Back Home In The USA One Day And ...

[XP715]

Whoa, how does that work... the reply posts before the comment?

I think I might've f@#ked it up when I went back to edit my post; I think I may have deleted my initial post by mistake and just re-posted the edited version as new? I dunno, I kinda suck at the internets.

[Robert Hall]

I think I might've f@#ked it up when I went back to edit my post; I think I may have deleted my initial post by mistake and just re-posted the edited version as new? I dunno, I kinda suck at the internets.

Well, the internet is a series of tubes, not a big truck.. Packets move in mysterious ways some times.

[ocnblu]

Oh XP, you and me both. Carry on! Edited November 27, 2008 by ocnblu

[Oracle of Delphi]

I think I might've f@#ked it up when I went back to edit my post; I think I may have deleted my initial post by mistake and just re-posted the edited version as new? I dunno, I kinda suck at the internets.

It's OK XP, I still lovs ya!

[z28luvr01]

OK, here's the thing. Whether you think that checkpoints are unnecessary or an infringement of your rights is immaterial and is no excuse for the way you treated the cops. They are just doing their job and carrying out the laws set by the state. If you have a problem with the laws, write your Congressman, or better yet, run for Congress and change them yourself. But to give an innocent person a hard time when they a) are just enforcing a principle established several levels above him and b) could be home sleeping but instead chooses to stay out protecting the public is a pretty poor showing on your part. I expect better from you.

[Camino LS6]

As Z has just pointed out, there are really two issues here.

The first being the principle of the thing, on which I agree with PCS and Carbiz. "Sobriety checkpoints" are a gross misuse of authority in a free society. No such enforcement techniques should be tolerated. I too, will always speak-up for individual freedom above all else.

That said, being a smartass to a state cop isn't the wisest course of action. And, it really isn't directing the complaint in the right direction.

[balthazar]

>>"these were campaign promises, and will be acted on"<<

Boy, have you 'blues' got a rude awakening coming !!

[FAPTurbo]

Just standing up for my individual rights as a US citizen, oh that's right, you're in Canada.

Politeness and courtesy transcend boundaries.

[ocnblu]

Ohhhh PISS OFF, BOOYAH!:AH-HA_wink:

[Intrepidation]

I wish the Turkey was done. v_v

[Lamar]

That same Wednesday night, I got a speeding ticket (72ish in a 60) from a cop with its lights off that I didn't see until too late.

I ain't cryin... even though I wasn't being unsafe either. I was passing a truck.

My take: Put the cop away as quickly as possible. No sense prolonging stuff when you got somewhere to go.

Edited November 28, 2008 by Lamar

[longtooth]

I didn't say it wasn't, but the people in Delaware have asked that these sweeping checks be curtailed, with the old Repubs in the Statehouse blocking the will of the people each and every time. But they no longer control the State Senate, or the State House of Representatives and of course our Governor is Blue. So what I was saying was that come January this will be amended along with Obama taking a long hard look at the P A.

The legislature goes back to work in January, these were campaign promises, and will be acted on then

I wonder why I am the only member here who is called Dumbass, pompous ass, smart ass, prick, asshole, arrogant, etc.

I have always treated people on C&G with respect and have never resorted to name calling or used the above listed epitaphs to anyone here.

Seems there are different rules here, when it comes to me anyhow.

Have a Great Thanksgiving!!!

Those'd be 'epithets'.

An epitaph is what is graven into one's tombstone.

This is the reason you'll often hear a person described as a d*ckhead rather than seeing it chiseled into a monument.

[Satty]

I put "dickhead" on an epitaph after a particularly unsuccessful game of Oregon Trail.

[daves87rs]

I put "dickhead" on an epitaph after a particularly unsuccessful game of Oregon Trail.

[daves87rs]

As Z has just pointed out, there are really two issues here.

The first being the principle of the thing, on which I agree with PCS and Carbiz. "Sobriety checkpoints" are a gross misuse of authority in a free society. No such enforcement techniques should be tolerated. I too, will always speak-up for individual freedom above all else.

That said, being a smartass to a state cop isn't the wisest course of action. And, it really isn't directing the complaint in the right direction.

I would agree with Camino too on this....and this coming from a person who has loss TWO friends to drunk driving.

And what most people fail to realize is that these checkpoints really do not help at all.

The guy who flipped my friend's truck WAS STOPPED AT A CHECKPOINT. And even drunks can avoid these points anyways....

I find that cops can tend to be real dumbasses at times..(This coming from someone who has two friends who are cops..)

And I agree with Cap-that was the biggest bar night of the year...

It's lovely to see a bashing post on thanksgiving.....

[longtooth]

I put "dickhead" on an epitaph after a particularly unsuccessful game of Oregon Trail.

It's widely known.

[Satty]

It's widely known.

Really? I dont recall telling anyone.

[Intrepidation]

Oregon Trail FTW

[deftonesfan867]

I haven't played that in years, and being a dick to the cop is FTL. He should've and could've taken you to jail for not cooperating also.

[Intrepidation]

I got a warning for having a blown headlight in the GM. That was irritating because I was waiting on the parts to fix it. My fault for driving it at night I suppose, but it gets annoying when you see dip&#036;h&#33; in his Honda Civic driving like a retard. Or that asshat who flies across all 3 lanes of highway traffic narrowly avoiding clipping other cars, etc. etc. and not pulled over.

Of course Andover cops are dicks, it's common knowledge. By contrast the Lawrence police don't give a &#036;h&#33;. They never actually send a cop out when I've called at 3am because some dickhead in his Civic just did a burnout on the hill and woke me up. Last time they did it we just chased them off in our own car. f@#kers. It pisses me off to no end when pricks do burnouts late at night in a neighborhood. Take it to some rual street or something if you feel like blowing a tire.

Of course these are the same cops that turn on their lights/sirens to go through a red light then turn them off afterward.

Edited November 28, 2008 by Dodgefan

[Lamar]

Of course these are the same cops that turn on their lights/sirens to go through a red light then turn them off afterward.

So it's not just Maryland?

[Intrepidation]

So it's not just Maryland?

Apparently Not!

Edited November 28, 2008 by Dodgefan

[Charger4U]

I sometimes feel like it is my unmoral duty to be a smart-ass to police officers so i know where your coming from pontiac customs.

by the way, where did you come from in Europe?

[Sixty8panther]

I have to go with PCS on this one...

BOTH Roadside checkpoints AND the Patriot Act are unconstitutional and unAmerican.

I've never been pulled over in any sort of mass Sobriety checkpoint but if I had, truth

be told I might have reacted with the exact same answers to their prying questions.

Where you have been and where you are going have NOTHING to do with Sobriety.

Pulling people over to ensure sobriety is fine with me ONLY if it is done on an individual

case basis, one car, pulled over by one or two cops, based on probable cause.

----

Back in April/May of 2007, a few weeks after I bought the '59 Buick, I decided to go

take a look at a certain 455-powered '76 Buick. Most of you will remember this car as

the brown/bronze 4-door hardtop that I ended up selling to Fly later on that summer.

My buddy Robin came along with me to take a looksie at the bicentenial Buick, we drove

the B-59 up to the small, yuppie-loaded Fishing Village on the North Shore, I looked &

photographed the '76 Buick up and down, I told the guy I most likely would be back if &

when I sold one of my cars and we decided to head back to Chelmsford.

Hours later, Robin had blown $200 at the local strip club on booze and the empty promise

of vagina.... I quite literally had to help him into the B-59, he was drunk as a skunk.

Going home I crossed over a small bridge that was under construction, it was down to one

lane & traffic was forced to alternate via a makeshift light. I got the green & drove across

slowly, then zig-zagged around the manhole covers on the stripped road past the bridge,

in other words the old asphalt had been scraped down about 5-7" & so the manhole covers

& storm drains stick up 4-8", often times this gets done and weeks go by before new

asphalt is Lid down. This idiotic practice is common in New England, esp. Mass.

The point is that unless you have 33" super-swamper tires it's best to drive around these

obstacles, instead of risking a flat tire, bending a rim or both. But I got pulled over for:

1. driving too slow across the bridge

2. swerving around

The cop was polite enough and I told him that while i had not been drinking I was driving

Robin home from the strip club and he HAD more than he should have. Still I had to

answer a whole list of questions, some sensible, some idiotic:

I explained to the cop that was driving slow across the bridge because the B-59 is MUCh

wider than a typical car and the ONE lane of the bridge that is open was quite narrow...

also, I had the fear of some jackass running into me head-on from the other side of the

bridge, some dolt who might run the red and fail to notice traffic is supposed to alternate.

I was quite annoyed, but remained polite. Had it been a "check point" stop I would have

certainly have made mention of my civil liberties being violated.

----

Balthazar: This IS still be best county in the universe but it certainly sux compared to

the USA of the 20th century. I can see why you're offended by PCS's rant, being that

he slams the USA for stupid reasons at times...

[daves87rs]

So it's not just Maryland?

Nope!

[Sixty8panther]

The first being the principle of the thing, on which I agree with PCS and Carbiz. "Sobriety checkpoints" are a gross misuse of authority in a free society. No such enforcement techniques should be tolerated. I too, will always speak-up for individual freedom above all else.

Agreed!!!

That said, being a smartass to a state cop isn't the wisest course of action. And, it really isn't directing the complaint in the right direction.

Right.

I called a cop a NAZI when I was 22, he WAS

a d!ck and I DID manage to prove, with info.

from the Law Library in the Courthouse that

I photocopied from some book called the "Mass

State Police Procedures & Guidelines" or some

other such crap, that HE was in the wrong...

And guess where it got me?

The Judge told ME I was responsible ANYWAY,

and now it's on my permanent record that I

called a police officer a "Nazi".

Wonder why I never catch a break these days

& even got a ticket for doing 42 in a 35.

The cop WAS just doing his job.

But, let's forget all that for a sec.

PCS is slamming the USA for RSCs and the lack

of "individual liberties" in the USA there days ,

post 9/11, but he's happy to wax poetic about

the EU, where, any intelligent person will tell

you, the laws are much more restrictive & in

Germany (just one for instance) you can even

get ticketed for:

"Driving Without a Destination"

In other words, taking a joyride.

[Satty]

We had a few sobriety checkpoints Halloween night, but they announced them about a week in advance and none of them were actually around the "bar district" or near heavily populated areas where a lot of children would be out walking.

[Sixty8panther]

Satty:

Please DO elaborate.

Are you saying (as I suspect) that the REAL agenda was not DUI arrests?

[Satty]

They were all set up on 4-lane roads heading away from town, the nearest one to the pub crawl was 6 miles away. While there was a police presence, if they had wanted to do a real public service, they would have had sobriety checkpoints closer to downtown, where there were 20,000 people drinking. I'm willing to bet most of the arrests they made were for outstanding warrants and most of the tickets they issued were seatbelt violations or possibly posession, neither of which is a crime worthy of a police checkpoint.

[Sixty8panther]

Well I agree 100%.

BTW: While I almost ALWAYS wear my seatbelt

and occasionaly give my friends & relatives a

hard time for not, I do NOT agree with seatbelt

laws, esp. where it's the only offense you got

pulled over for.

[balthazar]

I actually can see valid points from both sides of the issue.

-- -- -- -- --

>>"I might have reacted with the exact same answers to their prying questions.

Where you have been and where you are going have NOTHING to do with Sobriety."<<

C'mon guys, you should all be able to see thru this!

'Where you are coming from' is completely unverifiable; ie- you can answer with any one of 2 dozen choices, no proof is ever requested and the cop will not know if it's the truth or not. Asking that question is NOT to find out where you've been and 'invade your privacy', it's a topical question the applies to every motorist on the road and ususally entails at least a sentence in answer - this is where undue nervousness, slurring of speech and nonsensical answers point toward being under a controlled substance/alcohol. Cop doesn't care where you were, he's assessing 'where you are right now'.

[Satty]

MO law used to be that a seatbelt violation was an add-on, but now it can be the sole offense. They can even issue the driver a ticket if their passengers (front or rear) aren't belted.

[Sixty8panther]

Sorry Balth. I cannot agree with you here.

BUT

How about some OTHER random questions:

The cop could take your license & reg. &

ask you to repeat all the info back, like the

name, address, DOB, vehicle make, model,

year & such stuff.

----

MO law used to be that a seatbelt violation was an add-on, but now it can be the sole offense. They can even issue the driver a ticket if their passengers (front or rear) aren't belted.

Now THAT IS COMPLETELY BULL$HIT!!!!

Edited November 28, 2008 by Sixty8panther

[Satty]

It may only be for drivers between 16-21, or whatever the ages are for graduated licensing. They can fine someone with an intermediate license if they're between 16-18 and have more than one passenger under age 19 for the first 6 months or more than 3 passengers under 19 until they get their full license.

[Robert Hall]

MO law used to be that a seatbelt violation was an add-on, but now it can be the sole offense. They can even issue the driver a ticket if their passengers (front or rear) aren't belted.

That seems reasonable to me..it is the driver's responsibility to ensure their passengers are all buckled in.

[Sixty8panther]

My Ex refused to EVER buckle her seatbelt... EVER.

Even after I got her a matching-tan colored fuzzy

anti-neck-rubbing thing-a-ma-gig for the belt in the

Cadillac STS so that her "it chokes me" excuse

would be put to sleep.

And wanna hear something even funnier...?

Julie will not wear her seatbelt to save her life either

& after much arguing I decided to pick my battles &

let it go...

So I guess I deserve points on my license & financial

loss because of my wife's choice.

[daves87rs]

MO law used to be that a seatbelt violation was an add-on, but now it can be the sole offense. They can even issue the driver a ticket if their passengers (front or rear) aren't belted.

Also true here, and the ticket can cost and arm and a leg......

[daves87rs]

That seems reasonable to me..it is the driver's responsibility to ensure their passengers are all buckled in.

Normally I would say yes, but if your buddy is being a prick and doesn't want to wear it, why should I have to pay?

That happened to my friend and he got a nice ticket for it.....

[balthazar]

>>"Sorry Balth. I cannot agree with you here."<<

Your objection is you shouldn't have to tell the cop where you've been, correct?

Go ahead & lie to protect your travel starting point- there's no reprocussions to doing so because it's not verified. Bingo- your privacy is 'protected'. This question & your answer is far less likely to trip you up than receiting your license info verbatim or the like- something the cops also don't need to hear what you say (your license is in their hand after all), just how you say it.

I often don't belt up- it comes from my early 'mind meld' of owning/driving pre-seatbelt-mandated vehicles, and it's stuck with me. I try and make a point of it on highways & long trips, but often around town, I don't.

68- is your B-59 retro-fitted with belts? I am intending to put in front outer lap belts and that's it.

[Intrepidation]

I really don't mind the seatbelt law, since it's common sense that so many people seem to lack anyway, and it should be done for safety's sake in the first place.

[Sixty8panther]

The B-59 lacks seatbelts all together, front and back.

But of course the car would not be much fun if I

could not take Sofia along so I made a safe method

of attaching her booster seat.

I took a machete and cut two small slices in the

seat cover right where the seatbelt should anchor

to the booster seat, and then I used 800lbs. chain to

hold the seat, attaching the other end to the stamped

rails built into the trunk. It's a bit redneck-arific but I

did explain nd show it to a curious cop, who then

proceeded to raise an eyebrow, to which I said:

"The seat is held in by the attachment points that were

specified by the manufacturer, and CHAIN certainly is

just as strong, if not more-so than seat belts, and my

daughter is held in by the proper seatbelts built into the

booster seat..."

He could not help but agree.

[Camino LS6]

OK, I have a question.

What is the legal status of a pre-seatbelt car in a seatbelt required state? Do they have to be added to every classic? Or are you exempt from the law in such cars?

[CARBIZ]

In Ontario, if the vehicle was not equipped with seatbelts, then the driver doesn't have to wear them, which would exempt most cars up to the early '70s, since even in most late '60s cars, seatbelts were optional.

[Robert Hall]

In Ontario, if the vehicle was not equipped with seatbelts, then the driver doesn't have to wear them, which would exempt most cars up to the early '70s, since even in most late '60s cars, seatbelts were optional.

In the US, I thought seatbelts became required as standard around 1964..

I couldn't imagine driving a car w/o seatbelts... I've driven cars w/ the lapbelt and separate roof-mounted shoulder belt arrangement, rather uncomfortable (my '69 Mustang has that). IIRC, my folks' '67 Cougar has lap belts in the front only, no rear lap belts. The '68s have lap belts in the front, the separate shoulder belt, and rear lap belts.

[z28luvr01]

OK, I have a question.

What is the legal status of a pre-seatbelt car in a seatbelt required state? Do they have to be added to every classic? Or are you exempt from the law in such cars?

In NY, I'm pretty sure you have to wear whatever the car initially came with. This means:

1) Pre-seatbelts: no seatbelt required.

2) Separate lap/shoulder bets: you must wear BOTH pieces.

3) Integrated lap/shouler belts: required

[cletus8269]

got the two point harness system in my impala. those shoulder belts have been in the hangers for years now. the only time i take them out is to answer someones question on what they are and how they work. i was told a lot of people burned up in cars with those setups that thay couldnt un latch.

[daves87rs]

OK, I have a question.

What is the legal status of a pre-seatbelt car in a seatbelt required state? Do they have to be added to every classic? Or are you exempt from the law in such cars?

I's going to check, but I want to say if it did not come with them, you don't have to wear them...

[balthazar]

There has never been a retro-active auto equipment law AFAIK.

The only thing that comes remotely close (and IMO it's not at all the same as 'vehicle equipment') is child restraint devices/ manners.

No state mandates you to install belts where they weren't before, but I know for a fact that if your vehicle has belts and you are not wearing them, you can be ticketed, even if that vehicle is pre-mandate. I don't know if you could fight and win that; I believe if the car has them, by law they should be on.

If you have a pre '67 car (front lap belts were federally mandated in Jan '66) without belts, you cannot be ticketed.

I cannot imagine the cops would press a situation where a date built code would prove you in the right. In other words, Camino- pre-mandate cars are exempt. I have read this statue in the state motor code books.

GM started building cars with provisions for easy belt mounting (threaded bungs in the floor) for the '62 MY.

I believe rear belts came online for '68.

I am trying to take to heart the words of a cop friend of mine- he's seen horrific accident injuries due to not wearing belts, but he won't elaborate.

[Camino LS6]

I was just curious.

I rarely wore a belt until a few years ago, and still don't care for many of them (uncomfortable). Still, I do wear one much of the time now - but not always.

I wear one mostly because the traffic volume is so high around here now (and the percentage of idiots so high), not because of the law.

I just wondered about the legalities of it all.

[Robert Hall]

Interesting...I don't think I've ever driven without using a belt, and I've been driving for 22 years now. Definitely prefer a 3-point belt to the old timey two piece (those are uncomfortable because at least in '68-69 Fords, the upper piece doesn't retract once in place).

Edited November 30, 2008 by moltar