What is Digg?273 Comments
- nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -26/+157It's wonderful how an organization that used to be there to "protect and serve" the public now believes it serves the public best by hiding from them, sneaking up on them, and then forcing peaceful people to pay them money. Catching speeders is what cops should be doing only after cities have no violent crime at all. ***** pigs. If the democrats who control Congress vote for this ***** I'm gonna be pissed.
Democrats have decided that they were elected not to end the war, but to ban radar detectors. - AntiInsight, on 10/12/2007, -21/+147If they outlaw my radar detector, i better see some compensation for what i paid for it.
- cablemodemguy, on 10/12/2007, -7/+103Just because you have a radar detector, it doesn't mean you think you can speed around recklessly, it means you don't like to be ass-raped by dirty speed trap officers.
I was in court and heard an officer state that he gives tickets to anyone with a radar detector, because they think they can break the law. Unfortunately, in AZ, the law is reasonable and prudent speeds, not posted speed limits. Judges seldom care. After all, this is how they raise funds! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -15/+106Or vote for a Libertarian. Your non vote could be doing some good to the people who need your vote, and who you probably agree with.
- Smoove, on 10/12/2007, -11/+95"I don't understand why anyone except those who speed with their rice cars would be against banning radar detectors."
I don't understand why anyone except a child-molesting pervert would complain about the government observing their behavior in the bedroom. After all, it's a good way to protect against rape, pedophilia and health-hazards like sleeping with your poodle. - Smoove, on 10/12/2007, -12/+87@oakes
You're saying you need the government to protect you from yourself? That if radar detectors were legal, you'd drive 200 MPH and die in a fiery crash? But that after banning them, you'll drive 65 like a good little boy?
You're going to find it tough living as a grownup. Nobody comes around to make you eat your peas, or brush your teeth, or wash your hands before eating. Undoubtedly you'll end up dying of malnutrition and bacterial infection, unless your teeth rot out first and you starve. - killinger777, on 10/12/2007, -8/+82What is it with Dems and banning *****? So, they want to ban radar detectors, incandescent lights, the words "illegal alien"... anything else I should stock up on?
- RedHerringHack, on 10/12/2007, -5/+48V1 FTW. You know that the "safety" issues they point out are not the real reason for the ban. It is a money grab. A tax increase. The government trying it's best to get more of your money. Radar detectors don't kill people, people kill people. Won't stop me from using my V1.
Weren't the new senators supposed to be doing something about all the big problems? Isn't that what you elected them for? Don't look now, but you got lied to and are now being screwed. Surprise! Meet the new politicians, same as the old politicians. - cablemodemguy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+42By the way, cops don't like it when you try to document speed traps!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7303666401899277321&q=film+cops+illegal - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -11/+47how about they ban the use of radar by the cops, it causes more problems with accidents and traffic to have some ***** on the side of the road totally ***** up the flow of traffic. especially since here you can get a ticket if you don't slow down to 20 mph below the limit or get over when there is a cop on the side of the road. ***** the cops, they are all greedy ***** heads that need to leave the nazi storm trooper tactics to the gestapo, this is ***** america buddy leave me the ***** alone.
- Tenareth, on 10/12/2007, -2/+36After reading this particular set of responses... we are doomed. You grant the government power for "safety", that is how you end up with a police state and people spying on each other, turning them in to the government because "I think they are up to something".
You do not have the right to safety, you have the right to privacy and freedom. You have to give up the other 2 to get the 1, but you won't get the safety because the government will suddenly decide YOU are a threat.
But eh, I'm sure nothing bad would come from a country that puts safety above freedom... - Smoove, on 10/12/2007, -6/+39@oakes
Exactly. So YOU can be trusted to drive safely, but everyone ELSE is some sort of dangerous moron from whom you need government protection. Just another illustration of the basic principle: people approve of state coercion because they believe that, on balance, it will molest others more than themselves. - WasabiBomb, on 10/12/2007, -3/+34Back when I had a radar detector, I slowed down every time it made a chirp. If they really want to make people drive the speed limit, just put active emitters in random locations. Eventually, the detectors would be basically useless because the drivers who use them wouldn't be able to trust 'em.
Outlawing radar detectors is just a transparent attempt to grab more money. - jasontm1, on 10/12/2007, -6/+35@killinger777
The bill is sponsored by a Republican Senator from Florida, not a Democrat. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+28Radar detectors do not cause speeding. They have no right to ban a perfectly legal device that doesn't interfere in any way with your driving, and doesn't break any laws.
- Sneakernets, on 10/12/2007, -5/+30I'll still use my Detector.
Eat that. - benitojuarez, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25The article says they have been banned in illinois....why do i still see them for sale at best buy?
- RedHerringHack, on 10/12/2007, -3/+26Oh, LOOK! He used to be SHERRIFF. That explains it. Get your ass in gear and go something important ***** Mr. Oelrich.
- Smoove, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24@xtremesniper
What's being taught is to drive AS IF nobody else can be trusted. There's value in that (though it shouldn't be taken too far). But that doesn't justify forcible action against those others. Why not put speed limiters in their cars? And add a breathalizer kill-switch? And for good measure, add a kill-switch that you can operate remotely, so you can leave any driver you want to dead on the roadside? Or anti-douchebag missiles mounted under your hood. Next time granny stops suddenly for no good reason--FRAG HER! - felchdonkey, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22oakes - perhaps you'd be interested in this, direct from the Arizona DOT:
http://www.dot.state.az.us/highways/Traffic/Speed.asp
""Before and After" studies consistently demonstrate that there are no significant changes in traffic speeds following the posting of new or revised speed limits."
"Contrary to popular belief, speed in itself is not a major cause of accidents. In fact, there is a consensus of professional opinions that many speed-related accidents result from both excessively low and high speeds."
It's not speed that kills, and getting rid of radar detectors isn't going to protect you one bit. - tidejwe, on 10/12/2007, -9/+28Some of you guys are complete idiots! I didn't used to own a radar detector till I got "ass-raped" by our law-enforcement and justice system. Some cop claims he clocked me doing 49MPH next to "Papa John's" which is less than half a block from where I turned onto the road. My '97 Lumina can't even go 0-49 in half a block. I took it to court and not only did the bastard judge rule AGAINST me, but she knocked up my fine! I even had 2 witnesses testify that I wasn't going 49 MPH and that my car can't accelerate that fast. 2 witnesses, and no proof of my guilt besides the officer's testimony that he's SURE it was me even though he never saw me turn onto the road less than half a block from where he clocked me.
Ever since that day I bought a Radar detector because, even though I don't speed, I like to be able to have "PROOF" that I can back up saying that "YES, I saw my speed at the exact moment the bastard lying cop clocked me with his radar gun." With a radar detector I can stand up and say the cop is lying next time. Without it, the judge just has to believe the jack-ass even if his claim is utterly ridiculous like I got screwed for. I know COUNTLESS people like me who NEVER speed, use radar detectors as insurance against jack-ass cops and our faulty legal system that claims you're guilty unless proven innocent for traffic violations. Just cuz I have a radar detector doesn't mean I'm a speeder.
ALSO for all you idiots...Radar detectors don't stop you from getting tickets...cops can use Laser guns that you can't detect until you're already hit. Also, they now have immediate radar guns that turn on only at the moment the cop shoots, so you can't detect them from a distance. If they're worried about speeders then require the cops to get laser guns or instant on radar guns....don't take away my protection from bastard cops. I like to know when I'm shot so I can testify straight up that at the moment he shot me I was only going XX MPH and not what he claims. We don't all have radar detectors thinking we are invulnerable to speeding tickets. The idiots who think they can speed because of radar detectors will still get busted by instant radar guns and laser guns anyway. And if you remove the detectors they'll still speed. Most speeders I see don't have them anyway...everyone I know that has one doesn't actually speed. - mt066, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19mastershake:
wow. you're such a way cool vigilantie. that's what we need more of on the roads. - pooflinger1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18Actually, I don't think you know anything about how radar actually works. Sure the radar beams are hitting you, but think about it, they have to travel BACK to the radar gun. That's where what we like to call an effective range comes into play. And just like light, sounds, and other RF, the further it goes, the weaker the signal gets. Also, the good detectors (not the ***** ones from walmart) can pickup a signal at distances of up to over a mile in the correct conditions. Radar has an effective detection range of only a few hundred yards. To prove the point, try this. In the dark, point a flashlight down a long road and have a friend walk away from you until he can no longer see the light. I bet he gets a hell of a lot further before he can't see the light than he can before you can't see him.
- unicornhunter, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22oh crap, don't they have anything better to do? oh, right..cities make so much money off of ridiculous 'speeding' tickets, so I guess it's worth a lot to see this pass. *****.
- felchdonkey, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20oakes -
I agree that asif5th's comment was immature (getting your politics from a South Park episode is pretty sad), but you're oversimplifying when you say that banning radar detectors is going to protect people from being killed.
National speed limits were introduced as a gas-saving measure in the '70s, and it was only later that the insurance industry and police started calling them a safety measure. The truth is that your average speeder is not the danger, it's the reckless drivers, distracted drivers, and the bad drivers.
Speed limits are a revenue source for cities and states, through the millions of tickets they write every year, and a way for the insurance industry to have another excuse to raise your rates every time you get a ticket.
The reckless driver doing 110mph and weaving in and out of traffic isn't going to be stopped just because we get rid of radar detectors, and the soccer moms won't be any safer, either. - banjolee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20Sen Oelrich is a REPUBLICAN. This isn't Fox this is Digg- do your damn homework before you malign a whole party.
Douche's indeed. - thefreshbeats, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17I absolutely LOVE this new law. Now I'll be able to use my concealed radar detector (which cops can't find unless they look really hard) while they discontinue their use of Instant-On radar techniques. Who cares if you're breaking the law and using a detector? Really, you're breaking the law by speeding anyway and like this would stop us... I didn't buy a fast car to fall in line will all the mini-van driving, sunday church going, god-fearing, internet neutrality hating scientologist groupies who get scared just trying to drive in a straight line on the freeway. This will just make my speeding and your funny "oh my god! oh no he didn't" reactions way more fun. Congressmen are immune to speeding tickets anyway, so why would they care. This makes me laugh.
911, what's your emergency? I JUST SAWS A GUY WITH RADARZ LOL! - Brian48216, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14hah! sucks for you guys! I live in the backward assed state of virginia where our radar detectors are already banned!!
***** commonwealth... - mindstyle1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17nooooooo
- newworldodor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15"Safety" your kidding right? They don't care about safety, courts and the cops just want more income. I have gotten tickets for speeding 5mph over (uphill) and dirty license plate. Yes, my license plate being dirty after a snow storm is harmful to the safety of society. I don't care what you say, if your the defendant you are GUILTY. There is not way your are going to leave the court without paying at least the $35 court costs. It is a business and the most corrupt business there is.
- Osiriscky3, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16mastershake = That asshat that constricts the flow of traffic and often drives slow in the fast lane.
YOU are the hazard. I will cut your ass off any day, and i hope your talking on your cell phone while you're driving too. - AkatsukiNoTobi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14If it wasn't for Digg, I would probably be arrested by now for not knowing all the rules. Banning trans fats, the word "*****," the words "illegal aliens," and now radars..... What's next, banning the computer because children can be exposed to porn?
- Smoove, on 10/12/2007, -10/+23@oakes "What the hell are you talking about? I don't want immunity from this law."
You HAVE immunity from the law, because you don't use a radar detector. Since it doesn't affect you, you're happy to see it applied to others. Non-drinkers could greet prohibition with a yawn, as well. You're happy to see people pushed around because you believe that it won't be YOU on the receiving end. - David2SLY, on 10/12/2007, -9/+22I find this funny. Both my friend and I speed almost anywhere we go. We have both been in only 1 accident each since we have been driving. Sadly the times we have been hit by other cars was when we were actually going the speed limit or under it. Both times the traffic was congested because people were driving under the speed limit in both lanes. Whatever happened to the legislation for making people over 60 take the driving test more often? That I would like to see. Some old lady ran a stop sign and my brother ran into her on his motorcycle. Our driving tests in general are way too easy and need to be made more difficult to obtain.
- nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14That's right, and if you can see the glow from city lights over the horizon, that means the people in the city have already seen you.
- barkeep8, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13I don't use my radar detector to break the law and speed, but I like it's cop detecting ability.
As I recall, we as US citizens are allowed to receive any radio signal that is transmitted. It may be illegal to decrypt an encrypted transmission, but it's not illegal to receive it. - zoogelsnof, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Wow, this is so stupid...did nobody investigate this story?
This guy isn't a US senator, he isn't even a house member. He is a STATE senator in Florida, which means he can not legally propose national legislation.
This isn't a national bill, it just applies to Florida, if it passes at all, plus, it's not a ban, it's a secondary infraction. They won't be able to pull you over for it, they can just ticket you if you get caught for something else. - doggowar, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15Nazi are people, too. What difference does that make? Cops should be there to protect and serve, not money collectors for the state.
- azwethinkweizm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Why don't they outlaw ***** drivers that drive slow in the left lane instead?
- thejadedmonkey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Whatever happened to my government making laws for me, and not against me?
- starguy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13If someones broadcasting a signal, I have a right to pick it up. Just like if someones shouting outloud, I have a right to hear it.
In fact, if someone is shooting a radar signal at me, I have a cause of action as they are trying to irradiate me with some radio signal against my will or knowledge - felchdonkey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12You do realize that the sponsor of this bill, Senator Steve Oelrich, is a REPUBLICAN?
If you don't even know which party you're talking about, why are you voting? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Being a cop does not make one a douchebag. Having said that, the the high power and limited accountability of a cop's job attracts douchebags. Many of them see themselves as above the law superheros that have the authority to legally decide the guilt or innocence of a potential suspect at first glance.
- nazadus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Some cops are good (I've met a few that I consider friends, and would defend them if necessary) and I've met a few that are bad and racist. However, that is irrelevant to this discussion. What is relevant is the use of radar detectors. I have one, it's not all that great but it does work pretty good. One interesting habit I've noticed /many/ people have (including myself at times) is when I see a cop I slow down, period. Even if I am going the speed limit, I hit my brakes and *then* look at my speed, because what is happening is it's more important to not get a ticket than it is to drive safely because I have to look at my speed and hope that the car in front of me doesn't slam on their brakes too hard while I'm looking at my speed.
Personally, I think speeding shouldn't be as serious as it is except in certain areas (except for doing extreme speeds like 85 in a 30 in a resdential area). But I've seen people go 45 in a 30 on a looong street because it's just too f'ing slow to go 30. People don't cross the street and the traffic isn't even that dense.
I'm one of those that thinks speed limits weren't based on reactions or anything logical. I don't think they were specifically placed to make money, however, I just think they need to be seriously reconsidered.
I'd LOVE to see 80-100 mph max on high ways. Hell, when I was checking on my parents and friends houses (just after Hurricane Rita) I frequently drove 85/90 and was VERY often passed by cops going at least 120+. Why? My guess is that most of them had to make soo many trips that they didn't feel like taking their time. Guess what? I only saw a few wrecks. The same amount that I did during my regular trips. It's only dangerous for those scared to drive (well, they are /scared/ to drive, that's just the word I use because it bugs me).
But I'm one of those weird flakey people.. so take this with a grain of salt. - IchiroBoston, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Radar Detectors can never save you from a directed hit (cop pointing their gun at you). Your trying to detect the scatter from other cars getting hit by Radar or Laser. I hope all the Radar Detector manufactures are teaming up for a good fight.
- Tmacman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11@SupaFupa
You're partly right. If you and the cop are alone on a long straight highway and he uses instant on radar, then you're probably dead meat. The way detectors work best is when the cop lights up the guy in front of you or if he keeps the radar on constantly, then the detector will alert you that the cop is in the area and you avoid the ticket. - bjdraw, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Because you have the right to receive any radio signal in the air, it is what you do with that knowledge that is breaking the law. Just like a police scanner.
- nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11No, they work fine against lasers. What really works best is a radar/laser jammer which throws a bunch of crap back at the radar gun and causes it to malfunction. They're expensive, but work wonders.
- dimension128, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12@Jhawk24821
So you can drive 10 mph faster than the people who are driving at the limit, and that is perfectly acceptable.
But if I drive 5 mph faster than you, I'm endangering your family.
Glad that I finally understand where the 'line' is. - felchdonkey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11oakes - I wasn't trying to imply that the Arizona DOT doesn't believe in speed limits. I was pointing out that speed is not the determining factor in most accidents. That's not out of context, it's just correct.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 269 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is