine. I
    reckon that it should carry the same penalty as drink-driving, which is a
    minimum of one year's driving ban and whatever fine the court wishes to
    throw at you.


    --
    Algy met a bear
    The bear was bulgy
    The bulge was Algy
     
    Aardvark, Jan 27, 2010
    #9
  10. richard

    Respondant Guest

    Evan Platt wrote:

    > On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 18:17:58 -0700, richard <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> FYI, smartboy, the NP police are actually authorized by the state
    >> within which they are assigned.
    >> A few years back I asked the NP director that very question. What
    >> authority do the officers have outside of a national park?
    >> His response was the same authority any state trooper has. So you
    >> could be on I-5 in California speeding down at 90mph, pass an NP car
    >> and get pulled over and cited.

    >
    > So could a Amtrak cop. Or a BART Police officer.
    >
    > You just basically insulted BtS while at the same time told him he's
    > right.
    >
    > I'm going to register a complaint with your high school. If you did
    > indeed get a diploma, someone there REALLY fucked up.


    Why am I suddenly put in mind of the Monyt Python "dead parrot" sketch?
     
    Respondant, Jan 27, 2010
    #10
  11. richard

    richard Guest

    On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 18:13:48 -0800, Evan Platt wrote:

    > On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 18:17:58 -0700, richard <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>FYI, smartboy, the NP police are actually authorized by the state within
    >>which they are assigned.
    >>A few years back I asked the NP director that very question. What authority
    >>do the officers have outside of a national park?
    >>His response was the same authority any state trooper has. So you could be
    >>on I-5 in California speeding down at 90mph, pass an NP car and get pulled
    >>over and cited.

    >
    > So could a Amtrak cop. Or a BART Police officer.


    Nope. Railroad police do not have authority from the state to do so.
    Not sure about BART, but that authority would have to come from the city or
    state or both.

    Do you see Border Patrol officers citing for such offenses? No they do not.
    They might assist the departments but they do not enforce state traffic
    laws in any way.


    >
    > You just basically insulted BtS while at the same time told him he's
    > right.


    Ohhh, ahhhh, silly me.


    >
    > I'm going to register a complaint with your high school. If you did
    > indeed get a diploma, someone there REALLY fucked up.


    While you're at it, complain to your own high school as well.
    For even allowing you in the door.
     
    richard, Jan 27, 2010
    #11
  12. richard

    richard Guest

    On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 18:13:48 -0800, Evan Platt wrote:

    > On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 18:17:58 -0700, richard <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>FYI, smartboy, the NP police are actually authorized by the state within
    >>which they are assigned.
    >>A few years back I asked the NP director that very question. What authority
    >>do the officers have outside of a national park?
    >>His response was the same authority any state trooper has. So you could be
    >>on I-5 in California speeding down at 90mph, pass an NP car and get pulled
    >>over and cited.

    >
    > So could a Amtrak cop. Or a BART Police officer.
    >
    > You just basically insulted BtS while at the same time told him he's
    > right.
    >
    > I'm going to register a complaint with your high school. If you did
    > indeed get a diploma, someone there REALLY fucked up.


    http://www.bart.gov/about/police/faq.aspx
    bart officers can in fact do so.
    but most probably never write citations because they don't want to waste
    time in court or handle the paperwork.
     
    richard, Jan 27, 2010
    #12
  13. Evan Platt wrote:
    > On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 20:00:36 -0700, richard <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> http://www.bart.gov/about/police/faq.aspx
    >> bart officers can in fact do so.
    >> but most probably never write citations because they don't want to waste
    >> time in court or handle the paperwork.

    >
    > Gee, so .. I was right?
    >
    > Imagine that.


    Lol. He self-pwned. So, think he'll drop from the thread cuz he showed
    himself up?

    n0i
     
    thund3rstruck, Jan 27, 2010
    #13
  14. richard

    Mike Yetto Guest

    Bada bing richard <> bada bang:
    > On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 18:07:54 -0500, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
    >
    >> richard wrote:
    >>
    >>> It has been long established that the United States federal government
    >>> does not mandate the fines paid for infractions of the law while
    >>> driving a vehicle.

    >>
    >> You are too tightly focused with that statement. *Speeding* is an
    >> "infraction of the law while driving a vehicle."
    >>
    >> U.S. federal officers have been issuing speeding tickets and fines in
    >> national parks for years. Next time you switch motels, go through a
    >> national park and disobey the speed limit. You will pay your fine to a
    >> federal authority.
    >>
    >>> Until now.

    >>
    >> Until decades ago.

    >
    > FYI, smartboy, the NP police are actually authorized by the state within
    > which they are assigned.
    > A few years back I asked the NP director that very question. What authority
    > do the officers have outside of a national park?
    > His response was the same authority any state trooper has. So you could be
    > on I-5 in California speeding down at 90mph, pass an NP car and get pulled
    > over and cited.


    Even if you aren't carrying a "Shake Weight"?

    Mike "does the FTC know about this?" Yetto
    --
    In theory, theory and practice are the same.
    In practice they are not.
     
    Mike Yetto, Jan 27, 2010
    #14
  15. richard

    Jordon Guest

    §nühw¤£f wrote:
    > Simple solution. Cell phones can detect when they are moving at
    > driving speeds. They already have GPS& shit built in...so it would
    > be an easy step to simply disable cellphones from working if they are
    > traveling at 10mph or more. This would cause people to stop and talk
    > instead of trying to drive.


    Then everyone on a bus or train or car pool or in the
    passenger seat wouldn't be able to use their cell phone.

    --
    Jordon
     
    Jordon, Jan 27, 2010
    #15
  16. richard

    fanghorn Guest

    "§nühw¤£f" <> wrote in
    news:Xns9D0D5A93D145Dsnuhwolfyahoocom@216.196.97.142:

    > chuckcar <> clouded the waters of pure thought with
    > news:Xns9D0CAF60CACFBchuck@127.0.0.1:
    >
    >> richard <> wrote in
    >> news:18n8btk11wjqe.1sjf2pbjdfru9$:
    >>
    >>> It has been long established that the United States federal
    >>> government does not mandate the fines paid for infractions of the
    >>> law while driving a vehicle.
    >>>


    >>
    >> Interstate traffic. Exactly what *is* covered by the Federal
    >> Government. As for people who cell phones and esp. texting while
    >> driving - screw them to the wall. Doubly so for 18+ wheelers. I'd
    >> have no problems with them permanently losing their licence on the
    >> first offence with the later - texting.

    >
    > Simple solution. Cell phones can detect when they are moving at
    > driving speeds. They already have GPS & shit built in...so it would
    > be an easy step to simply disable cellphones from working if they are
    > traveling at 10mph or more. This would cause people to stop and talk
    > instead of trying to drive.
    >

    No the *simple* solution was and always will be to remove such tools
    from the privilidge of driving. Driver responsibility is part of keeping
    the privlidge. You don't have it, you can't drive. Either by your insurance
    rates or by court.

    We have a show up here on Discovery called "Canada's Worst Driver" You
    can watch it streaming I think. Truly amazing how bad people can be.
     
    fanghorn, Jan 27, 2010
    #16
  17. richard

    Respondant Guest

    §nühw¤£f wrote:

    > chuckcar <> clouded the waters of pure thought with
    > news:Xns9D0CAF60CACFBchuck@127.0.0.1:
    >
    >> richard <> wrote in
    >> news:18n8btk11wjqe.1sjf2pbjdfru9$:
    >>
    >>> It has been long established that the United States federal
    >>> government does not mandate the fines paid for infractions of the
    >>> law while driving a vehicle.
    >>>
    >>> Until now.
    >>>
    >>> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a3nTM_b0Aicw
    >>>
    >>> The popularity of the cellphone has now become the mainstay of
    >>> communication with friends and family throughout the world. As
    >>> technology changed, so did the cellphones. My first cellphone I
    >>> had to carry like a briefcase. Now, they fit in your shirt pocket
    >>> with room to spare. As the popularity increased, states became
    >>> more aware and began imposing restrictions on their use while
    >>> driving.
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >> Interstate traffic. Exactly what *is* covered by the Federal
    >> Government. As for people who cell phones and esp. texting while
    >> driving - screw them to the wall. Doubly so for 18+ wheelers. I'd
    >> have no problems with them permanently losing their licence on the
    >> first offence with the later - texting.
    >>

    >
    > Simple solution. Cell phones can detect when they are moving at
    > driving speeds. They already have GPS & shit built in...so it would
    > be an easy step to simply disable cellphones from working if they are
    > traveling at 10mph or more. This would cause people to stop and talk
    > instead of trying to drive.


    It's good to see you really *are* as stupid as I thought. Have ya met Emmet
    Gully? He's over in AUK awaiting your arrival.

    > FYI
    > HTH
     
    Respondant, Jan 27, 2010
    #17
  18. In message <hjpr1l$gmj$-september.org>, Jordon wrote:
    > §nühw¤£f wrote:
    > > Simple solution. Cell phones can detect when they are moving at
    > > driving speeds. They already have GPS& shit built in...so it would
    > > be an easy step to simply disable cellphones from working if they are
    > > traveling at 10mph or more. This would cause people to stop and talk
    > > instead of trying to drive.

    >
    > Then everyone on a bus or train or car pool or in the
    > passenger seat wouldn't be able to use their cell phone.
    >

    Whats the downside? Fucking annoying gits droning on with such self importance.
    Making sure everyone in earshot can hear about their boring lives.
    Clubbing them to death should be legal.
    Discuss.

    ^_^

    --
    http://www.care2.com/click-to-donate/wolves/
    Proof of Americas 3rd world status:
    http://www.ramusa.org/
    Cash for *who*?
    http://www.bartcop.com/list-the-facts.htm
    http://www.pavlovianobeisance.com/
     
    §ñühw¤£f, Jan 27, 2010
    #18
  19. In message <>, Meat Plow wrote:
    > On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 09:01:28 -0800, Evan Platt
    > <>wrote:
    >
    > >On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 08:56:29 -0800, Jordon
    > ><> wrote:
    > >
    > >>Then everyone on a bus or train or car pool or in the
    > >>passenger seat wouldn't be able to use their cell phone.

    > >
    > >Or people would just drive REALLLLLLLY slow so they could talk and
    > >drive / text at the same time/

    >
    > That's it! Use the GPS in phones to measure MPH. If the phone is
    > traveling faster than a brisk walk it doesn't work as a phone or
    > SMS-MMS-EMAIL.
    >
    > I'm contacting all the major players with my idea, I'll be RICH!


    Better idea: if you try to use it when you're not supposed to it turns into a
    tazer.

    ^_^

    --
    http://www.care2.com/click-to-donate/wolves/
    Proof of Americas 3rd world status:
    http://www.ramusa.org/
    Cash for *who*?
    http://www.bartcop.com/list-the-facts.htm
    http://www.pavlovianobeisance.com/
     
    §ñühw¤£f, Jan 27, 2010
    #19
  20. In message <Xns9D0D7B35EBA8fanghorn@127.0.0.1>, fanghorn wrote:
    > "§nühw¤£f" <> wrote in
    > news:Xns9D0D5A93D145Dsnuhwolfyahoocom@216.196.97.142:
    >
    > > chuckcar <> clouded the waters of pure thought with
    > > news:Xns9D0CAF60CACFBchuck@127.0.0.1:
    > >
    > >> richard <> wrote in
    > >> news:18n8btk11wjqe.1sjf2pbjdfru9$:
    > >>
    > >>> It has been long established that the United States federal
    > >>> government does not mandate the fines paid for infractions of the
    > >>> law while driving a vehicle.
    > >>>

    >
    > >>
    > >> Interstate traffic. Exactly what *is* covered by the Federal
    > >> Government. As for people who cell phones and esp. texting while
    > >> driving - screw them to the wall. Doubly so for 18+ wheelers. I'd
    > >> have no problems with them permanently losing their licence on the
    > >> first offence with the later - texting.

    > >
    > > Simple solution. Cell phones can detect when they are moving at
    > > driving speeds. They already have GPS & shit built in...so it would
    > > be an easy step to simply disable cellphones from working if they are
    > > traveling at 10mph or more. This would cause people to stop and talk
    > > instead of trying to drive.
    > >

    > No the *simple* solution was and always will be to remove such tools
    > from the privilidge of driving. Driver responsibility is part of keeping
    > the privlidge. You don't have it, you can't drive. Either by your insurance
    > rates or by court.
    >

    No Enough Cops.
    Make cellphone while driving an offfence and people will just use things like
    the Jupiter Jack so they wont be seen holding a celly to their gob.

    > We have a show up here on Discovery called "Canada's Worst Driver" You
    > can watch it streaming I think. Truly amazing how bad people can be.
    >

    Not that amazing. I have a nephew who works as FF/EMT...he scrapes people off
    the tarmac on a regular basis.


    --
    http://www.care2.com/click-to-donate/wolves/
    Proof of Americas 3rd world status:
    http://www.ramusa.org/
    Cash for *who*?
    http://www.bartcop.com/list-the-facts.htm
    http://www.pavlovianobeisance.com/
     
    §ñühw¤£f, Jan 27, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Knowing About
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    691
    Knowing About
    Oct 13, 2006
  2. komobu

    Time Date Imposing Software

    komobu, Sep 29, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    1,308
    Fred McKenzie
    Oct 2, 2006
  3. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    US Federal Government to use more Open Source?

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jan 25, 2009, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    920
    impossible
    Jan 29, 2009
  4. Parko
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    842
    Aardvark
    Dec 31, 2010
  5. MyNews
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    957
    MyNews
    Dec 31, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page