Speed monitored by aircraft????

[Jim Buckridge]

I saw one of these signs along I-78 in NJ. Now, I find it
***REALLY*** hard to believe that this particular sign is true. The
highway is congested and with radar guns and all, monitoring speed by
aircraft (copter maybe?) seems expensive and unnecessary.

I know I've seen these signs elsewhere - are there still places where
speed is monitored by aircraft?

[Jack]

I know for a fact that here in Atlanta, speed is occasionally monitored by
helicopters along the highway. Its pretty obvious though. 50 police
cars on the entrance ramps, and 50 others with cars pulled over. Along
with everyone has they're lights on in that area.




"Jim Buckridge" > wrote in message
om...
> I saw one of these signs along I-78 in NJ. Now, I find it
> ***REALLY*** hard to believe that this particular sign is true. The
> highway is congested and with radar guns and all, monitoring speed by
> aircraft (copter maybe?) seems expensive and unnecessary.
>
> I know I've seen these signs elsewhere - are there still places where
> speed is monitored by aircraft?

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
(Jim Buckridge) wrote:

> I saw one of these signs along I-78 in NJ. Now, I find it
> ***REALLY*** hard to believe that this particular sign is true. The
> highway is congested and with radar guns and all, monitoring speed by
> aircraft (copter maybe?) seems expensive and unnecessary.
>
> I know I've seen these signs elsewhere - are there still places where
> speed is monitored by aircraft?

hey! one "benefit" to TFRs. :-/

--
Bob Noel

[Bob Gardner]

They sure do it in Washington state.

Bob Gardner

"Jim Buckridge" > wrote in message
om...
> I saw one of these signs along I-78 in NJ. Now, I find it
> ***REALLY*** hard to believe that this particular sign is true. The
> highway is congested and with radar guns and all, monitoring speed by
> aircraft (copter maybe?) seems expensive and unnecessary.
>
> I know I've seen these signs elsewhere - are there still places where
> speed is monitored by aircraft?

[Peter Gottlieb]

Are you kidding?

Since when has inefficiency ever stopped local, state or federal government
from doing something?


"Toks Desalu" > wrote in message
news:3f172339@shknews01...
> Either way, it is still expensive and unnecessary for taxpayers. There are
> far more serious issues than this. If you want to catch speeders off
guard,
> go and climb up the tree and fire radar at cars.
>
>

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "Ron
Natalie" > wrote:

> > hey! one "benefit" to TFRs. :-/
> >
> Nope, even the DC gulag waivers the police. The PG County Mouties
> NOTAR helicopter
> was buzzing around CGS the other day.
>

figures. :-(

--
Bob Noel

[Jeff Davis]

State Patrol in Iowa uses a Cessna.

[john smith]

Ron Natalie wrote:
> Margy and I
> also had a nice chat with the Ohio State Police plane (they hang out on 122.75).
> They patrol around looking for trouble (accidents, etc... ) on the highway, but
> I suspect they'd tag a flagrant speeder given the chance. I think he said he
> had the capability.

Our chapter had a flyout years ago, to one of the local $100 hamburger
sites. We were playing follow the leader down low. The last guy in line
happened to look back and there was an Ohio Highway Patrol plane
bringing up the rear. We all thought we were dead meat when the Smokie
followed us into the pattern, landed with us and followed us into the
restaurant. Fortunately, he walked past us without saying a word and sat
at the lunch counter. The only thing we could figure was he was bored
and was on his way to lunch anyway, so he joined in.

[Mackfly]

>"Jeff Davis"

>State Patrol in Iowa uses a Cessna.
>

Don't I know it----cost me about $98.00 to find out how darn well the airplane
bit works. Also we trained one of the HP pilots at CBF a couple of years ago.
And they landed there often as one of the HP HQ buildings is near by. The FBI
is also flying around over you in single engine acft. Mack

[Tim Bengtson]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> In California, one could argue that the roadway markers constitute a
> speed trap, as the aerial LEOs determine the speed of automobiles by
> timing them between those marks.
>
> Section 40802(a)(1): prohibits timing vehicles over a measured
> distance, and 40801 makes using such evidence in assisting in a
> person's arrest illegal.

The cops have a book called "Words to Use in Court". In this case, the
cop says that he matched the speed of the airplane to the speed of the
car, and then used the marks to confirm his own groundspeed. I am not
making this up.

Tim

[Wdtabor]

In article >,
(Jim Buckridge) writes:

>
>I saw one of these signs along I-78 in NJ. Now, I find it
>***REALLY*** hard to believe that this particular sign is true. The
>highway is congested and with radar guns and all, monitoring speed by
>aircraft (copter maybe?) seems expensive and unnecessary.
>
>I know I've seen these signs elsewhere - are there still places where
>speed is monitored by aircraft?
>
>

They do it here in VA, and they do it very badly.

If it were only in rural areas, I wouldn't have too much problem with it, but I
have seen them doing it over a densely populated area in Virginia Beach. They
were flying a 172 in a racetrack pattern parallel to I 64 at about 500ft right
over Regent University and a neighboring subdivision. About 10-20 degrees of
flaps out and very much in slow flight. A stall-spin waiting to happen.

There were between 6 and 10 troopers waiting in cruisers to hand out the
tickets on the ground and a pilot and observer in the air.

Aside from the danger to those on the ground from flying that way over houses,
I can't help but wonder about the efficiency of the use of that much manpower
and expense to catch a few folks with unlawful radar detectors that they miight
have missed using regular methods.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[AES/newspost]

In article >,
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> But I don't understand how the simple act of marking a section of roadway
> for timing purposes could be considered somehow underhanded or otherwise
> undesirable. I think *someone* must consider it undesirable for some
> reason, but I don't know why. Do you (or anyone else reading this)?


A "speed trap" in common parlance more usually refers to a situation
where a community sets an artificially low speed limit on a section of
road, deliberately fails to mark the speed limit properly, and then
tickets a lot of motorists on that section for purposes of _revenue_,
not safety.

(There is such a speed trap for example on Hiway 431 in Nevada in the
section running down from the Mt. Rose and Slide Mountain areas toward
Hiway 395.)

For whatever reason, certain groups -- maybe people who believe it's
their god-given right to drive fast? -- rather than trying to attack
these abuses directly, pass laws against common-sense speed measuring
techniques, labelling them (incorrectly) as "speed traps".

[EDR]

[[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]

There is defense I have heard of but cannot vouch for the authenticity
of with regard to being ticketed on the ground when you have been
"clocked" by an aircraft.
If the officer on the ground does not actually clock you, he/she cannot
sign the ticket, as it is heresay evidence. You inquire as to whether
the officer on the ground actually clock you, request to see the
radar/lidar readout. If they inform you that the airplane clocked you
and they did not, request that the pilot land to sign the ticket.
To counter this, the law enforcement officer who actually "witnessed"
the infraction may appear in person at the court hearing.
I have never taken the time to look up the applicable Ohio laws, so I
do not know if what I have posted is true.

[Montblack]

(Larry Dighera wrote)
<all but "the law" snipped>

>http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=50340613306+0+0+0&WAIS
action=retrieve


Your Honor.

The Highway Patrol Cessna was obviously hiding behind the Fuji Blimp.

--
Montblack

[Larry Dighera]

On 18 Jul 2003 16:09:35 GMT, (Wdtabor) wrote
in Message-Id: >:

>There were between 6 and 10 troopers waiting in cruisers to hand out the
>tickets on the ground and a pilot and observer in the air.

Imagine how much more effective in controlling speeders those cruisers
would be in sight of motorists on the road.

It's all about milking the revenue stream not about road safety.

[Gene Seibel]

Kansas used to have airplane shaped objects painted on the highway.
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.



> > That's what the stripes running perpindicular to the white side
stripe
> > are for.
> >
> Yep, sometimes they are stripes, sometimes they are just squares
painted
> in the middle of the road.
>
> If I recall correctly, they even had the stop-start button remoted
to the yoke.
>
>
>

[Gene Seibel]

Naw, signs are cheap. ;)
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.


"Toks Desalu" > wrote in message
news:3f172339@shknews01...
> Either way, it is still expensive and unnecessary for taxpayers.
There are
> far more serious issues than this. If you want to catch speeders off
guard,
> go and climb up the tree and fire radar at cars.
>
>

[Wdtabor]

In article >, "Ron Garrison"
> writes:

>
>I agree with your comments re: efficiency, and flying at 500 ft over a dense
>urban area would be an unpleasant place for an engine failure, but you are
>off-base regards the stall-spin concerns. Stalls are not dangerous, and can
>actually be fun to practice, and the spin is only a problem if you are
>uncoordinated at the time.

I agree that stalls are not dangerous under controlled conditions, like
intentional practice sessions, but I remain convinced that prolonged slow
flight close to the ground which includes repeated 180 degree turns, by a pilot
who is distracted by the need to remain in a good viewing position for his
observer, are an invitation to disaster.

Sure, you can do it and get away with it if you are alert, but is it at all
wise to place yourself in such a position where a moment's inattention or
boredom could put you into a situation you will not have the time to recover
from?

I practice departure and approach stalls too, and do it without losing
significant altitude, just like everyone else who has a BFR to pass, but how
many people still manage to get killed by them when caught by surprise?

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[G.R. Patterson III]

Toks Desalu wrote:
>
> Either way, it is still expensive and unnecessary for taxpayers.

Hey, if the revenue from the tickets doesn't cover the costs, increase the
fines 'til it does. Taxpayers generally don't foot these bills. Speeders
do.

> There are far more serious issues than this.

Tell that to my mother. Best be wearing ear plugs when you do. My younger
brother was run down and nearly killed by someone doing over 80 in a 35 mph
zone. And arguing that one shouldn't do anything about a problem because *you*
think something else is "more serious" doesn't sit well with *me* either.

George Patterson
The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist is afraid that he's correct.
James Branch Cavel

[Jeff]

I ave seen the nevada state police airplane, a cessna 182 or a 210, cant
rmember which, but it was a complex airplane, here at the Henderson airport
several times. I dont know how often they fly, but they do fly. I also dont
know exactly what they do, but I assumed look for speeders, accidents and what
not.

When I was flying back to vegas from kentucky about 2 weeks ago, I heard a
state police come up onthe radio and inform center he was going to be at 500
ft looking for a bank robber's car. this was around arkansas I think.


Jack wrote:

> I know for a fact that here in Atlanta, speed is occasionally monitored by
> helicopters along the highway. Its pretty obvious though. 50 police
> cars on the entrance ramps, and 50 others with cars pulled over. Along
> with everyone has they're lights on in that area.
>
> "Jim Buckridge" > wrote in message
> om...
> > I saw one of these signs along I-78 in NJ. Now, I find it
> > ***REALLY*** hard to believe that this particular sign is true. The
> > highway is congested and with radar guns and all, monitoring speed by
> > aircraft (copter maybe?) seems expensive and unnecessary.
> >
> > I know I've seen these signs elsewhere - are there still places where
> > speed is monitored by aircraft?

[Tom S.]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
> Tell that to my mother. Best be wearing ear plugs when you do. My younger
> brother was run down and nearly killed by someone doing over 80 in a 35
mph
> zone.
That's not speeding, that's "reckless driving" or "reckles endangerment"
(generally > 20MPH over the limit) in just about every state. Those cases
are extremely rare.

>And arguing that one shouldn't do anything about a problem because *you*
> think something else is "more serious" doesn't sit well with *me* either.

About on par with hiring a whole bunch of cops to prevent bank robberies??

Tom
--
"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those
exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -
[...] However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing
them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."
- Judge Kozinski, 9th Circuit, Dissenting

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 02:34:51 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> In California, one could argue that the roadway markers constitute a
>> speed trap, as the aerial LEOs determine the speed of automobiles by
>> timing them between those marks.
>
>I've seen the law you cite before, and agree with your interpretation. But
>I'm curious if you know the rationale behind it.

No I don't. But I could guess.

You might consider addressing your question to the California
Department of Motor Vehicles:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d17/vc40802.htm

>What problem regarding the enforcement of speed limits is that law
>trying to address?

My guess would be that the prohibition against speed traps, as defined
in the CVC, is the state's attempt to restrain municipal police
departments from abusing the system and fleecing the public.

You see, the CVC not only enables the local constabulary to cite
alleged offenders, it also protects the public from official abuse of
the legal system by them. Take this example:

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d18/vc42201_6.htm
"Refunds: Bail Deposits

42201.6. (a) A deposit of bail received with respect to an
infraction violation of this code, or any local ordinance adopted
pursuant to this code, including, but not limited to, a violation
involving the standing or parking of a vehicle, shall be refunded
by the agency which issued the notice of violation or the court
within 30 days of a cancellation, dismissal or finding of not
guilty of the offense charged.

(b) Multiple or duplicate deposits of bail or parking penalty
shall be identified by the court or agency and refunded within 30
days of identification.

(c) Any amount to be refunded in accordance with subdivision (a)
or (b) shall accrue interest, at the rate specified in Section
3289 of the Civil Code, on and after the 60th day of a
cancellation, dismissal, or finding of not guilty or
identification of multiple or duplicate deposits, and shall be
refunded as soon as possible thereafter along with accrued
interest."


The above CVC section 42201.6 makes it unlawful to withhold bail
refunds beyond 30 days. The Vehicle code goes one step further in
protecting people from misuse of the power of the court:


http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d18/vc42202.htm
"Disobedience by Officials

42202. Failure, refusal, or neglect on the part of any judicial
or other officer or employee receiving or having custody of any
fine or forfeiture mentioned in this article either before or
after deposit in the respective fund to comply with the foregoing
provisions of this article is misconduct in office and ground for
removal therefrom."


So it would appear that CVC section 42202 grants people the power to
remove judicial offenders from office who violate CVC section 42201.6.
In spite of the above laws the local Superior Court publishes this
policy on their web site:


http://www.occourts.org/traffic/
"If the fine is suspended or if you are found not guilty, your
bail is refunded by mail within sixty days and is returned to the
depositor at the address listed on the case."


Here we have a publicly documented policy of judicial abuse directly
in opposition to the laws the court is sworn to uphold. I'm sure
municipal police are capable of considerably more odious breaches of
public trust.

[Peter Duniho]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> Here we have a publicly documented policy of judicial abuse directly
> in opposition to the laws the court is sworn to uphold. I'm sure
> municipal police are capable of considerably more odious breaches of
> public trust.

I'm sure they are. Still...

I must be slow today or something. What does prohibiting the use of marked
entry and exit points on the road and the use of a stopwatch have to do with
protecting the public of abuse? It's not like radar evidence is any more
immune to abuse than a time-over-distance measurement.

Pete

[H. Adam Stevens]

Time over distance is an average; It's BETTER evidence.
IF
They didn't just speed for an instant while passing and getting clear of a
truck.
That's actually reasonable behavior.
They were averaging 90 in a 55 for 5 miles.
Nail 'em.

I am terrified when I drive to the airport.
H.
N502TB


"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Here we have a publicly documented policy of judicial abuse directly
> > in opposition to the laws the court is sworn to uphold. I'm sure
> > municipal police are capable of considerably more odious breaches of
> > public trust.
>
> I'm sure they are. Still...
>
> I must be slow today or something. What does prohibiting the use of
marked
> entry and exit points on the road and the use of a stopwatch have to do
with
> protecting the public of abuse? It's not like radar evidence is any more
> immune to abuse than a time-over-distance measurement.
>
> Pete
>
>

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
>
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Tell that to my mother. Best be wearing ear plugs when you do. My
younger
> > brother was run down and nearly killed by someone doing over 80 in a 35
> mph
> > zone.
> That's not speeding, that's "reckless driving" or "reckles endangerment"
> (generally > 20MPH over the limit) in just about every state. Those cases
> are extremely rare.


Around here it is fairly common, especially on the highways. When I go 70
in a 55 zone most every car is blowing by me like I am standing still, and
honking as they do.

[Legrande Harris]

In Utah, the cops use planes for surveilance, I have been directed
around them many times as they cirle over their target.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 18:41:35 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> Here we have a publicly documented policy of judicial abuse directly
>> in opposition to the laws the court is sworn to uphold. I'm sure
>> municipal police are capable of considerably more odious breaches of
>> public trust.
>
>I'm sure they are. Still...
>
>I must be slow today or something. What does prohibiting the use of marked
>entry and exit points on the road and the use of a stopwatch have to do with
>protecting the public of abuse?

You missed my answer. I suggested you inquire at the DMV, and
provided you with a link.

>It's not like radar evidence is any more
>immune to abuse than a time-over-distance measurement.
>
>Pete
>

My guess: The speed trap prohibition was probably enacted in response
to some specific practices that were occurring at that time.

[Peter Duniho]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> You missed my answer. I suggested you inquire at the DMV, and
> provided you with a link.

I saw that. However, for the rest of the post, you *seemed* to be
postulating that the law was enacted in order to prevent abuse by law
enforcement agencies. Not being able to see how the law might do that, I
was interested in your "take" on the hypothesis you *appeared* to propose.

If that's not your hypothesis, I misunderstood. Sorry...I was just trying
to have you elaborate on what YOU were thinking, not what CA State was
thinking.

> My guess: The speed trap prohibition was probably enacted in response
> to some specific practices that were occurring at that time.

In other words, time-over-distance *isn't* any more likely to be abused,
it's just that either the cops haven't been caught abusing radar evidence,
or the state's decided that they need to allow *some* way to enforce speed
limits.

Personally, I think video-taped time-over-distance would be the most
reliable evidence of what's available. Still fakable, to be sure, but
harder to do than just lying about the stop-watch reading, or using the same
radar return for several randomly picked cars.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
...
> Around here it is fairly common, especially on the highways. When I go 70
> in a 55 zone most every car is blowing by me like I am standing still, and
> honking as they do.

Where is "around here"? I've driven all over the country and never found
myself in an area where the median traffic speed was 30 mph over the speed
limit (I figure "blowing by me" must mean the other cars are at least as
much faster than you, as you are faster than the speed limit).

Forgive me if I'm a bit incredulous of your claim. People drive crazy, but
I've never seen them drive *that* crazy, not in the US, not as a rule ("most
every car") rather than an exception.

Pete

[Cub Driver]

On 18 Jul 2003 18:46:02 GMT, (Wdtabor) wrote:

>prolonged slow
>flight close to the ground which includes repeated 180 degree turns, by a pilot
>who is distracted by the need to remain in a good viewing position for his
>observer, are an invitation to disaster.

A plane crashed and killed its two occupants the other day while they
were hunting coyotes.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm
Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub

[Big John]

Dan

Just comes down to "fly the airplane" (first and always) and I'm not
the first to say this. If you do, will probably not have these type
accidents. If you can't do that you shouldn't be fl;ying as you are a
danger both to yourself and others.

Most flying is single issue. Occasionally multiple issue problems
arise and you have to be able to parse the problems and take care of
the most important (life and death) ones first.

I have flown aircraft from put puts to super sonic and have yet to
INADVERTENLY stall an airplane. I was always able to feel (sense) when
I got into the "twilight zone" without watching the instruments and
continue to fly the aircraft within it's limits.

Shame when people die in the type of accidents you listed.

"We can make a new plane in a few years but it takes many years to
make a new pilot" (quote from source I don't remember).

Big John

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 05:54:04 -0400, Cub Driver >
wrote:

>On 18 Jul 2003 18:46:02 GMT, (Wdtabor) wrote:
>
>>prolonged slow
>>flight close to the ground which includes repeated 180 degree turns, by a pilot
>>who is distracted by the need to remain in a good viewing position for his
>>observer, are an invitation to disaster.
>
>A plane crashed and killed its two occupants the other day while they
>were hunting coyotes.
>
>all the best -- Dan Ford
>email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

[Big John]

Pete

Come to Houston and drive on our freeways.

Big John


On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 21:17:53 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
...
>> Around here it is fairly common, especially on the highways. When I go 70
>> in a 55 zone most every car is blowing by me like I am standing still, and
>> honking as they do.
>
>Where is "around here"? I've driven all over the country and never found
>myself in an area where the median traffic speed was 30 mph over the speed
>limit (I figure "blowing by me" must mean the other cars are at least as
>much faster than you, as you are faster than the speed limit).
>
>Forgive me if I'm a bit incredulous of your claim. People drive crazy, but
>I've never seen them drive *that* crazy, not in the US, not as a rule ("most
>every car") rather than an exception.
>
>Pete
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> Come to Houston and drive on our freeways.

I have. It doesn't come close to the kind of traffic Peter describes.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 06:32:26 -0700, Tim Bengtson
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>> In California, one could argue that the roadway markers constitute a
>> speed trap, as the aerial LEOs determine the speed of automobiles by
>> timing them between those marks.
>>
>> Section 40802(a)(1): prohibits timing vehicles over a measured
>> distance, and 40801 makes using such evidence in assisting in a
>> person's arrest illegal.
>
>The cops have a book called "Words to Use in Court".

You're making this up? :-)

>In this case, the cop says that he matched the speed of the airplane
>to the speed of the car, and then used the marks to confirm his own
>groundspeed.

Hmmmm..... During this time, who was scanning for conflicting air
traffic? Perhaps the local FSDO might be interested in the operating
procedures employed by law enforcement...

>I am not making this up.
>
>Tim

Where can I obtain a copy of the book you mention? How about a scan
of the pertinent pages?

In this country, a 'person accused' has (had??) the right to confront
his/her accuser in a public court of law. That would be the officer
who observed the accused and signed the Notice to Appear (citation).
It would seem this might necessitate the aerial LEO landing to
complete the citation. I doubt that occurs.

I suspect, the officer on the ground is often able to pace the
motorist pointed out by the aerial LEO, and thus witnessed himself the
alleged Vehicle Code violation. It would then be appropriate for the
LEO on the ground to issue the citation.

Soon, it'll be UAVs loitering overhead in urban areas to go with the
RoboCop traffic signal cameras, and neighborhood intersection video
surveillance that already exist here.

To wit: http://www.politechbot.com/p-04920.html
"Government would have a reasonably good idea
of where everyone is most of the time."

Hang on to your hat, mate. The 21st century is gathering momentum as
it hurtles toward our Orwellian furniture. :-)

[RLB]

LOL... I love the pedestrian lanes. All those dead people outlines painted
on the street and people still wanna walk there. ;-)


"John Harlow" > wrote in message
...
> > Kansas used to have airplane shaped objects painted on the highway.
>
> Maybe it was a murder scene. There are apparently many bike murders all
> over town here; the outlines are all along the road.
>
>
>
>
>

[Tom S.]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Around here it is fairly common, especially on the highways. When I go
70
> > in a 55 zone most every car is blowing by me like I am standing still,
and
> > honking as they do.
>
> Where is "around here"? I've driven all over the country and never found
> myself in an area where the median traffic speed was 30 mph over the speed
> limit (I figure "blowing by me" must mean the other cars are at least as
> much faster than you, as you are faster than the speed limit).

70 in a 55 is FIFTEEN over, not THIRTY.

>
> Forgive me if I'm a bit incredulous of your claim. People drive crazy,
but
> I've never seen them drive *that* crazy, not in the US, not as a rule
("most
> every car") rather than an exception.

Do the math...and the original post was about someone doing 80 in a 35...45
over the limit.

A few years back my wife was hit broadside (in an Acura) by a Honda Civic
that left 93 feet of skidmarks then impacted with enough force to push her
car about fifteen feet and spin it 270 degrees. This was in a 45MPH zone.

The cops charged her since, well, she DID PULL IN FRONT OF AN ONCOMING
VEHICLE. We beat it in court by getting a accident expert to run the
diagrams and ascertain that the car was doing at least 77 and possibly 85 in
a 45 zone. Our argument was that while she DID LOOK, she was not looking,
and could not be expected to look, nearly a half mile up the street. The
cops felt it was "not worth the effort" to conduct even a moderately through
investigation since no one was killed and the injuries were only slight
(thnak you Acura!!). As long as they had someone to charge their paperwork
was all they worried about.

My point is that the 80 in a 35 is a very rare exception and this is not
what aircraft monitoring is targeting.

[Peter Duniho]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> In this country, a 'person accused' has (had??) the right to confront
> his/her accuser in a public court of law.

The standard for traffic infractions is very different than that for
criminal charges. Each state handles that flexibility differently, but the
bottom line is that for writing traffic tickets, you don't have nearly as
many rights as you would have if someone was accusing you of theft, murder,
etc.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
> 70 in a 55 is FIFTEEN over, not THIRTY.

True. And completely irrelevant.

You need to pay better attention. Peter was driving 70 mph. The speed
limit was 55. He claims "most every car" was "blowing by" him. Since he
wasn't specific about the actual speed at which that traffic was passing
him, I made a guess that that traffic was exceeding his speed by as much as
he was exceeding the speed limit.

He's doing 15 mph over the speed limit. The other traffic is 15 mph faster
than him. 15 plus 15 is 30.

> Do the math...and the original post was about someone doing 80 in a
35...45
> over the limit.

I did the math. It's not my fault you can't keep up. In any case, I didn't
reply to the original post, I replied to Peter's.

> My point is that the 80 in a 35 is a very rare exception and this is not
> what aircraft monitoring is targeting.

I don't really care what your point was. I wasn't replying to your post.

Pete

[Cub Driver]

>
>Come to Houston and drive on our freeways.

One time driving through Texas, I happened to glance over at the dirt
road paralleling the Interstate, and I saw that a pickup truck was
passing me.

I was going 80, which was VNE in my Volkswagen.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm
Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 02:17:16 -0700, "Tom S." > wrote
in Message-Id: >:

>> I don't really care what your point was. I wasn't replying to your post.
>
>Then don't answer this one you ****ing cocksucker.
>

Mr. Duniho was merely having a little game of "light the flamer" and
you lost. Thanks for playing. :-)


--<space>

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

[Big John]

Dan

He must still have been in second and just warming the engine up.

It's crazy folks.

We've got more 'water bugs' on our highways than are in the swamps of
Louisiana.

Big John

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 05:47:16 -0400, Cub Driver >
wrote:

>>
>>Come to Houston and drive on our freeways.
>
>One time driving through Texas, I happened to glance over at the dirt
>road paralleling the Interstate, and I saw that a pickup truck was
>passing me.
>
>I was going 80, which was VNE in my Volkswagen.
>
>all the best -- Dan Ford
>email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9
>
>see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm
>Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub

[Big John]

If I keep 'plonking' the idots, that don't know the proper use of the
Kings English, on the group, I may end up talking to the only idiot
left (me).

We have an excess of 'road rage' here in TX. If it is ported into the
air, I'm glad I stay closer to the ground and 'carry'.

Big John


On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 02:17:16 -0700, "Tom S." > wrote:

>
>"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>> "Tom S." > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > 70 in a 55 is FIFTEEN over, not THIRTY.
>>
>> True. And completely irrelevant.
>>
>> You need to pay better attention. Peter was driving 70 mph. The speed
>> limit was 55. He claims "most every car" was "blowing by" him. Since he
>> wasn't specific about the actual speed at which that traffic was passing
>> him, I made a guess that that traffic was exceeding his speed by as much
>as
>> he was exceeding the speed limit.
>>
>> He's doing 15 mph over the speed limit. The other traffic is 15 mph
>faster
>> than him. 15 plus 15 is 30.
>>
>> > Do the math...and the original post was about someone doing 80 in a
>> 35...45
>> > over the limit.
>>
>> I did the math. It's not my fault you can't keep up. In any case, I
>didn't
>> reply to the original post, I replied to Peter's.
>
>Oh, I can keep up, can you maintain context?
>
>(ARE ALL POILOTS THIS POMPOUS AND OVERBEARING? )
>
>>
>> > My point is that the 80 in a 35 is a very rare exception and this is not
>> > what aircraft monitoring is targeting.
>>
>> I don't really care what your point was. I wasn't replying to your post.
>
>Then don't answer this one you ****ing cocksucker.
>
>
>
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> The standard for traffic infractions is very different than that for
> criminal charges.

As you point out, each State handles that differently. New Jersey handles it
by simply classifying traffic violations as violations of regulations, not
crimes. That basically removes some of your appeal rights and the right to
a jury trial. In exchange, the State loses the right to require you to post
bail, and they cannot sentence you to serve time for these offenses.

In Tennessee, however, they are crimes, and you do have the same set of rights
that you would have for, say, a charge of criminal trespass. That means that
you do have a right to be confronted by your accuser, and as late as the 70s,
traffic officers spent an hour or more every day in court. As far as I know,
this has not changed. You also have the right to a jury trial, but you'd be a
fool to take a simple speeding ticket that far; the legal expenses would be
over $1,000 to argue a case in the Circuit court. You might want to fight one
of the more serious violations (like DWI), however.

George Patterson
The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist is afraid that he's correct.
James Branch Cavel

[H. Adam Stevens]

In Houston all the incompetent drivers are dead or will be soon.
H.
N502TB



"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >Come to Houston and drive on our freeways.
>
> One time driving through Texas, I happened to glance over at the dirt
> road paralleling the Interstate, and I saw that a pickup truck was
> passing me.
>
> I was going 80, which was VNE in my Volkswagen.
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm
> Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub

[G.R. Patterson III]

Big John wrote:
>
> We have an excess of 'road rage' here in TX.

Either it's not restricted to Texas, or you guys have been exporting it. Here
in Jersey, the State has set up a special 2-digit cell phone hot-line to
report these people. Right-to-carry is rare here - you pretty much have to
be in either government or the mafia (and some people claim they're the same
thing).

George Patterson
The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist is afraid that he's correct.
James Branch Cavel

[Peter Duniho]

"Tom S." > wrote in message
...
> (ARE ALL POILOTS THIS POMPOUS AND OVERBEARING? )

What's a "poilot"?

[Newps]

And just what could you have been worried about?

john smith wrote:

> Ron Natalie wrote:
>
>>Margy and I
>>also had a nice chat with the Ohio State Police plane (they hang out on 122.75).
>>They patrol around looking for trouble (accidents, etc... ) on the highway, but
>>I suspect they'd tag a flagrant speeder given the chance. I think he said he
>>had the capability.
>
>
> Our chapter had a flyout years ago, to one of the local $100 hamburger
> sites. We were playing follow the leader down low. The last guy in line
> happened to look back and there was an Ohio Highway Patrol plane
> bringing up the rear. We all thought we were dead meat when the Smokie
> followed us into the pattern, landed with us and followed us into the
> restaurant. Fortunately, he walked past us without saying a word and sat
> at the lunch counter. The only thing we could figure was he was bored
> and was on his way to lunch anyway, so he joined in.

[Steve House]

It's a guy who fly's airplanes in Polynesia!

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Tom S." > wrote in message
> ...
> > (ARE ALL POILOTS THIS POMPOUS AND OVERBEARING? )
>
> What's a "poilot"?
>
>

[Jack McAdams]

Not a real problem in NJ. The State Police choppers are all tied up
either running EMS calls (a good thing) or ferrying Gov. McGreevy to
weddings or political fundraisers (value evaluation is left to the
reader!).

Jack
Sundowner - N6363U



(Jim Buckridge) wrote in message >...
> I saw one of these signs along I-78 in NJ. Now, I find it
> ***REALLY*** hard to believe that this particular sign is true. The
> highway is congested and with radar guns and all, monitoring speed by
> aircraft (copter maybe?) seems expensive and unnecessary.
>
> I know I've seen these signs elsewhere - are there still places where
> speed is monitored by aircraft?

[Dennis O'Connor]

Well jeez, think of the mischief she would create if she were at the
statehouse all day!

"Jack McAdams" > wrote in message
om...
> Not a real problem in NJ. The State Police choppers are all tied up
> either running EMS calls (a good thing) or ferrying Gov. McGreevy to
> weddings or political fundraisers (value evaluation is left to the
> reader!).
>
> Jack
> Sundowner - N6363U
>
>
>
> (Jim Buckridge) wrote in message
>...
> > I saw one of these signs along I-78 in NJ. Now, I find it
> > ***REALLY*** hard to believe that this particular sign is true. The
> > highway is congested and with radar guns and all, monitoring speed by
> > aircraft (copter maybe?) seems expensive and unnecessary.
> >
> > I know I've seen these signs elsewhere - are there still places where
> > speed is monitored by aircraft?

[H. Adam Stevens]

poi everywhere are offended
"Steve House" > wrote in message
...
> It's a guy who fly's airplanes in Polynesia!
>
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Tom S." > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > (ARE ALL POILOTS THIS POMPOUS AND OVERBEARING? )
> >
> > What's a "poilot"?
> >
> >
>
>

[Judah]

Hey - better to have McGreevy at weddings and fundraisers than trying to
make more crappy laws and taxes to give to Donald Trump!

;)

(Jack McAdams) wrote in
om:

> Not a real problem in NJ. The State Police choppers are all tied up
> either running EMS calls (a good thing) or ferrying Gov. McGreevy to
> weddings or political fundraisers (value evaluation is left to the
> reader!).
>
> Jack
> Sundowner - N6363U
>
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

Steve House wrote:
>
> At that time the poicy was to issue a ticket to a driver with an
> in-state license and no outstanding warrants but out-of-state drivers would,
> at the officer's discretion, be taken into custody, cuffed for transport and
> booked into jail, and would have to post bail equal to the maximum possible
> fine to secure release. Failure to appear then would be considered a plea
> of "no contest," a guilty verdict entered in the record, and bail would be
> forfeited.

Tennessee, Georgia, and South Carolina handled this in a similar fashion
except that in at least South Carolina (and maybe the others) the arresting
officer was empowered to take the bail payment so the driver didn't have to
be transported to the jail.

George Patterson
The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist is afraid that he's correct.
James Branch Cavel

[G.R. Patterson III]

Montblack wrote:
>
> The Highway Patrol Cessna was obviously hiding behind the Fuji Blimp.


Woman: Is there a problem, Officer?

Officer: Ma'am, you were speeding.

Woman: Oh, I see.

Officer: Can I see your license please?

Woman: I'd give it to you but I don't have one.

Officer: Don't have one?

Woman: Lost it 4 times for drunk driving.

Officer: I see...Can I see your vehicle registration papers please.

Woman: I can't do that.

Officer: Why not?

Woman: I stole this car.

Officer: Stole it?

Woman: Yes, and I killed and hacked up the owner.

Officer: You what?

Woman: His body parts are in plastic bags in the trunk if you want to see.

The Officer looks at the woman, slowly backs away to his car, and calls for
back up. Within minutes 5 police cars circle the car. A senior officer
slowly approaches the car, clasping his half drawn gun.

Officer 2: Ma'am, could you step out of your vehicle please! The woman
steps out of her vehicle.

Woman: Is there a problem sir?

Officer 2: One of my officers told me that you have stolen this car and
murdered the owner.

Woman: Murdered the owner?

Officer 2: Yes, could you please open the trunk of your car, please.

The woman opens the trunk, revealing nothing but an empty trunk.

Officer 2: Is this your car, ma'am?

Woman: Yes, here are the registration papers.

The first officer is stunned.

Officer 2: One of my officers claims that you do not have a driving license.

The woman digs into her handbag and pulls out a clutch purse and hands it
to the officer. The officer snaps opens the clutch purse and examines the
license. He looks quite puzzled.

Officer 2: Thank you ma'am, one of my officers told me you didn't have a
license, that you stole this car, and that you murdered and hacked up
theowner.

Woman: 'Betcha the lying Jerk told you I was speeding too."


George Patterson
The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist is afraid that he's correct.
James Branch Cavel

[Margy Natalie]

Ron Natalie wrote:

> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message news:ihatessppaamm-
> >
> > hey! one "benefit" to TFRs. :-/
> >
> Nope, even the DC gulag waivers the police. The PG County Mouties NOTAR helicopter
> was buzzing around CGS the other day.

College Park Airport is campaigning to have the PG county government move their
operations to the airport. The police need the space and College Park is a ghost airport
since very few individuals are vetted to fly into it. It would be one way to save the
oldest, continually operating airport from extinction.

Margy