How about #$$HOLE RAGE?

[QUOTE=Gadgetech;820224] I see blatant law breaking going on in front

thanx for the vote of sympathy, but for me it's not so much the law breaking as the mind-bending stunts and antics.

Story from Germany some years back. A person was tailgating on the autobahn. The people in the car in front took the license number and reported it to the police. The police laid charges and it went to court. A passenger in the tailgating car had to testify and with both the plaintiffs' and the passenger's testimony the driver was found guilty and fined something in the range of 800 Euros. He probably had a mark placed against his license also. So, it can be done without direct police witnessing of the offense. I guess it just needs more than one witness to convict.

I've seen police cars....at least the state troopers that are stealth. Some are even driving beige SUV's. It's still not that tuff even w/ a rack of lights on a black and white Crown Vic'. It's not like the bobos are actually checking their mirrors for anything but hairstyling.

PS don'cha love the guys who apparently carry a hairbrush in their car?


PPS you should see the view from up here on the soap box...gaaaaaaaahhh!! nose bleed.

A police officer in most cases, cannot write a summons for a moving violation he didn't personally observe.
In the US it's difficult for a citizen to bring a motor vehicle moving violation charge and see it successfully prosecuted in court. You not only need to testify to the the plate number, vehicle description, time of day, weather and road conditions, but also you must identify the driver in court, somewhat difficult if you only saw a fleeting profile as he went by you and court is now 6 weeks later and he's now clean shaven and well dressed, nothing like the dirtbag you saw that day. Defendant's attorney will try to confuse you and will play up the fact that you are not a professional, hence, maybe you mean well, but you are an unreliable, mistaken witness. All this plays into the doubt factor. They will also come up with an excuse to have the court appearance delayed at the last minute. Do you really want to take 2 or 3 vacation days off work or lose pay for the matter? Most towns do not have a night court.

As far as the police officer out for speeders and not stopping cars at the construction merge, from what was described, the area is already dangerously narrow and constricting, and not a safe place for officers or the public to make a stop there. IOW- he could make the situation worse. If he were to pull the vehicle over well past the construction, he'd be wasting a lot of time making a U-turn at the next exit, working his way back the other way, and working his way thru the construction again. It wouldn't be very productive from a time standpoint.

[QUOTE=ClassicVW;820325]A police officer in most cases, cannot write a summons for a moving violation he didn't personally observe.
In the US it's difficult for a citizen to bring a motor vehicle moving violation charge and see it successfully prosecuted in court. You not only need to testify to the the plate number, vehicle description, time of day, weather and road conditions, but also you must identify the driver in court, somewhat difficult if you only saw a fleeting profile as he went by you and court is now 6 weeks later and he's now clean shaven and well dressed, nothing like the dirtbag you saw that day. Defendant's attorney will try to confuse you and will play up the fact that you are not a professional, hence, maybe you mean well, but you are an unreliable, mistaken witness. All this plays into the doubt factor. They will also come up with an excuse to have the court appearance delayed at the last minute. Do you really want to take 2 or 3 vacation days off work or lose pay for the matter? Most towns do not have a night court.

As far as the police officer out for speeders and not stopping cars at the construction merge, from what was described, the area is already dangerously narrow and constricting, and not a safe place for officers or the public to make a stop there. IOW- he could make the situation worse. If he were to pull the vehicle over well past the construction, he'd be wasting a lot of time making a U-turn at the next exit, working his way back the other way, and working his way thru the construction again. It wouldn't be very productive from a time standpoint.[/QUOTE]

Spot on!

Another scenario..the hidden trooper may very well be the 'chase car' for other troopers in plain clothes/cars/constructtion vehicle that are stationary in the work zone. Some departments will dress an officer in construction clothes and radio to the chase car to stop the idiots!

When it comes to vehicles that are being driven in a manner that has the hair standing up on your neck, I much prefer to have these vehicles in front of me than behind. Being behind permits you to have time and distance to choose your avoidance maneuver. I also find it much easier to observe things to my front than in my mirrors.

Remember, it's much less likely to be "rear ended" by a car in front of you than one that is behind.

[QUOTE=brewmeister;819194]I think I can honestly say crazy/mad/lunatic drivers are THE MAIN REASON I speed , to get away from these nut jobs NOW!..[/QUOTE]


LOL, great rationalisation.........Rod.