hosed by the CT pigs
03-08-2006, 07:44 PM
#1
Advanced
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Danbury, CT
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hosed by the CT pigs
Got a speeding ticket for 73 in a 45mph in I-84 up near New Britain, CT. They set up fake constructions zones to snag you in 65mpg speed zones by reflaggin them at 45mph (which is illegal but.... who is going to fight that one). Sure, you can go 45, but you'll get rear-ended probably. Radar went off (gotta get a better one) and with 3 cars abreast he clipped me.
NOW GET THIS
The tickets is $373. I plead not guilty and go to court. I offer to pay the fine if it's a charitable donation / ticket tossed (which I'd done once in a different court) - this is to save me from the insurance going up (which will cost more than $373 over the life of the ticket). He refuses but offers to lower the charge - I say I can give you the full fee if you toss the ticket - he says no, the ticket stands, but I'll let you pay $100 instead - I try one more time and offer the pay the full fee if he can eliminate the ticket - but no go, so I pay the $100 since I don't want to go waste another day on this.
Now - who can explain to me WHY they don't ultimately just want the money - what's in it for them to take LESS money but have the ticket stand?! The only winner in that case are..... the insurance companies.
NOW GET THIS
The tickets is $373. I plead not guilty and go to court. I offer to pay the fine if it's a charitable donation / ticket tossed (which I'd done once in a different court) - this is to save me from the insurance going up (which will cost more than $373 over the life of the ticket). He refuses but offers to lower the charge - I say I can give you the full fee if you toss the ticket - he says no, the ticket stands, but I'll let you pay $100 instead - I try one more time and offer the pay the full fee if he can eliminate the ticket - but no go, so I pay the $100 since I don't want to go waste another day on this.
Now - who can explain to me WHY they don't ultimately just want the money - what's in it for them to take LESS money but have the ticket stand?! The only winner in that case are..... the insurance companies.
I hate 84 and the staties that roam it.
03-09-2006, 11:24 AM
#6
Burning Brakes
Patrick Bedard
Give 'em a brake? What they want are your bucks.
BY PATRICK BEDARD
November 2005
Don't leave home without it" is one of those ad slogans that forever rattle around in the cerebral echo chamber, having been slammed in by cubic dollars' worth of media airtime. The words mean just about nothing. Don't leave home without what? Your underpants? Your snub-nosed .38? But we know they mean your American Express card because relentless advertising bombardment has welded the two nouns together in our minds.
This sort of hammer welding is extremely durable. I don't remember much about my mother's TV favorite, The Jack Benny Show, except for L.S./M.F.T.—"Lucky Strike Means Fine Tobacco."
But the hammer isn't necessary when the words are right. "Give 'em a brake." Of course! Don't hit road workers. Slow down in construction zones.
"Give 'em a brake" stuck with me the first time. It's clever. It's tight on the message. And maybe it has something else going for it. Are we the sort of unfeeling savages who would cut down humans in orange vests in exchange for shorter commutes?
No way!
Now there's another slogan with the same target. "Slow down or pay up." It's delivered by a looming trooper with a ticket book. I think I'll be able to remember that one, too.
At least one state has created an exceptionally effective reminder for work-zone speeds. In Illinois, the ticket for first-offense speeding in a construction zone comes with a $375 fine, the second offense is $1000 and a license suspension. In July, the state also began using photo radar in work zones.
Dare we ask how many construction workers they are killing in the Prairie State?
After a century of peaceful co-existence between road builders and road users, something has apparently changed. Suddenly, we're confronted by a killer epidemic seemingly more deadly than West Nile virus. The plight of construction workers is constantly held up before us, by roadway signs, by public-service announcements, by print ads. It even grabbed its own awareness week, April 3-9, this year—"National Work Zone Awareness Week"—complete with a high-pressure spray of statistics: work-zone fatalities rose "nearly 50 percent" nationally between 1997 and 2003 with 1028 deaths in that most recent year; one work-zone fatality occurs every 8.5 hours, three a day.
These are macabre numbers. They make it sound like Americans are motorized maniacs with no regard for the workers who make our highways possible.
This, to me, is a shocking notion. And I'll tell you what's even more shocking—it's not true. These numbers are for all traffic-related fatalities in work zones, including drivers, passengers, pedestrians, bicyclists, and others who were in the traffic stream. Workers, too, of course.
How many workers? Numerous studies over the years confirm that construction zones are dangerous, but they point to other killers. One study by the Centers for Disease Control counted 492 fatalities over the years 1992 to 1998: 306 of them were struck by vehicles—154 by construction vehicles and 152 by traffic vehicles.
Another study by the Center to Protect Workers' Rights, based on Bureau of Labor Statistics data for 1999, said that of 530 vehicle-related deaths of workers that year, 170 involved traffic vehicles and 360 were divided between workers in construction vehicles and workers on foot struck by heavy equipment or trucks.
For a list of gruesome ways to die, just read down the list of reports from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health: Laborer dies after being run over by asphalt roller; truck driver dies after his vehicle rolled over an embankment and came to rest on its top; asphalt-compactor operator dies from crushing injuries during machine rollover; 17-year-old laborer dies after being run over by a water truck; laborer dies after falling underneath the wheel of a front-end loader; crane operator falls 30 feet from a freeway overpass.
Now back to Illinois, the land of the $1000 speeding fines. It reports 39 work-zone fatalities last year; only two of them were workers. Moreover, two is the state's annual average over the past nine years, the only years covered in the latest report.
Obviously, "Give 'em a brake" in Illinois is cover for a program aimed at something else. What could it be? Consider this clue: The law states that workers needn't be present for a violation to occur.
Actual construction isn't necessary to trigger the violation, either. How many times have you driven past mile after mile of construction signs on a road otherwise undisturbed, lacking even the loose dust of past repairs? The public would surely object if the highway department simply put up signs that said, "Feeling lucky? Fines are double today." So it puts up construction signs instead and pretends to be saving defenseless workers from uncaring motorists.
Illinois is not alone in levying construction-zone penalties when no workers are present; 25 other states do so as well, and 18 of them double the fine or have some other way of upping the take.
There is, of course, the argument that 1028 people were killed in work zones in 2003, proving that these are dangerous places where motorists should slow down.
Maybe. But statistics from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration don't support that argument. Work-zone fatalities were only 2.4 percent of all traffic deaths in 2003. More than three times as many people were killed in crashes with shrubbery and trees. More than twice as many died in crashes with poles and posts. More were killed by crashes into guardrails.
Then why are we suddenly hearing so much about speeds in construction zones? Consider this from the state of Georgia: "Funding for this [work-zone awareness] campaign is being provided through a federal safety-awareness grant. The campaign includes statewide radio, television, and billboard ads to remind drivers to slow down in work zones." Every one of these campaigns is funded either entirely or partly by the Federal Highway Administration. The American Road & Transportation Builders Association admits planting "a provision" in the highway bill for funding of speed enforcement on federally aided projects.
Let's return to Illinois—and its $1000 speeding fines—where two workers were killed by traffic vehicles last year. Nine workers, more than four times as many, were killed by construction mishaps in work zones, says the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
When you clear away the slogans, "Give 'em a brake" is not about worker safety. It's about government agencies spending money and raising more.
Give 'em a brake? What they want are your bucks.
BY PATRICK BEDARD
November 2005
Don't leave home without it" is one of those ad slogans that forever rattle around in the cerebral echo chamber, having been slammed in by cubic dollars' worth of media airtime. The words mean just about nothing. Don't leave home without what? Your underpants? Your snub-nosed .38? But we know they mean your American Express card because relentless advertising bombardment has welded the two nouns together in our minds.
This sort of hammer welding is extremely durable. I don't remember much about my mother's TV favorite, The Jack Benny Show, except for L.S./M.F.T.—"Lucky Strike Means Fine Tobacco."
But the hammer isn't necessary when the words are right. "Give 'em a brake." Of course! Don't hit road workers. Slow down in construction zones.
"Give 'em a brake" stuck with me the first time. It's clever. It's tight on the message. And maybe it has something else going for it. Are we the sort of unfeeling savages who would cut down humans in orange vests in exchange for shorter commutes?
No way!
Now there's another slogan with the same target. "Slow down or pay up." It's delivered by a looming trooper with a ticket book. I think I'll be able to remember that one, too.
At least one state has created an exceptionally effective reminder for work-zone speeds. In Illinois, the ticket for first-offense speeding in a construction zone comes with a $375 fine, the second offense is $1000 and a license suspension. In July, the state also began using photo radar in work zones.
Dare we ask how many construction workers they are killing in the Prairie State?
After a century of peaceful co-existence between road builders and road users, something has apparently changed. Suddenly, we're confronted by a killer epidemic seemingly more deadly than West Nile virus. The plight of construction workers is constantly held up before us, by roadway signs, by public-service announcements, by print ads. It even grabbed its own awareness week, April 3-9, this year—"National Work Zone Awareness Week"—complete with a high-pressure spray of statistics: work-zone fatalities rose "nearly 50 percent" nationally between 1997 and 2003 with 1028 deaths in that most recent year; one work-zone fatality occurs every 8.5 hours, three a day.
These are macabre numbers. They make it sound like Americans are motorized maniacs with no regard for the workers who make our highways possible.
This, to me, is a shocking notion. And I'll tell you what's even more shocking—it's not true. These numbers are for all traffic-related fatalities in work zones, including drivers, passengers, pedestrians, bicyclists, and others who were in the traffic stream. Workers, too, of course.
How many workers? Numerous studies over the years confirm that construction zones are dangerous, but they point to other killers. One study by the Centers for Disease Control counted 492 fatalities over the years 1992 to 1998: 306 of them were struck by vehicles—154 by construction vehicles and 152 by traffic vehicles.
Another study by the Center to Protect Workers' Rights, based on Bureau of Labor Statistics data for 1999, said that of 530 vehicle-related deaths of workers that year, 170 involved traffic vehicles and 360 were divided between workers in construction vehicles and workers on foot struck by heavy equipment or trucks.
For a list of gruesome ways to die, just read down the list of reports from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health: Laborer dies after being run over by asphalt roller; truck driver dies after his vehicle rolled over an embankment and came to rest on its top; asphalt-compactor operator dies from crushing injuries during machine rollover; 17-year-old laborer dies after being run over by a water truck; laborer dies after falling underneath the wheel of a front-end loader; crane operator falls 30 feet from a freeway overpass.
Now back to Illinois, the land of the $1000 speeding fines. It reports 39 work-zone fatalities last year; only two of them were workers. Moreover, two is the state's annual average over the past nine years, the only years covered in the latest report.
Obviously, "Give 'em a brake" in Illinois is cover for a program aimed at something else. What could it be? Consider this clue: The law states that workers needn't be present for a violation to occur.
Actual construction isn't necessary to trigger the violation, either. How many times have you driven past mile after mile of construction signs on a road otherwise undisturbed, lacking even the loose dust of past repairs? The public would surely object if the highway department simply put up signs that said, "Feeling lucky? Fines are double today." So it puts up construction signs instead and pretends to be saving defenseless workers from uncaring motorists.
Illinois is not alone in levying construction-zone penalties when no workers are present; 25 other states do so as well, and 18 of them double the fine or have some other way of upping the take.
There is, of course, the argument that 1028 people were killed in work zones in 2003, proving that these are dangerous places where motorists should slow down.
Maybe. But statistics from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration don't support that argument. Work-zone fatalities were only 2.4 percent of all traffic deaths in 2003. More than three times as many people were killed in crashes with shrubbery and trees. More than twice as many died in crashes with poles and posts. More were killed by crashes into guardrails.
Then why are we suddenly hearing so much about speeds in construction zones? Consider this from the state of Georgia: "Funding for this [work-zone awareness] campaign is being provided through a federal safety-awareness grant. The campaign includes statewide radio, television, and billboard ads to remind drivers to slow down in work zones." Every one of these campaigns is funded either entirely or partly by the Federal Highway Administration. The American Road & Transportation Builders Association admits planting "a provision" in the highway bill for funding of speed enforcement on federally aided projects.
Let's return to Illinois—and its $1000 speeding fines—where two workers were killed by traffic vehicles last year. Nine workers, more than four times as many, were killed by construction mishaps in work zones, says the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
When you clear away the slogans, "Give 'em a brake" is not about worker safety. It's about government agencies spending money and raising more.
03-09-2006, 04:55 PM
#7
Racer
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Longwood, Fl
Age: 62
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speeding is illegal! They double it when workers are present. How many people have to die to justify it to you? Do I speed sometimes...Yes...Do I whine when if I get caught....NO...You know speeding is wrong, if you can't pay the price, then drive the speed limit. But don't whine and complain that it is the government trying to make money.They are not making you drive faster then you should be. People should try a great concept called RESPONSIBILITY!!!!
Trending Topics
03-09-2006, 06:42 PM
#9
05WDP Midlife crisis
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: CT
Posts: 653
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boris, some times it ain't about the money. Remember court officers are people, who have bad days, perhaps the bonehead that came before you gave that person a rash of shit. You, unfortunately, are now on the receiving end of one pissed off person. Is it fair? Does it matter? No.
Also for the people who are not from CT. A quick history lesson.
We had a few horrible accidents where workers on the highway were either killed or injured terribly. Hence legislation that increased fines where work is being done. Also note that on EVERY work site there are signs posted that fines are doubled, for ahead of the actual work crews.
Now whether the construction site was a trap or a real site is not the point. You were going 73 in a 45 zone!!!! They are posted sites, and workers have been killed. It's not about you, it's about the DOT workers that you are whizzing by at 73 mph. They also have families too.
Bottom line you blew it, and hosed yourself!
So before everyone starts saying "ain't it a shame". Speeding in these zones are always monitored closely AND a state trooper, by law/contract, must be present at ALL times. So not only are you speeding, you are speeding with a trooper present.
So with all these facts in mind. Boris, I feel your pain. But I'm hoping you may have acquired a respect for the lives of those workers on the highway. The law, in this case is not meant to raise money for the state. It is to slow people down.
Also for the people who are not from CT. A quick history lesson.
We had a few horrible accidents where workers on the highway were either killed or injured terribly. Hence legislation that increased fines where work is being done. Also note that on EVERY work site there are signs posted that fines are doubled, for ahead of the actual work crews.
Now whether the construction site was a trap or a real site is not the point. You were going 73 in a 45 zone!!!! They are posted sites, and workers have been killed. It's not about you, it's about the DOT workers that you are whizzing by at 73 mph. They also have families too.
Bottom line you blew it, and hosed yourself!
So before everyone starts saying "ain't it a shame". Speeding in these zones are always monitored closely AND a state trooper, by law/contract, must be present at ALL times. So not only are you speeding, you are speeding with a trooper present.
So with all these facts in mind. Boris, I feel your pain. But I'm hoping you may have acquired a respect for the lives of those workers on the highway. The law, in this case is not meant to raise money for the state. It is to slow people down.
03-09-2006, 06:49 PM
#10
Randy is the Future
route 9 is terrible but ever since i got my encore radar detector i've been doing pretty goood.
03-09-2006, 06:52 PM
#11
The DVD-A Script Guy
For sure it is costly to speed in CT. Lived there all my life. But 73 in a 45 ? I know you were looking for some "slack" in court and I have also known many to get the "charity donation" in lieu of points on their record. But they weren't going almost 30MPH over posted. Even in a true 65 zone you might have been clipped for doing 73 in CT.
I think you got plenty of slack considering your violation. I'm surprized they didn't double it for a work-zone violation. (for non-CT folks it isn't uncommon to see a $300+ ticket in CT)
I think you got plenty of slack considering your violation. I'm surprized they didn't double it for a work-zone violation. (for non-CT folks it isn't uncommon to see a $300+ ticket in CT)
03-09-2006, 08:47 PM
#13
Man of God.....
All the more reason that on Monday I install my Passport SR1 hardwire radar detector! Oh, by the way in Minn. fines DOUBLE in construction zones! Yes $746....
03-10-2006, 10:28 AM
#14
Advanced
Join Date: Sep 2005
Age: 40
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Connecticut speeding tickets are crazy expensive.! I guess this is why Connecticut is one of the most richest states. I got around 3 speeding tickets in Connecticut going to the casino. And every single ticket I got must have been over 300$. I live in new york so the points and insurance dont go up. but still just the fines i have paid probley got me a new set of rims.
03-10-2006, 10:38 AM
#15
Drifting
When my sister was down at Quinnipiac in Hamden, my mom got grabbed on 84. It was her first ticket in about 15 years.The staties on that road are BASTARDS! Good luck!
03-10-2006, 11:27 AM
#16
Advanced
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Danbury, CT
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by chfields
Speeding is illegal! They double it when workers are present. How many people have to die to justify it to you? Do I speed sometimes...Yes...Do I whine when if I get caught....NO...You know speeding is wrong, if you can't pay the price, then drive the speed limit. But don't whine and complain that it is the government trying to make money.They are not making you drive faster then you should be. People should try a great concept called RESPONSIBILITY!!!!
I have zero problem taking RESPONSIBLITY. I have zero problem paying the full fee for speeding, as I've indicated. What I DO have a problem with is A) FAKE CONSTRUCTIONS ZONES for the purpose of lining their own pockets (you should see the New Britain court house - Saddam would have been jealous)! and B) paying the insurance companies extra for what does NOT amount to extra risk (if they or the cops were concerned about safety on the roads they'd have a clear #1 place to start: DRIVER EDUCATION).
03-10-2006, 11:50 AM
#17
Instructor
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Centennial, Colorado
Age: 69
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by chfields
Speeding is illegal! They double it when workers are present. How many people have to die to justify it to you? Do I speed sometimes...Yes...Do I whine when if I get caught....NO...You know speeding is wrong, if you can't pay the price, then drive the speed limit. But don't whine and complain that it is the government trying to make money.They are not making you drive faster then you should be. People should try a great concept called RESPONSIBILITY!!!!
Blamism is running rampant in this world. People (not just you, TL Boris) need to realize that there are consequences to their actions. Nobody forced you to drive 73 in a 45.
That was your choice.
You got caught.
Pay up and move on.
03-10-2006, 12:53 PM
#18
Cruisin'
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A fake construction zone. Yeah, sure. That is absolutely hilarious!
Even if that were true, you were exceeding a posted speed limit by 30 mph, brainiac. That's unsafe and irresponsible. Grow up, take your medicine, and stop whining.
And by the way, your "Saddam would have been jealous" remark is totally moronic and irrelevant. If you want to reference him in your whining rant, it should be in the context of how fortunate you are. Sadaam (correct spelling) would have:
1. Arrested you without having posted any speed limit
2. Disemboweled your entire family while you watched
3. Then, shot you in the head after he had your hands cut off
So as not to come across as completely critical and negative, here is some constructive advice. If you want to effectively pursue your claim of wrongful persecution, take some initiative and do what an intelligent adult would do, i.e. get an attorney, expose this fascist, oppresive behavior for all the world to see, become a media darling "working class hero", write a book, go on Oprah. Optional steps would then include running for Governor of Connecticut, winning (that's winning, not whining), then fixing the problem once and for all.
When a citizen of this country is wrongfully accused (hell, even rightfully accused), there are almost limitless, FREE resources to draw upon. Get a clue. Whining on an internet forum is the modern day version of pushing a shopping cart down the sidewalk and talking to yourself.
Even if that were true, you were exceeding a posted speed limit by 30 mph, brainiac. That's unsafe and irresponsible. Grow up, take your medicine, and stop whining.
And by the way, your "Saddam would have been jealous" remark is totally moronic and irrelevant. If you want to reference him in your whining rant, it should be in the context of how fortunate you are. Sadaam (correct spelling) would have:
1. Arrested you without having posted any speed limit
2. Disemboweled your entire family while you watched
3. Then, shot you in the head after he had your hands cut off
So as not to come across as completely critical and negative, here is some constructive advice. If you want to effectively pursue your claim of wrongful persecution, take some initiative and do what an intelligent adult would do, i.e. get an attorney, expose this fascist, oppresive behavior for all the world to see, become a media darling "working class hero", write a book, go on Oprah. Optional steps would then include running for Governor of Connecticut, winning (that's winning, not whining), then fixing the problem once and for all.
When a citizen of this country is wrongfully accused (hell, even rightfully accused), there are almost limitless, FREE resources to draw upon. Get a clue. Whining on an internet forum is the modern day version of pushing a shopping cart down the sidewalk and talking to yourself.
03-10-2006, 01:06 PM
#19
Doctor Sarcasm
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Central Florida
Age: 44
Posts: 1,107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by CCogan
A fake construction zone. Yeah, sure. That is absolutely hilarious!
Even if that were true, you were exceeding a posted speed limit by 30 mph, brainiac. That's unsafe and irresponsible. Grow up, take your medicine, and stop whining.
And by the way, your "Saddam would have been jealous" remark is totally moronic and irrelevant. If you want to reference him in your whining rant, it should be in the context of how fortunate you are. Sadaam (correct spelling) would have:
1. Arrested you without having posted any speed limit
2. Disemboweled your entire family while you watched
3. Then, shot you in the head after he had your hands cut off
So as not to come across as completely critical and negative, here is some constructive advice. If you want to effectively pursue your claim of wrongful persecution, take some initiative and do what an intelligent adult would do, i.e. get an attorney, expose this fascist, oppresive behavior for all the world to see, become a media darling "working class hero", write a book, go on Oprah. Optional steps would then include running for Governor of Connecticut, winning (that's winning, not whining), then fixing the problem once and for all.
When a citizen of this country is wrongfully accused (hell, even rightfully accused), there are almost limitless, FREE resources to draw upon. Get a clue. Whining on an internet forum is the modern day version of pushing a shopping cart down the sidewalk and talking to yourself.
Even if that were true, you were exceeding a posted speed limit by 30 mph, brainiac. That's unsafe and irresponsible. Grow up, take your medicine, and stop whining.
And by the way, your "Saddam would have been jealous" remark is totally moronic and irrelevant. If you want to reference him in your whining rant, it should be in the context of how fortunate you are. Sadaam (correct spelling) would have:
1. Arrested you without having posted any speed limit
2. Disemboweled your entire family while you watched
3. Then, shot you in the head after he had your hands cut off
So as not to come across as completely critical and negative, here is some constructive advice. If you want to effectively pursue your claim of wrongful persecution, take some initiative and do what an intelligent adult would do, i.e. get an attorney, expose this fascist, oppresive behavior for all the world to see, become a media darling "working class hero", write a book, go on Oprah. Optional steps would then include running for Governor of Connecticut, winning (that's winning, not whining), then fixing the problem once and for all.
When a citizen of this country is wrongfully accused (hell, even rightfully accused), there are almost limitless, FREE resources to draw upon. Get a clue. Whining on an internet forum is the modern day version of pushing a shopping cart down the sidewalk and talking to yourself.
It drives me insane when someone gets busted going almost 30 over the limit and then whines about it here!
03-10-2006, 02:17 PM
#20
Advanced
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose, CA
Age: 61
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by xtin
Bravo.
It drives me insane when someone gets busted going almost 30 over the limit and then whines about it here!
It drives me insane when someone gets busted going almost 30 over the limit and then whines about it here!
Connecticut in particular is notorious not only for rigid enforcement of speed limits, but for setting them inappropriatly low. Connecticut was one of the last states to raise speed limits after the 55 MPH federal law was lifted, even though there were many areas that could clearly support higher speeds. Take this 45 MPH zone. I lived most of my life in Connecticut, and probably have driven about 60K miles on rte 84 alone. There is no spot on 84 where a 45 MPH speed limit is appropriate, unless the construction zone in question had dropped traffic flow down to a single lane. The surest way to judge what an appropriate speed is for a given section of road is to see what the bulk of drivers are travelling at. Most people are not out there recklessly screaming down the road. They are trying to get somewhere quickly and safely. As a group, they do a very good job of selecting an appropriate speed. If there were still multiple lanes of traffic open through this construction zone, I would be willing to bet that very few people were actually travelling at the posted limit.
45 MPH is generally an appropriate speed limit for a two lane rural route that might have some moderatly short radius curves, along with side streets and some residential driveways. It is not an appropriate speed on a limited access, divided highway with banked curves, unless there is a *serious* flow restriction.
What motivates a state to set unreasonably low speed limits? I can't say for sure, but here are some probable guesses:
1) Legal liability. The state is responsible for maintaining the roads in adequate contdition for their intended traffic. Setting the limit low reduces their exposure on this front.
2) Cash generation. Every government denies they enforce speeding for this reason, but there is clearly an apparant conflict of interest here when they line their coffers by finding you guilty of speeding. The ethical thing for the state to do, would be to donate all of the proceeds from speeding tickets to a worthy cause like the American Cancer Society. Doing this would completely remove any conflict of interest, and we would soon see how truely concerned they were about enforcing speed limits for our safety. Instead of this, we see them raising fines. We also see estimates of future proceeds from traffic fines being included into budgetary forecasts. Hmmm.
3) Insurance fees. Connecticut is the insurance capital of the nation. More tickets mean higher insurance rates. Who knows how powerful the insurance lobby is within Connecticut, or even other states?
4) Most insidiously, setting speed limits artificialy low allows police to neatly sidestep our constitutionally granted right against illegal search and seizure. When 99% of the vehicles on the road are "speeding", the cops can pull over anyone they like without any other form of "just cause".
In any event, I'm suspicious enough to not be convinced that our various state bureacracies are setting and enforcing speed limits solely out of concern for our safety.
Just my
03-10-2006, 02:40 PM
#21
05WDP Midlife crisis
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: CT
Posts: 653
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boris when you entered the site you didn't know it wasn't a real construction site , so you drove through this area going 73 mph! End of story.
A speed limit is a law. You speed, you break the law. I speed, I get caught, it's MY fault. Not the cops, not the guy next to me, my foot on the accelerator last time I looked, accept responsibility. Cops are concerned about safety, they do the job that they are paid for, and that is to enforce the law.
I am all for raising the speed limit, I think it's a silly thing. But until it is changed I need to follow it or pay a fine. Those are the options.
If you weren't trying to get sympathy you wouldn't have titled your post "CT pigs", give me a break!
Oh, and Boris as far as I remember in my drivers education days, the tall white rectangular signs do have the posted speed limits on them. So CT does do a fine job with drivers ed. Now all we need to work on is DRIVERS COMPLIANCE.
A speed limit is a law. You speed, you break the law. I speed, I get caught, it's MY fault. Not the cops, not the guy next to me, my foot on the accelerator last time I looked, accept responsibility. Cops are concerned about safety, they do the job that they are paid for, and that is to enforce the law.
I am all for raising the speed limit, I think it's a silly thing. But until it is changed I need to follow it or pay a fine. Those are the options.
If you weren't trying to get sympathy you wouldn't have titled your post "CT pigs", give me a break!
Oh, and Boris as far as I remember in my drivers education days, the tall white rectangular signs do have the posted speed limits on them. So CT does do a fine job with drivers ed. Now all we need to work on is DRIVERS COMPLIANCE.
03-10-2006, 02:46 PM
#23
Chloe @ 17mo
Originally Posted by shockwave
Well, yes and no. If the speed limit posted is reasonable, and he was just screwing around, then he should expect exactly what he got. That being said, there are many valid arguments against the way speed limits are set and/or enforced in this country. Disagreement with the status quo is not automatically "whining". I could just as easily write off any of your complaints about his messages as whining.
Connecticut in particular is notorious not only for rigid enforcement of speed limits, but for setting them inappropriatly low. Connecticut was one of the last states to raise speed limits after the 55 MPH federal law was lifted, even though there were many areas that could clearly support higher speeds. Take this 45 MPH zone. I lived most of my life in Connecticut, and probably have driven about 60K miles on rte 84 alone. There is no spot on 84 where a 45 MPH speed limit is appropriate, unless the construction zone in question had dropped traffic flow down to a single lane. The surest way to judge what an appropriate speed is for a given section of road is to see what the bulk of drivers are travelling at. Most people are not out there recklessly screaming down the road. They are trying to get somewhere quickly and safely. As a group, they do a very good job of selecting an appropriate speed. If there were still multiple lanes of traffic open through this construction zone, I would be willing to bet that very few people were actually travelling at the posted limit.
45 MPH is generally an appropriate speed limit for a two lane rural route that might have some moderatly short radius curves, along with side streets and some residential driveways. It is not an appropriate speed on a limited access, divided highway with banked curves, unless there is a *serious* flow restriction.
What motivates a state to set unreasonably low speed limits? I can't say for sure, but here are some probable guesses:
1) Legal liability. The state is responsible for maintaining the roads in adequate contdition for their intended traffic. Setting the limit low reduces their exposure on this front.
2) Cash generation. Every government denies they enforce speeding for this reason, but there is clearly an apparant conflict of interest here when they line their coffers by finding you guilty of speeding. The ethical thing for the state to do, would be to donate all of the proceeds from speeding tickets to a worthy cause like the American Cancer Society. Doing this would completely remove any conflict of interest, and we would soon see how truely concerned they were about enforcing speed limits for our safety. Instead of this, we see them raising fines. We also see estimates of future proceeds from traffic fines being included into budgetary forecasts. Hmmm.
3) Insurance fees. Connecticut is the insurance capital of the nation. More tickets mean higher insurance rates. Who knows how powerful the insurance lobby is within Connecticut, or even other states?
4) Most insidiously, setting speed limits artificialy low allows police to neatly sidestep our constitutionally granted right against illegal search and seizure. When 99% of the vehicles on the road are "speeding", the cops can pull over anyone they like without any other form of "just cause".
In any event, I'm suspicious enough to not be convinced that our various state bureacracies are setting and enforcing speed limits solely out of concern for our safety.
Just my
Connecticut in particular is notorious not only for rigid enforcement of speed limits, but for setting them inappropriatly low. Connecticut was one of the last states to raise speed limits after the 55 MPH federal law was lifted, even though there were many areas that could clearly support higher speeds. Take this 45 MPH zone. I lived most of my life in Connecticut, and probably have driven about 60K miles on rte 84 alone. There is no spot on 84 where a 45 MPH speed limit is appropriate, unless the construction zone in question had dropped traffic flow down to a single lane. The surest way to judge what an appropriate speed is for a given section of road is to see what the bulk of drivers are travelling at. Most people are not out there recklessly screaming down the road. They are trying to get somewhere quickly and safely. As a group, they do a very good job of selecting an appropriate speed. If there were still multiple lanes of traffic open through this construction zone, I would be willing to bet that very few people were actually travelling at the posted limit.
45 MPH is generally an appropriate speed limit for a two lane rural route that might have some moderatly short radius curves, along with side streets and some residential driveways. It is not an appropriate speed on a limited access, divided highway with banked curves, unless there is a *serious* flow restriction.
What motivates a state to set unreasonably low speed limits? I can't say for sure, but here are some probable guesses:
1) Legal liability. The state is responsible for maintaining the roads in adequate contdition for their intended traffic. Setting the limit low reduces their exposure on this front.
2) Cash generation. Every government denies they enforce speeding for this reason, but there is clearly an apparant conflict of interest here when they line their coffers by finding you guilty of speeding. The ethical thing for the state to do, would be to donate all of the proceeds from speeding tickets to a worthy cause like the American Cancer Society. Doing this would completely remove any conflict of interest, and we would soon see how truely concerned they were about enforcing speed limits for our safety. Instead of this, we see them raising fines. We also see estimates of future proceeds from traffic fines being included into budgetary forecasts. Hmmm.
3) Insurance fees. Connecticut is the insurance capital of the nation. More tickets mean higher insurance rates. Who knows how powerful the insurance lobby is within Connecticut, or even other states?
4) Most insidiously, setting speed limits artificialy low allows police to neatly sidestep our constitutionally granted right against illegal search and seizure. When 99% of the vehicles on the road are "speeding", the cops can pull over anyone they like without any other form of "just cause".
In any event, I'm suspicious enough to not be convinced that our various state bureacracies are setting and enforcing speed limits solely out of concern for our safety.
Just my
03-10-2006, 02:55 PM
#24
Blazin with your Moms in
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Mass Histeria
Age: 51
Posts: 1,340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by CCogan
When a citizen of this country is wrongfully accused (hell, even rightfully accused), there are almost limitless, FREE resources to draw upon. Get a clue. ......
Im sure you can think of something better to address the issue than bitchin......
03-10-2006, 04:49 PM
#25
Racer
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Longwood, Fl
Age: 62
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by shockwave
Well, yes and no. If the speed limit posted is reasonable, and he was just screwing around, then he should expect exactly what he got. That being said, there are many valid arguments against the way speed limits are set and/or enforced in this country. Disagreement with the status quo is not automatically "whining". I could just as easily write off any of your complaints about his messages as whining.
Connecticut in particular is notorious not only for rigid enforcement of speed limits, but for setting them inappropriatly low. Connecticut was one of the last states to raise speed limits after the 55 MPH federal law was lifted, even though there were many areas that could clearly support higher speeds. Take this 45 MPH zone. I lived most of my life in Connecticut, and probably have driven about 60K miles on rte 84 alone. There is no spot on 84 where a 45 MPH speed limit is appropriate, unless the construction zone in question had dropped traffic flow down to a single lane. The surest way to judge what an appropriate speed is for a given section of road is to see what the bulk of drivers are travelling at. Most people are not out there recklessly screaming down the road. They are trying to get somewhere quickly and safely. As a group, they do a very good job of selecting an appropriate speed. If there were still multiple lanes of traffic open through this construction zone, I would be willing to bet that very few people were actually travelling at the posted limit.
45 MPH is generally an appropriate speed limit for a two lane rural route that might have some moderatly short radius curves, along with side streets and some residential driveways. It is not an appropriate speed on a limited access, divided highway with banked curves, unless there is a *serious* flow restriction.
What motivates a state to set unreasonably low speed limits? I can't say for sure, but here are some probable guesses:
1) Legal liability. The state is responsible for maintaining the roads in adequate contdition for their intended traffic. Setting the limit low reduces their exposure on this front.
2) Cash generation. Every government denies they enforce speeding for this reason, but there is clearly an apparant conflict of interest here when they line their coffers by finding you guilty of speeding. The ethical thing for the state to do, would be to donate all of the proceeds from speeding tickets to a worthy cause like the American Cancer Society. Doing this would completely remove any conflict of interest, and we would soon see how truely concerned they were about enforcing speed limits for our safety. Instead of this, we see them raising fines. We also see estimates of future proceeds from traffic fines being included into budgetary forecasts. Hmmm.
3) Insurance fees. Connecticut is the insurance capital of the nation. More tickets mean higher insurance rates. Who knows how powerful the insurance lobby is within Connecticut, or even other states?
4) Most insidiously, setting speed limits artificialy low allows police to neatly sidestep our constitutionally granted right against illegal search and seizure. When 99% of the vehicles on the road are "speeding", the cops can pull over anyone they like without any other form of "just cause".
In any event, I'm suspicious enough to not be convinced that our various state bureacracies are setting and enforcing speed limits solely out of concern for our safety.
Just my
Connecticut in particular is notorious not only for rigid enforcement of speed limits, but for setting them inappropriatly low. Connecticut was one of the last states to raise speed limits after the 55 MPH federal law was lifted, even though there were many areas that could clearly support higher speeds. Take this 45 MPH zone. I lived most of my life in Connecticut, and probably have driven about 60K miles on rte 84 alone. There is no spot on 84 where a 45 MPH speed limit is appropriate, unless the construction zone in question had dropped traffic flow down to a single lane. The surest way to judge what an appropriate speed is for a given section of road is to see what the bulk of drivers are travelling at. Most people are not out there recklessly screaming down the road. They are trying to get somewhere quickly and safely. As a group, they do a very good job of selecting an appropriate speed. If there were still multiple lanes of traffic open through this construction zone, I would be willing to bet that very few people were actually travelling at the posted limit.
45 MPH is generally an appropriate speed limit for a two lane rural route that might have some moderatly short radius curves, along with side streets and some residential driveways. It is not an appropriate speed on a limited access, divided highway with banked curves, unless there is a *serious* flow restriction.
What motivates a state to set unreasonably low speed limits? I can't say for sure, but here are some probable guesses:
1) Legal liability. The state is responsible for maintaining the roads in adequate contdition for their intended traffic. Setting the limit low reduces their exposure on this front.
2) Cash generation. Every government denies they enforce speeding for this reason, but there is clearly an apparant conflict of interest here when they line their coffers by finding you guilty of speeding. The ethical thing for the state to do, would be to donate all of the proceeds from speeding tickets to a worthy cause like the American Cancer Society. Doing this would completely remove any conflict of interest, and we would soon see how truely concerned they were about enforcing speed limits for our safety. Instead of this, we see them raising fines. We also see estimates of future proceeds from traffic fines being included into budgetary forecasts. Hmmm.
3) Insurance fees. Connecticut is the insurance capital of the nation. More tickets mean higher insurance rates. Who knows how powerful the insurance lobby is within Connecticut, or even other states?
4) Most insidiously, setting speed limits artificialy low allows police to neatly sidestep our constitutionally granted right against illegal search and seizure. When 99% of the vehicles on the road are "speeding", the cops can pull over anyone they like without any other form of "just cause".
In any event, I'm suspicious enough to not be convinced that our various state bureacracies are setting and enforcing speed limits solely out of concern for our safety.
Just my
03-10-2006, 04:54 PM
#26
Team Nighthawk Mambo King
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Westfield, MA
Age: 64
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
I've driven 84 from Sturbridge to Danbury and can say that when I see a CONSTRUCTION sign and all the warnings that go with it I do slow down and maintain the speed that others keep ....you my friend by going 73 on a posted 45 are well how can I say it...prey for the State Police quota days...and so are many out of staters....sorry for you but read my sig..........speed safely.....
03-11-2006, 11:35 PM
#27
Advanced
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Jose, CA
Age: 61
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by chfields
The problem with your theory is that if people didn't break the laws, they wouldn't collect any money or be able to raise insurance rates, etc.....I suppose you think they should let people drive any speed they want?? Even with the so called "low" limits, car accidents kill people more than anything else. If you want to drive that fast, become a Nascar driver. If you don't like the rules you are welcome to go to another country, go to germany and drive the Autobahn. This whining because you can't drive like a maniac is too funny for words. No wonder this society is going to hell in a basket!!!
People are always going to die on the highway unless we set the limit at 10 MPH. Is that what you would like to see? Then we would be perfectly safe. Oh joy.
If the limit was 10 MPH, would you not complain that it was too low, or would you go on ranting at anyone else who did?
Oh, and I think I'll just stay in this country, where I'm free to to write dissenting opinions of laws that I don't like on the internet. If you don't like reading these opinions, feel free to go to another forum.
03-12-2006, 10:06 AM
#28
Racer
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Longwood, Fl
Age: 62
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I never said anything about not liking reading the opinions, hell, I think its great for a laugh. I'm not the one whining about the laws, hell, I speed every day, but I do it in a way that is "acceptable", that is I don't weave in and out of traffic or drive excessively faster than those around me and I haven't had a speeding ticket in the last 15 years. If I should get caught one day, yeah I'll be pissed, but not at the cop, he's doing his job, I'm the one who chose to speed and I will pay the penalty!!If you are driving in the flow of traffic, even if traffic is running 85MPH, the police will not pull you over, provided of course your not doing something like riding someones bumper or weaving in and out of traffic.
03-12-2006, 07:35 PM
#29
Racer
Join Date: May 2004
Location: nj
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i run a survey crew. we post signs and show yellow lites to slow motorists down, rather than close the hiway. if you'd prefer, we CAN (and frequently DO) close 3-5 lanes down to one.
you got off LUCKY.
$373. would have been cheap compared to the beating you would have recieved if one of my crew had occasion to be around when you were clocked @ 73 in a 45 zone.
next time try it w/ your cell phone near your ear. i bet i could fit the Razr all the way in there.
-enjoy your day-
you got off LUCKY.
$373. would have been cheap compared to the beating you would have recieved if one of my crew had occasion to be around when you were clocked @ 73 in a 45 zone.
next time try it w/ your cell phone near your ear. i bet i could fit the Razr all the way in there.
-enjoy your day-
03-12-2006, 10:31 PM
#30
Racer
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Longwood, Fl
Age: 62
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mbwmn
i run a survey crew. we post signs and show yellow lites to slow motorists down, rather than close the hiway. if you'd prefer, we CAN (and frequently DO) close 3-5 lanes down to one.
you got off LUCKY.
$373. would have been cheap compared to the beating you would have recieved if one of my crew had occasion to be around when you were clocked @ 73 in a 45 zone.
next time try it w/ your cell phone near your ear. i bet i could fit the Razr all the way in there.
-enjoy your day-
you got off LUCKY.
$373. would have been cheap compared to the beating you would have recieved if one of my crew had occasion to be around when you were clocked @ 73 in a 45 zone.
next time try it w/ your cell phone near your ear. i bet i could fit the Razr all the way in there.
-enjoy your day-
Well said!!!!!
03-14-2006, 04:11 AM
#31
Instructor
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Age: 50
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi fellowes from CT, I didn' t realise so many of You are from CT, I live in Europe, but my partner lives in New Britain 06051, we have advertising company there, dealing with websites, prining facility and give aways.
I import acura parts to POland and vehicles, I bought one in Acura of Avon, I was in Juanuary for two weeks in New Britain and we were very often passing PIGS, they are very active there, take care ...
I import acura parts to POland and vehicles, I bought one in Acura of Avon, I was in Juanuary for two weeks in New Britain and we were very often passing PIGS, they are very active there, take care ...
03-14-2006, 11:36 AM
#32
Intermediate
Join Date: Jul 2005
Age: 45
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mbwmn
i run a survey crew. we post signs and show yellow lites to slow motorists down, rather than close the hiway. if you'd prefer, we CAN (and frequently DO) close 3-5 lanes down to one.
you got off LUCKY.
$373. would have been cheap compared to the beating you would have recieved if one of my crew had occasion to be around when you were clocked @ 73 in a 45 zone.
next time try it w/ your cell phone near your ear. i bet i could fit the Razr all the way in there.
-enjoy your day-
you got off LUCKY.
$373. would have been cheap compared to the beating you would have recieved if one of my crew had occasion to be around when you were clocked @ 73 in a 45 zone.
next time try it w/ your cell phone near your ear. i bet i could fit the Razr all the way in there.
-enjoy your day-
BTW, I'm also fully aware of how often 3-5 lanes are closed down to one around here.
03-14-2006, 12:32 PM
#33
Way Fast Whitey
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Age: 47
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is truly amazing how many SHeople we have on this forum. As for our speeder, buy the valentine and protect yourself.
For the sheep,
Sometimes police are wrong as well. Take the multiple examples of police beating the hell out of innicent people or the recent shooting that is now going on trial in CA.
Am I the only one that gets pissed off when an asshole cop turn on his lights and sirens so he can run a red light only to get ahead of everyone else. I have observed on several occasions this being done even if there is no call being responded to. There was a huge investigation in Houston recently about this by a local news reporter.
Cops are capable of being wrong too.
For the sheep,
Sometimes police are wrong as well. Take the multiple examples of police beating the hell out of innicent people or the recent shooting that is now going on trial in CA.
Am I the only one that gets pissed off when an asshole cop turn on his lights and sirens so he can run a red light only to get ahead of everyone else. I have observed on several occasions this being done even if there is no call being responded to. There was a huge investigation in Houston recently about this by a local news reporter.
Cops are capable of being wrong too.
03-14-2006, 02:14 PM
#35
Way Fast Whitey
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Age: 47
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My theory is if you buy the right radar detector you can see him hitting the car ahead of you. My Valentine has picked em up over a mile away on several occasions.
03-14-2006, 07:48 PM
#36
Racer
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In CT, rush hour traffic runs 70-80 mph and in the right lanes you will have a semi inches off your back bumper at 75 or below. Driving the speed limit (55 or 65) in CT would be dangerous. Generally the police let things fly along I-91, but all bets are off in constructions zones.
03-15-2006, 11:20 AM
#37
05WDP Midlife crisis
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: CT
Posts: 653
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by CBR1100XX
It is truly amazing how many SHeople we have on this forum. As for our speeder, buy the valentine and protect yourself.
For the sheep,
Sometimes police are wrong as well. Take the multiple examples of police beating the hell out of innicent people or the recent shooting that is now going on trial in CA.
Am I the only one that gets pissed off when an asshole cop turn on his lights and sirens so he can run a red light only to get ahead of everyone else. I have observed on several occasions this being done even if there is no call being responded to. There was a huge investigation in Houston recently about this by a local news reporter.
Cops are capable of being wrong too.
For the sheep,
Sometimes police are wrong as well. Take the multiple examples of police beating the hell out of innicent people or the recent shooting that is now going on trial in CA.
Am I the only one that gets pissed off when an asshole cop turn on his lights and sirens so he can run a red light only to get ahead of everyone else. I have observed on several occasions this being done even if there is no call being responded to. There was a huge investigation in Houston recently about this by a local news reporter.
Cops are capable of being wrong too.
Sheep? Police beating people? What the heck are you talking about?
How would you know if this cop didn't get an assist call that was then canceled by their dispatcher within 15 seconds. They turn their lights and siren on, then shut off lights and siren when the receive the cancel call. You are only assuming the worst. It's called benefit of the doubt.
03-15-2006, 12:29 PM
#38
Way Fast Whitey
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Age: 47
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by joed40
This has nothing to do with the original post of, you do something wrong, own it and get on with your life. It's called taking responsibility for one's actions (better known as maturity)
Sheep? Police beating people? What the heck are you talking about?
How would you know if this cop didn't get an assist call that was then canceled by their dispatcher within 15 seconds. They turn their lights and siren on, then shut off lights and siren when the receive the cancel call. You are only assuming the worst. It's called benefit of the doubt.
Sheep? Police beating people? What the heck are you talking about?
How would you know if this cop didn't get an assist call that was then canceled by their dispatcher within 15 seconds. They turn their lights and siren on, then shut off lights and siren when the receive the cancel call. You are only assuming the worst. It's called benefit of the doubt.
Do the cops give us the benefit of doubt or write tickets?
03-15-2006, 12:43 PM
#39
Way Fast Whitey
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Age: 47
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BTW, the cops weren't responding to a call they were going to the station. When he tried to interview them they were freaked out because he recorded it all on camera. It was hillarious watching them squirm.
03-15-2006, 03:06 PM
#40
05WDP Midlife crisis
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: CT
Posts: 653
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not familiar with the specifics of any incidents. Houston is not one of my sources for local news especially when I live in CT.
I am referring to the generalizations that some use after they are on the receiving end of a ticket when being stopped for breaking a law. Instead of accepting responsibility the buffoons will lash out at the inappropriate person, the cop, and not themselves, the person who actually broke the law.
Cops are people and should be held to the same level of accountability as anyone else, no argument there, and I guess the sheep reference must also be a local thing.
I am referring to the generalizations that some use after they are on the receiving end of a ticket when being stopped for breaking a law. Instead of accepting responsibility the buffoons will lash out at the inappropriate person, the cop, and not themselves, the person who actually broke the law.
Cops are people and should be held to the same level of accountability as anyone else, no argument there, and I guess the sheep reference must also be a local thing.