Judge Says You Can Warn Others About Speed Traps 457
cartechboy writes "Speeding is against the law, and yes, even going 5 mph over the speed limit is breaking the law. But everyone does it, right? What about when you see a cop? Some cops are ticketing people for notifying fellow motorists about speed traps. In Florida, Ryan Kintner simply flashed his high-beams to warning oncoming cars that there was a cop ahead. He was given a ticket for doing so. He went to court to fight the ticket, and a judge ruled that flashing lights are the equivalent of free speech, thus he had every right to flash his lights to warn oncoming cars."
Common sense? In MY judiciary? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary? (Score:5, Informative)
The Australian road rules sidesteps the "warning" issue:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/l... [austlii.edu.au]
AUSTRALIAN ROAD RULES - REG 218
Using headlights on high-beam
218 Using headlights on high-beam
(1) The driver of a vehicle must not use the vehicleâ(TM)s headlights on high-beam, or allow the vehicleâ(TM)s headlights to be used on high-beam, if the driver is driving:
(a) less than 200 metres behind a vehicle travelling in the same direction as the driver, or
(b) less than 200 metres from an oncoming vehicle.
Penalty: Offence provision.
Note: "High-beam" and "oncoming vehicle" are defined in the dictionary.
(2) However, if the driver is overtaking a vehicle, the driver may briefly switch the headlights from low-beam to high-beam immediately before the driver begins to overtake the vehicle.
Note: "Low-beam" and "overtake" are defined in the dictionary.
Re: (Score:3)
Whoops, that was from the repealed/superseded regulations list. It's still illegal in Queensland and NSW, though. Here's the _current_ Qld rules:
A driver must not switch headlights to high beam if another vehicle is closer than 200m in front of the driver's vehicle.
A driver may flash the headlights briefly before overtaking another vehicle.
Drivers must ensure that they do not dazzle other road users.
Re: (Score:3)
So don't use your high-beams, just quickly turn the low beams on and off.
Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary? (Score:5, Funny)
You mean I can't use my amazing dance moves?
Re: (Score:3)
If you do that, someone might dance back. Then it's on.
Re: (Score:2)
This doesn't seem like a big deal, you just flash your low-beams or fog lamps instead.
Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary? (Score:5, Insightful)
In the US our constitution usually trumps all other law. Look to the old "Jim Crowe" laws we used to have. They were basically like this, rules that at first appearence appeared to be meant to do one thing but what they actually did was infringe on constiutional rights. They were all struck down eventually.
So a cop could ticket you here for unlawful use of your lights, but the very fact that the police had setup a speed trap would make flashing them legal, because you were no longer using the lights to illuminate the highway but instead making a statement and invoking your right to free speech. In our country "Free speech" is upheld as the ultimate right... not to be infringed upon accept in very dire situations. For example the "Shouting fire in a crowded theater" scenario. The police would have to prove that the flashing of your lights posed a significant hazard to the public to get the ticket to stick.
Lastly I'd like to point out that all of this is somewhat irrelevant. The police can badger you into submission by simply ticketing you for this every time, and then taking it to court every time. Though it may get struck down, the legal battle would cost you time and money.
Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary? (Score:4, Informative)
Way back in the day, The RAC (breakdown rescue club) used to have uniformed drivers who were famous for saluting motorists - the reason they did so was not to be polite, but to warn them of upcoming speed traps - if they didn't salute, you slowed down. Of course, this didn't count as warning the motorist as the RAC man hadn't done anything... literally.
I guess the point about trying to catch speeding drivers is that these are the ones who will speed up after they've gone past the trap and continue to be dangerous - best to catch them and take note of who they are so they can be banned after they've been caught enough times.
Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, that argument doesn't work. Supposedly the idea isn't just to make you drive the speed limit at the speed trap, it's to make you drive the speed limit *everywhere* because you don't know where the speed traps are.
Fine x Probability of Being Caught = Incentive (Score:5, Interesting)
Seems as though the police should actually want people to know about the speed traps. I mean, the ultimate goal for the police is to have everyone follow the law. If people know about an upcoming speed trap, then they'll slow down to the speed limit. If they don't know about the speed trap, then they'll continue to endanger those around them by driving too fast. </delightfully naive>
Of course, we all know that what the police really want is ticket revenue. The more law breakers there are, the more revenue they get, and hence they will try to stop people from warning others to obey the law. This system is rather broken.
You assume that the justice system is calibrated incorrectly. Ideally, the penalty for speeding is designed to disincentivize the behavior and is multiplied to make up for the discount from the low probability of getting caught. A 10% chance of a $200 ticket, for example, or a 5% chance of a $400 ticket. If you warn people where speed traps are, you change the chance of getting caught, which means the fine is no longer as effective a deterrent.
This was actually a big problem with red light cameras--they made more people get caught, which made the expected penalty MUCH higher than it should have been.
Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems as though the police should actually want people to know about the speed traps. I mean, the ultimate goal for the police is to have everyone follow the law.
If the goal is to increase public safety, then yes, police should want people to drive the speed limit and reward the good citizens that warn other drivers of a speed trap. However, if the real goal is revenue generation, then the police would be upset by this behavior.
Please note that this article is about police issuing tickets to motorists who warn oncoming cars about speed traps. I'll let you draw your own conclusion.
Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been told by a police officer who I know personally that much of the value behind speeding stops isn't speed enforcement or even impacting speeding generally, it's the chance to "interview" the motorist, look around at what's visible in their car, run their ID through the computer. Basically look to see if there's anything they can possibly use against you for an arrest of any kind.
It's kind of like running a roadblock.
If speed traps were about safety, the locations of speed traps would be places statistically correlated with high levels of accidents, especially those related to speeding. Instead, speed traps end up in places where it's easy to speed, such as at the end of long downhill sections or wide-open areas with good road conditions.
Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary? (Score:4, Insightful)
Changes in speed are more dangerous than a consistently high speed. Having everyone slam on their brakes when they go past a cop creates a huge hazard, not to mention fucking with guys like me who are just trying to drive at the limit to get to work on time.
Ultimate goals of police (Score:5, Insightful)
Lemme just fix that for you:
I mean, the ultimate goals for the police are enjoy an exercise of arbitrary power, to earn ticket income, and to provide an excuse for illegal search and seizure, which in turn serves as a mechanism to provide yet more income, and property.
There you go. Cheers. :)
Re: (Score:3)
That might have been true in the "peace officer" era, where the goal was the peaceful and safe continuation of society, where the police were partnered with their community to keep it safe. But it is not true in the "law enforcement" era, where the goal is not to keep the peace, but to catch you doing wrong to extract revenue. This is why police and the communities they operate in start to view each other in an adversarial role, to the point where some police forces are almost indistinguishable from a param
Speed limit myths (Score:3)
So is driving the speed limit. Time has great value, and the arbitrary declarations of legislators do nothing to erase this signature characteristic.
It's not cynicism. We know why the police issue the vast majority of speeding tickets: To provide income, and to provide an excuse for search and seizure, leading to even more income and property gains. They're generally not saving, protecting, or serving anyone but themselves; And further, in states where un
Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary? (Score:4, Insightful)
I bet some police officers are mighty pissed off about this ruling, but as someone who frequently drives with the lights on to warn fellow motorists of speed traps, I am pleased.
Careful there cowboy, keep your hat and boots on. This judge is only a district court judge and his authority only applies to his district (Eastern Missouri mostly). It is a good federal prescient and I'm sure his opinion would be cited in the defense of anybody who was being charged with flashing their lights, but it's not a settled matter. Other districts are certainly entitled to their own opinions and it's quite likely some judge will disagree, at which point we move up the chain.
So, if you are in the Eastern Missouri District, flash away, the courts are on your side. Outside of this, tread carefully and be ready to pay the legal fees required to push it up to your district.
Re: (Score:3)
It is a good federal prescient
If the oncoming drivers were prescient, they wouldn't need the warning.
Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary? (Score:5, Insightful)
OT, but worth it. Slashdot has announced that it will roll out beta this month and that the classic interface will only be available for "a number of months."
Please, Please, Please don't do this!
Re: (Score:3)
I just looked at the beta for the very first time... Are they serious?
MY EYES!!!! THE GOGGLES DO NOTHING!!!!!
Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary? (Score:5, Insightful)
What the hell are they thinking with the huge images wasting screen space, then forcing a link to finish reading the summary.
This will spell the end of
How about you just add the features people have been asking for for years, and leave the rest alone? The ability to edit a comment. (Briefly) unicode. That is about it.
Re: (Score:3)
I got that banner today too. Suddenly all the posts about that shit-ass site revision mean something to me. I never had the problem other people had about getting shunted to the revised version involuntarily. I saw it once. It sucked ass. I told it to show me the readable version, and it has ever since.
Dice is in for a shock in the hit counter when they disable the readable version of the site.
Re: (Score:3)
the classic interface will only be available for "a number of months."
Show of hands. All in favor of Avogadro's Number...
Re: (Score:3)
Traffic tickets need to cite what law was broken. Officers can't write tickets for random activities and then let a judge decide later.
In this case it was "[a] state law that prohibits motorists from flashing after-market emergency lights, even though it's not clear that the lights Kintner used were after-market" which is clearly bullshit. It does not align with what the person did at all. I am impressed that the officer knew local code well enough to cite that specifically on the ticket.
Re: (Score:2)
even simpler than that. flashing the lights is often used to warn others about potentially dangerous conditions - trash on the road and so on.
in this case, it is a warning that somebody might be on the road or that somebody might stop sharply in front of you.
Re: (Score:2)
Couldn't this guy have avoided the whole lawsuit by simply saying he was warning oncoming drivers that they were driving too fast (for safety) by flashing his headlights, as opposed to flashing his lights to warn them of speed trap ahead?
Actually, he could have easily avoided this lawsuit by not filing it. The charges where dropped by the city so it would have died there had he not filed suit in federal court.
Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary? (Score:5, Insightful)
Couldn't this guy have avoided the whole lawsuit ...
Actually, he could have easily avoided this lawsuit by not filing it. The charges where dropped by the city so it would have died there had he not filed suit in federal court.
But now this sets a precedent that may be referenced in other cases. Whether it helps is another matter, of course.
Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary? (Score:5, Insightful)
Where I applaud your thoughts on HOA's....
HOA's actually have precedent in common law and have generally been upheld as legal. The Deed Restrictions that create them being legally binding. Taking them to court will only result in you loosing. All you can do is get the law changed.
Personally, (and yes this is totally off topic) I think HOA's and the deed restrictions that create them should be required by law to be regularly renewed or they cease to exist. Renewals should be though a majority vote of lot owners and should take place every decade or so. Failing renewal, dissolves the HOA and renders the recorded deed restrictions unenforceable from that point on.
Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see how this is different from warning people not to break other laws.
If I say to someone who is under investigation by law enforcement for trafficking narcotics "Hey, you shouldn't do that, you might get in trouble", am I committing a crime?
If my wife is driving and we are, unbeknownst to me, approaching a speed trap and I warn her to slow down, am I committing a crime?
If they pull me over for this, what do they charge me with?
Conspiracy to speed (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see how this is different from warning people not to break other laws.
The difference is in this case you are warning people that they will get caught for breaking a law, and they will get caught in about a minute if they don't stop--as opposed to a more general "you shouldn't deal drugs because EVENTUALLY someone will catch you." Philosophically, it's like telling a drug dealer "hide your stash because a cop is coming."
The only difference is that this is a more widespread behavior, so people are generally more okay with it. It's still basically conspiracy (in this case, conspiracy to break the speed limit), and it carries jailtime if they want to pursue it. (The judge here may have bought the free speech argument--more likely, he didn't want to risk getting overturned on appeal. Either way, it doesn't mean every judge will.)
Vive la difference! (Score:2, Interesting)
So ... if I see someone starting a fight in a bar, and I try and cool it down by shouting to him "Don't be an idiot! There's a cop outside in the street!" .... I should be done for... what, exactly?
Re:Vive la difference! (Score:5, Funny)
So ... if I see someone starting a fight in a bar, and I try and cool it down by shouting to him "Don't be an idiot! There's a cop outside in the street!" .... I should be done for... what, exactly?
... ruining other patrons entertainment value.
Re:Vive la difference! (Score:5, Insightful)
And, IF the point of a speed trap, is to slow down traffic, then flashing my lights does that nicely.
Or, am I maybe wrong here, that the point of a speed trap is nothing more than revenue collection..?
Perhaps we need to change the motto on the police cars to " To Collect and Serve.
Re:Vive la difference! (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong. Police seize property not just on drug raids, but in all kinds of situations, and the money from selling that property goes to - the police department.
Re: (Score:3)
Depends on where you live. In most places, it's only slightly indirected - the money goes into the city coffers, and the exact amount of money the police raised in revenue for the city is very much a part of the budget discussions for the police department.
For some things it's worse, like in East Texas where if you're pulled over for DWB and they find you're carrying significant cash, they just keep the cash (or a % of it) under the drug laws. Isn't the war on drugs wonderful?
Re:Vive la difference! (Score:5, Informative)
At this point, yes you are wrong. The whole point of the Police for is not to protect and serve but to take in enough money to stay alive. If you look at a police department and look at the "crimes" people are arrested and fined for you will see that the vast majority are revenue collection under the guise of breaking a law and nothing more.
You sir, are an idiot.
Police do not get to keep the money they collect. None of that money is allowed to go back to the police department.
Sorry, but you are wrong, especially to assert that "none" of that money goes back to the police department. It's different state-by-state and by jurisdiction, of course, but you'll find that most fines from local tickets go directly to that jurisdiction. For a small town, it could be a significant amount of the municipality's revenue, and of course, the more revenue they have the more they can budget for the police department.
There actually are some jurisdictions where the police department gets a percentage of each fine, and even more have something like a "public safety fund" (controlled by the police department) that gets some amount from each fine. Direct revenue from fines is probably rare, but there are jurisdictions that do that [ca.gov].
And, of course, the worst abuse happens with "asset forfeiture", which allows the police to retain a significant portion of all the assets (including cash) that they confiscate, regardless of whether any charges are even filed against the original property owner. This policy was actually put in place to encourage police, who were becoming skeptical of the US "drug war", to continue to participate.
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/08/12/130812fa_fact_stillman?currentPage=all [newyorker.com]
Fungible (Score:3)
You sir, are an idiot.
Police do not get to keep the money they collect. None of that money is allowed to go back to the police department.
There is a common fallacy when it comes to how the government spends its money. I mean our money.
Money is fungible. A dollar is a dollar is a dollar. It's not like one dollar has higher tensile strength, and another one tastes better. They're all the same. If fines go into the general fund, then where do police funds come from? The general fund? What about when fines go to another fund? Does less money get channeled there, because fines are supporting the difference? Does that not free up that amou
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if I tell you "don't kill, don't steal, don't speed" before your commute to work.. sure, that's one thing.
On the other hand, what you're doing in this scenario is more akin to "if you're going to speed, which you shouldn't be doing anyway, don't do it here and now because here and now they will actively try to catch you doing so".
It's a bit more like telling a warning a bunch of burglars that the neighborhood watch is approa
Re: (Score:2)
Back seat driving?
Failure to Pay Toll (Score:3, Insightful)
If my wife is driving and we are, unbeknownst to me, approaching a speed trap and I warn her to slow down, am I committing a crime?
If they pull me over for this, what do they charge me with?
Failure to Pay Toll
Catching up to Australia (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
At the end of the day advert
Re: (Score:3)
The day that fines for trafficking narcotics become an important revenue stream for the government, then, yes, you will be committing a crime.
The reason there is so much legal/ethical awkwardness surrounding speed traps is that they are a fundamentally different sort of law enforcement than enforcing laws against, say, burglary or assault.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It has nothing to do with traffic laws. Municipalities use speed traps as revenue grabs, nothing more.
There's a transportation engineer, I think at the University of Missouri at Rolla, who did a study showing that speed traps (and traffic cameras, I believe) do not enhance safety.
I know here in Chicago, it's pretty blatant. When you're talking about a $375 fine for doing a rolling stop at a stop sign, or a $100 parking ticket, it doesn't have anything to do with law enforcement or public safety. It's all
Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary? (Score:5, Insightful)
Flashing your lights at someone is more like telling someone: "the cops are outside, flush the drugs down the toilet now!"
No.
It's directly analogous to saying, "Up ahead, there is a reason you should slow down."
Speed traps aren't the only reason people flash lights, you know. Accidents around blind corners, for example.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary? (Score:5, Informative)
It also helps you to know where those nasty breathalizer traps are too....so you can take a 'safer' back route home.
Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary? (Score:5, Insightful)
Speed traps, OK. Enabling drunk driving by posting traps? I'm not so sure I agree with that one.
Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
If someone is driving badly, weaving, etc...sure, pull them over, but checkpoints are dragnets which should not be allowed.
Re: Common sense? In MY judiciary? (Score:5, Interesting)
the reason the cops will not be pleased, is because of the "totally not really a thing(tm)" ticket quotas they get slapped with when the local municipal govt overspends on its budget, like it always does.
the city of course asserts that no such ticket quotas happen, and that they are an urban legend, however, my dad was of the police bacon variety for 25 years, and speaks with authority that yes, ticket quotas are real, and that there are punishments for not meeting them.
if the goal of the policeman is to basically do a shakedown on people in the name of public safety, (when in reality, the posted speed limits have shit little to do with modern highway safety, and have even been shown to be a safety HAZARD when followed in many areas-- making the "safe" speed the same as that of the rest of the flow of traffic, not what is posted), then of course they will be upset when motorists are allowed to warn of said shakedowns.
it's simple.
city says "write this many tickets, or suffer consequences" (then lies about it to the public)
cop has strong incentive to write as many tickets as possible.
city has highway speed limits posted dating from the 1950s and 1960s, intended for 2 lane highways being enforced on multi-lane metro traffic arteries, and does not want to update them because they are lucrative.
cops now have motorists warning each other about the shakedowns going on, and will be more likely to fail at meeting the "mythical" ticket quotas.
of course, the cops have the "my word against yours" thing going on with city officials, and cant prove that they get defacto enforced penalties for not meeting the "supposed" quotas, and besides, even if treated seriously, who is going to investigate and rule on the matter? both parties that would normally perform that service have outstanding interest in the matter.
so, caught in that nasty legal limbo, with a "so totally not really a requirement, honest!" requirement that now may not be met, you can bet that local city cops with traffic radar guns are going to be be snitty about this.
from the sounds of it, this was not a municipal judge that decided this case.
that's the difference here.
Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary? (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally I can't trust a police officer, full stop. The people I know who are coppers (extended family) are arrogant fucks who think they know better than everyone else. In my personal interactions with the police they have harassed rather than helped me, even when I have been the victim of a crime. And no, I have never been in prison or convicted of any crime.
The police are there to protect the rich, not to uniformly apply clear regulations for the protection of all.
On topic, the reason most of us flash other road users when we see speed traps is that we recognise them as unjust. I would say the majority of people break the law every time they get in the car, because the speed limits are constantly changing and our focus is elsewhere.
Re:Common sense? In MY judiciary? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it is not "Free Speech". It is criminal informant behavior.
Apparently, you're incorrect. I just read somewhere that a Judge ruled it Free Speech. :-)
Re: (Score:3)
The thing here is, that the general public is under NO obligation a
FIRE! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Until, of course, people start speeding like mad (because given half a chance, who wouldn't want to drive way faster than allowed, given that most roads in the U.S. seem built for sessions of NASCAR re-enactment), people crash, other people get hurt, and they/their families start wondering why on Earth there's nobody and nothing (since people hate speed trap cameras even more than speed trapping actual cops) checking to make sure people are actually going the speed limit (or within some socially accepted li
Re:FIRE! (Score:5, Insightful)
Until, of course, people start speeding like mad (because given half a chance, who wouldn't want to drive way faster than allowed, given that most roads in the U.S. seem built for sessions of NASCAR re-enactment), people crash, other people get hurt, and they/their families start wondering why on Earth there's nobody and nothing (since people hate speed trap cameras even more than speed trapping actual cops) checking to make sure people are actually going the speed limit (or within some socially accepted limit above that, as is more common).
Reductio ad absurdum != evidence.
Just because you may be a terrible driver with no regard for anyone but yourself, doesn't mean we all are.
By the "logic" you've presented here, no one should have any rights, "because stupid people exist."
Which is kinda stupid in itself.
Think they'll listen? (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems like the police periodically 'forget' or ignore things they have been told are illegal, but which they'd prefer to keep doing.
Because they seem to periodically act as if they're legally allowed to delete the contents of your cell phone when you record them doing something illegal.
And, really, if they can overtly ticket you for warning of their speed trap, they'll just find something else to charge you with.
And people wonder why trust for the police is dwindling.
Extrajudicial punishment. (Score:5, Insightful)
This ruling won't stop cops from ticketing you, forcing you to leave work to appear in court, and paying the court costs after the ticket is dismissed. Cops can and do write invalid tickets simply to be dicks, and there's nothing you can do about it.
Our justice system needs to ensure that the victim of a false accusation of a crime is made whole again.
Re: (Score:3)
Cities deciding to cut taxes but not spending, then trying to make up for it by writing tickets all over is a politician's solution. And a police union's solution I suppose. Raise taxes normally and/or cut
Re: (Score:2)
if you think they're ticketing for something they *know* isn't a crime
Whether they know it or not is irrelevant. Every person falsely accused deserves compensation. If charges are dropped, dismissed, or you are acquitted, you deserve 100% of any costs you incurred because of the accusation.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you do about Bill Gates, who could claim tens of millions of dollars from a being pulled away from work for a day or two. Small towns would be afraid of ticketing any Mercedes or Porsches.
A sane ruling... (Score:3, Funny)
A sane ruling on the matter...
and in Florida...
[Update;} I'm back from the window, but I didn't see neither a lake of fire *nor* four horsemen. :\
Re: (Score:2)
More than free speech (Score:2)
This judge actually sounds intelligent.
Even better, use apps like Waze (Score:3)
I use Waze all the time (though looking for a replacement since it's been bought by Google). But the idea of community driven police/road hazard warnings is really the next step in making life better for motorists. Then I'm not warning a handful of people, I'm warning everyone for the next fifteen minutes that cares to know...
Police always say they put up speed traps to slow people down so they should be fine with others being warned.
warning of danger (Score:4, Insightful)
Speedtraps can pose a substantial danger, especially at high speeds (folks slam breaks, cops pull into the left lane from a standstill, or like they like to do it in Mass, back up on the emergency lane to get back into the trap). That's why they are made illegal in some states [ca.gov]. And if there's a hazard down the road, you bet I should have a right to warn and be warned about it!
Re: (Score:2)
It's perfectly safe to slam on your brakes as long as you don't lose control and as long as you aren't being tailgated. Show me a rear end collision and I'll show you someone who was driving on a road too close to a frontward vehicle, at a distance which does not guarantee that stopping to avoid collision is possible. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
"You"? (Score:2)
To all those not in this jurisdiction, you simply don't exist and are only a figment of your imagination.
In Québec / canada (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
In BC the cops want people to know where the speed traps are, so phone the radio stations and tell them.
Speed traps are supposed to be about slowing people down.
Slashdot Beta: just say no (Score:5, Insightful)
dear god what's happening to the slashdot UI???
Re: (Score:3)
I thought I was the only one, this interface is horrible. Once classic slashdot is disabled, I'm gone from this site.
Re: (Score:2)
To be honest I think Dice need a preview. I suggest a weeks boycott of slashdot
I think I can last a week. If enough of us stay away then they should notice the drop in traffic. prior to forcing us into slashdot beta.
I started getting the we are going to start forcing peope into slashdot beta notice today. Is it telling on a site where you can just hit reply and write. The link to tell us what you think is a mailto link?
so in order to send a message to dice I think a boycott is the only way to go and
Re: (Score:3)
The funny part is that (after apparent months of bait-and-switch tests) they finally give that beta notice the day after nbcnews.com switches (without notice) to their mobile-frien^Wdesktop-hostile layout, with predictable and proper user response [nbcnews.com]. I personally had to delete any trace of nbcnews from my RSSes to keep my sanity.
Desktop-hostile layouts* are bad, and not listening to users who simply do not want them, like me, is really bad.
Re:Slashdot Beta: just say no (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Slashdot Beta: just say no (Score:4)
i opened it (not pulled in it yet) and went ZOMGWTFNOWAY.
i'm not saying i will never come back after that one is implemented, but i surely will not be pleased.
they could have just had an attempt at fixing unicode...
Re: (Score:3)
I haven't been forced to it yet but I checked it out a couple of times and it was horrendous.
Considering I just got told this:
"MOVINâ(TM) ON UP. You are on Slashdot Classic. We are starting to move into new digs in February by automatically redirecting greater numbers of you. The new site is a work in progress so Classic Slashdot will be available from the footer for several more months. As we migrate our audience, we want to hear from you to make sure that the redesigned page has all the features you expect. Find out more."
I'm guessing classic is getting the ass eventually?
So, where should I go for the right kind of news since I won't be continuing here, any suggestions? - I particularly like the older posters here with some incredible tales of technology, systems and workplaces from eras long since lost.
Replies suggesting reddit will be rightfully ignored.
Wrong classification? (Score:2)
I am surprised that Police accused him of warning the others with high beams. This just doesn't fly, as judge has shown.
What happens elsewhere is that you are sometimes (lawfully) ticketed for using high beams against allowed exceptions such as:
- only at night (dusk till dawn),
- only if it doesn't blind other drivers or pedestrians,
- only if there is no car coming from other direction, and no car in front (could be blinded through mirror reflection),
- in other conditions only to warn other drivers about DAN
Find the Danger (Score:2)
in other conditions only to warn other drivers about DANGER
Going to fast is dangerous, hence the speed limits right? So you are flashing your lights simply to warn someone they are engaging in dangerous behavior.
What kind of an abortion of a submission is this? (Score:2)
The 1st link is to the Florida case that was resolved last year. The 2nd and 3rd links are about a Missouri case that was decided this week and only the 2nd even mentions the Florida case. The summary makes it sound like this is all about the Florida case.
The point stands, i.e., this has been ok'd in court in 2 jurisdictions, but what in the actual fuck, Soulskill?
I'm confused (Score:2)
OK, that is one state (Score:2)
Bet the kids in my neighborhood are happy! (Score:5, Funny)
A summer or two ago I saw a kid holding a sign that said "Speed trap ahead!". Over the next hill was a cop, mostly hidden by some bushes. The next stop light had another kid with a sign: "Speed Trap tips" and had a jar full of cash. Good show kids, good show...
If the authorities really want to reduce speeding (Score:2)
Good for the judge. (Score:2)
This is the problem with the continual militarization of police forces. They start to turn into jack-booted thugs, and flashing your lights becomes a matter of national security. Thirty years ago there probably wasn't a cop anywhere who would have given a hairy rodent's rear whether a motorist warned others about his presence, let alone actually go to the trouble of writing a ticket.
Re:Good for the judge. (Score:5, Interesting)
Cops in Texas have been spreading the rumor that flashing headlights at another motorist is a gang challenge and could get you shot.
I shit you not.
The police should be happy about this... (Score:2)
People flashing headlights make other drivers slow down. In fact, flashing lights make more people slow down than a cop giving out a few tickets.
Any cop living up to the motto "To serve and protect" should be happy about this.
Personally, I would rather see less ticketing for speeding and more ticketing for left-lane cloggers who refuse to move over and let faster traffic by.
At last! (Score:2)
The doctrine of porcine infallibility has been given a kick squarely in the bollocks.
Old news (Score:2)
The funny thing is people don't flash if they think your brights are on anymore. They keep their brights on for a few seconds. That is a crime.
Cops can get around this ruling (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Communism has always resulted in expansion of freedom and in no cases resembled a police state.
Re:Free Speech HA! (Score:4, Interesting)
Mouth off to a cop and see how precious your fucking rights are in Amerikkka. Fags.
Mouthing off to a cop is pretty STUPID because there is *never* an upside to it. At best it is neutral if the cop decides to ignore you, but all other outcomes go down hill from there. It's best to just be respectful, stay calm and do what they tell you. You don't have to answer any questions or consent to any searches (and I suggest you not do either), but there is absolutely no sense in mouthing off.
Re: (Score:3)
The editors don't read the comments.
Heck, the editors don't even read the summaries, or at least, they don't visibly edit them.
Moderators vote based on agreement.
Welcome to slashdot.
Slashdot's headlong rush into the digg-ification of the site will end just as Digg's did; with the loss of most of the community that made the site worth keeping up with, and worth maintaining for the owners. Digg is still trying to find a model that will remediate the utter destruction cause by the dropping of the user commenti