Print 75 comment(s) - last by Boze.. on Dec 26 at 10:41 PM

Using traffic code violations for fun and profit

A handful of Montgomery County, Maryland teens are purposefully using fake license plates to fool local speed cameras, breaking the law, and causing citations to be sent to innocent drivers.

The Montgomery County Sentinel reports the trend to be a fad amongst local high schools, with teachers and fellow students as the most popular targets. Fooling the cameras is easy: the students tape a fake license plate, printed on glossy paper and using license-plate-like fonts downloaded off the web, over their real license plate – then set off cameras. Days later, a $40 citation appears in the mail for whomever the fake plates are actually registered to.

An unnamed parent said students refer to the practice as the “Pimping” game, and some have gone so far as to borrow friends’ cars that are similar to the car they wish to prank.

Montgomery Country police installed the cameras last March, with the intention of reducing traffic accidents and pedestrian collisions. The cameras are typically found in residential areas and school zones with a speed limit of 35 MPH or less.

“This game is very disturbing,” said the unnamed parent. “Especially since unsuspecting parents will also be victimized through receipt of unwarranted photo speed tickets.”

Local authorities appeared unaware of the issue. Montgomery Country Police reported that they’d never heard of the prank, but told Sentinel reporters that they would “keep an eye out for the issue.”

“I have not heard of this happening among students [here],” said Wootton High School assistant principal Edward Owusu, where the prank is reported to have originated. “It is unfortunate that kids have a lot of time on their hands that they can think of doing such a thing.”

“I am concerned that someone could get hurt, first of all, because they are speeding in areas where they know speeding is a problem,” said Montgomery County Council President Phil Andrew. “It will [also] cause potential problems for the Speed Camera Program in terms of the confidence in it.”

Critics, many of whom have used the cameras’ automated nature as their main argument, now have additional all new reasons to oppose the cameras.

“I've objected to the robotic menaces primarily on the grounds that they were fallible revenue machines for the state rather than legitimate means of protecting life and limb,” said’s J.D. Tucille. “It never occurred to me that the [speed cameras] were also handy tools for wreaking revenge on enemies and authority figures. That was clearly a lapse of imagination on my part.”

Much to chagrin of privacy advocates, speed cameras and other forms of automated traffic enforcement are seeing increasing amounts of use around the world – and are becoming more and more sophisticated. Already a common sight in Europe and Australia, the speed cameras are a newer development for many parts of the United States.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By Brandon Hill on 12/22/2008 9:38:54 AM , Rating: 5
These little ****s would be in a world of pain if pulled over by a real cop for speeding through residential neighborhoods/school zones with a fake tag taped over a real one. Let's seem them try to explain that one away.

And what if they actually hit someone while speeding in a school zone trying to "prank" someone else... I mean, teenage drivers are probably some of the WORST drivers on the roads (second only to elderly folks IMHO).

RE: ...
By EODetroit on 12/22/2008 9:47:12 AM , Rating: 5
Well the smart ones will post lookouts and call abort on their cell phone if a cop is nearby.

Unfortunately the more press this gets the more prevalent the practice will become.

Fortunately it will mean the end of automated ticket machines.

Unfortunately it will mean more speeders or more real cops.

RE: ...
By Lord 666 on 12/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: ...
By FITCamaro on 12/22/2008 10:04:57 AM , Rating: 5
You're lucky you didn't throw an Apple at someone's car who is like me. You'd probably have gotten shot.

1. Tying a rope across street with one end to tree and other end to person's water meter.

Yes because potentially killing someone on a motorcycle is cool...

RE: ...
By ebakke on 12/22/2008 10:17:16 AM , Rating: 5
You're lucky you didn't throw an Apple at someone's car who is like me. You'd probably have gotten shot.
And no one would've felt bad for him.

RE: ...
By Lord 666 on 12/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: ...
By ebakke on 12/22/2008 10:47:38 AM , Rating: 5
I would've hated you as a child. And I hate all children that act like you did.

RE: ...
By Lord 666 on 12/23/08, Rating: -1
RE: ...
By notolerance on 12/23/2008 7:50:39 PM , Rating: 5
No. It sounds like YOU had a terrible childhood. I mean, what kind of parent lets their 12yr old child run around with a .177 and baseball bat at 2am in the morning?!!... not a good one let me tell you. Parental discipline is what you obviously lacked.

RE: ...
By theapparition on 12/22/2008 10:52:57 AM , Rating: 5
In hingsight, what we did was wrong and my kids will never participate in similar acts . The post about the camera reminded me of something we would have done, but taken it to another level.

Do you really have any idea what your kids are going to do? Boy are you in for a shock.

I had great parents that raised me "right". Yet I still did things during my teenage years that if done now, would have certainly ensured my expulsion.

RE: ...
By Lord 666 on 12/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: ...
By theapparition on 12/22/2008 11:31:51 AM , Rating: 2
Believe me, I'm not disagreeing. I was pretty mischievious, yet never got into any real serious trouble. As it sounds you were as well. Don't think that translates either way towards future success.

However, I feel for kids these days since the seemingly harmless acts would now warrant signifigant penalties. I mean, I got caught with explosives in middle school, and was back at my desk the next day. Now, a similar act would have me expelled, shipped off to a "bad boy" home, and who knows what now happens. Life could have been completely different.

RE: ...
By ebakke on 12/22/2008 12:30:33 PM , Rating: 2
I mean, I got caught with explosives in middle school
There is absolutely no justifiable reason a student should have explosives of any kind in a middle school. That, and similar things that are strictly enforced today, is something children should be taught. If their parents aren't doing it, the school district has to.

RE: ...
By Aarnando on 12/22/2008 1:24:53 PM , Rating: 2
No, there isn't a reason to bring explosives to a school (or most places for that matter). His point wasn't that it's okay, but rather that authority figures are more likely to overreact these days.

RE: ...
By ebakke on 12/22/2008 1:44:56 PM , Rating: 2
Explosives should be met with an iron fist, at least in my opinion.

RE: ...
By Lord 666 on 12/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: ...
By ebakke on 12/22/2008 3:00:38 PM , Rating: 2
You can't defend against crazy, no matter how hard you try.

RE: ...
By hashish2020 on 12/22/2008 11:13:41 PM , Rating: 2
Have you never experienced the joys of cherry bombing?

You must have a terrible life.

RE: ...
By ebakke on 12/23/2008 9:41:39 AM , Rating: 2
I try to avoid doing things that damage someone else's property, or cause someone else unnecessary work. But I guess that's just me.

RE: ...
By Lord 666 on 12/22/2008 1:33:24 PM , Rating: 1
Kids, or the smart ones at least, have a way of figuring out it themselves. There has been much posted on DT about libertarian views with government, based on my upbringing and my wife's, I can make an argument for similar methods on raising kids.

Neither my mother nor my wife's mother lectured about staying away from drugs... yet neither one of us ever tried anything. Then there were the kids who had everything and got sucked into the drug trap. Those also were the kids with overbearing parents.

Personally, I feel the US does not hold minors accountable enough and should do less sugar coating at the pre-teen/teen ages. Why is it 18 to vote and serve in military, but 21 to drink? It pains me to even lie to my kid about Santa... and she is not even 4 yet. The last thing I want are two sheep for kids. However, in a time when less laws were more effective, Apparition and I figured things out.

RE: ...
By Spuke on 12/24/2008 3:26:37 PM , Rating: 2
Personally, I feel the US does not hold minors accountable enough and should do less sugar coating at the pre-teen/teen ages. Why is it 18 to vote and serve in military, but 21 to drink? It pains me to even lie to my kid about Santa... and she is not even 4 yet. The last thing I want are two sheep for kids.
Hear! Hear! As far as I'm concerned, having your kids end up in the heard is as bad as them getting addicted to drugs. I "discovered" the Santa falsehood in Kindergarten and promptly told my siblings. My mother wasn't too happy with that but a lie is a lie. I've always been the rebellious type, even now at 39. I was more sneaky than anything and loved to see just how smart others were (adults and kids). God, I got away with a LOT. Even when I was in the military. LOL!

RE: ...
By tastyratz on 12/22/2008 2:04:26 PM , Rating: 2
sure there is.
and if you brought it to school, you weren't smart enough to leave it hidden at the bus stop. If your in middle school, chances are your not a terrorist.

A mandatory part of growing up as a young boy includes every precursor to serial killer profiles. Explosives, blowing stuff up... fires - burning lots of stuff... squishing bugs...

They are all part of growing up and standard mischief.
Now your labeled as a terrorist arson cricket serial killer and sent to midget guantanamo bay.

Most of these not so innocent things are all innocent in reality. I had the anarchists cookbook at 12 and made draino bombs for fun because I couldn't get the real stuff. The difference now is people are just scared of everything. Every kid with a firecracker shouldn't get his pilots license and every adult with a pic of their kid in the tub is a pedophile.

(disclaimer before anyone asks: We used to ride our bikes and wreak havok in some of the local empty construction lots near my house. Nobody or their house/car/etc were blown up or set ablaze in the making of this comment.)

RE: ...
By ebakke on 12/22/2008 3:03:43 PM , Rating: 1
sure there is. YOUR A KID.
Excuses like that make me think all hope is lost.

RE: ...
By MightyAA on 12/22/2008 6:59:33 PM , Rating: 3
lol.. a "mischief" I know of was stealing and setting off two tear gas grenades that the police brought into the narc's office. Why the school's narc needed to bring tear gas into the school and leave them unsecured would be my question.

We also rebuilt a complete vw bug in the principal's office for senior ditch day... several felony laws were broken, but it was a harmless prank.

But back on topic. The only reason this prank works is because the camera systems assume guilt without proving or identifing the culpret. As noted by someone else, had a cop nailed these pranksters, the kids would of gotten a ticket; there must be something to burden of proof and these systems bypass that right all together because they can't even positively identify the "criminal" (or even match up the car it sounds like)and force the defendant to prove their own innocense.

RE: ...
By Desslok on 12/22/2008 11:13:15 AM , Rating: 4
A baseball bat and a pellet gun? Oh yea! Those are sure deterrents to a pissed off adult/teenagers.

As soon as you drew that pellet gun all bets are off. The other person could just say they felt in fear of their life.

RE: ...
By Lord 666 on 12/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: ...
By hduser on 12/22/2008 12:23:10 PM , Rating: 2
One quote comes to mind when I think of pellet gun and Christmas time:

"you'll shoot your eye out" -- A Christmas Story

RE: ...
By CommodoreVic20 on 12/22/2008 1:20:55 PM , Rating: 2
Is it a small gun? Otherwise it might be excruciating if someone with shoved it up your arse.

RE: ...
By Lugaidster on 12/23/2008 11:24:02 PM , Rating: 2
Yet people give you a 5 because you'd shoot a teenager over a stupid prank.

RE: ...
By Boze on 12/26/2008 10:41:37 PM , Rating: 2
The problem with a prank is that you need to know your intended victim well enough to know their most probable reaction. When I was in the Navy, my LPO (Lead Petty Officer) did not take to pranks kindly. I remember in wintertime in Virginia Beach when he got sprayed down by one of the junior sailors with one of the fire hoses, he planned for weeks and weeks until just the right time and threw a bucket of scalding water on him in retribution that resulted in minor burns (non-permanent damage).

No one in that crew ever sprayed him with a fire hose again. Now in my case, I got caught with a few good pranks, but I viewed them as nothing more than horsing around and having a good time, and the people who pulled those pranks on me understood my personality enough to realize I would consider it all in good fun (although I would certainly go on to plan my own retaliatory pranks).

The biggest problem with youngsters pulling pranks is that they usually (but not always) lack the emotional maturity and the ability to understand people in general well enough to figure out the most likely action, and that's what normally gets them in trouble.

Bottom line being this, if you don't want someone messing with you, it'd probably be best not to mess with anyone else.

RE: ...
By Xenoterranos on 12/22/2008 10:23:20 AM , Rating: 5
I'm seconding the "would have gotten shot" comment here. If not shot, at the very least hit by a truck. Repeatedly.

However, it seems to me like copying some of the cop's personal car license plates and sending them a couple hundred tickets would be a quick way of getting these things taken down. "Pimping" a local judge or two would probably get the speed cameras taken down overnight!

RE: ...
By tastyratz on 12/22/2008 10:25:32 AM , Rating: 5
some things are funny.
Those are not them.

Halloween mischief that's a nuisance is amusing or minor in cost I will give you that. I have been known for ordering porn on ppv through an open window when people leave the room for a minute on halloween (they can always call to cancel the order) as well as tp, etc.

What you have done could have potentially killed someone as well as done extensive damage to personal property.
Let me say this in true holiday spirit.

Had you done that to me I would have kept driving to clip you with my car enough to break a bone but not actually kill you. Your lucky you never tried that with me.

I wish the same things to you some day and hope you total your car. Have a lovely day :-)

RE: ...
By marvdmartian on 12/22/2008 10:54:50 AM , Rating: 5
Yeah, I remember back when I was a stupid kid throwing snow balls at cars, wondering to myself, "Gee, why do these drivers get SO MAD???"

Then I got my license, and was driving home from work one day when my car got hit by a snowball. DAMN!! Something just EXPLODED against my car!!! FVCKING KIDS!!!

Funny how ironic life can be sometimes, isn't it?? I hope your karma comes back to bite you some day, so you'll know what I mean.

RE: ...
By ebakke on 12/22/08, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By tastyratz on 12/22/2008 10:33:12 AM , Rating: 4
the photo is not only of the license plate - they get the whole car. If the ticket is incorrect they can fight it it court. Most people wont bother so that's where they get tanked.

Automatic machines are not reliable without the human element and do not capture the whole thing.
For example - what if there's snow/ice on the ground and you did not feel you could come to a stop safely? What if the light malfunctions? What if you had to do so to avoid an accident? there are a hundred reasons and scenarios where an officer might give leniency and a machine will not.

What if there are 2 cars on the road with the radar getting a reading off the incorrect one? You cant really use lidar in a way that's automated and radar requires a level of awareness to be accurate.

Don't think these exist to enforce traffic - they hide these machines as sneaky ways to raise revenue. Traffic enforcement laws only partially exist to protect the people - many speed limits are set artificially low to raise revenue. Several cities have been busted before for changing the yellow light time where red light cameras are installed to raise more money.

RE: ...
By ebakke on 12/22/2008 10:43:33 AM , Rating: 1
You said you could contest it in court, and then you went on to provide several examples where the system may not operate exactly as intended ...which is when you would contest it in court.

Don't think these exist to enforce traffic
Enforcing the laws (of which the police officers didn't create, mind you) is exactly what these are doing. Revenue generation is a byproduct. But if you don't want the city/state/county to get your money, the solution is simple: slow down.

RE: ...
By tastyratz on 12/22/2008 11:59:50 AM , Rating: 4
So the solution is to put the burden of evidence on the victims of these units? Guilty until proven innocent? Do you think a judge will care about anything other than the picture he has in his hands?

They BANK on the idea that people can't afford to take a day out of work to deal with it, then a second day to go to court after the magistrate does nothing. Most people just pay the tickets and don't fight even if they are innocent.

The photos wont be of the entire intersection and neighboring roads, or a video showing situational circumstances. They don't paint a full picture of what ACTUALLY happens.

The same token could be said of lidar guns - some of them can download a picture of each speed reading from a camera but none of them are capable of video which would show pan and sweep or similar errors when they take place.

You are far more likely to be wrongly convicted than shown justice with traffic cameras. I would rather people go unpunished for petty traffic crimes committed than punished for ones that are not. These units simply can not function as reliably without the human element, period.

RE: ...
By ebakke on 12/22/2008 12:24:59 PM , Rating: 2
So the solution is to put the burden of evidence on the victims of these units? Guilty until proven innocent? Do you think a judge will care about anything other than the picture he has in his hands?
How is that any different than the way it works without these cameras? The cop or the camera claims you did something wrong, and the burden is on you to prove your innocence, or ask for leniency.
You are far more likely to be wrongly convicted than shown justice with traffic cameras.
FUD. You have no proof of that assertion.
These units simply can not function as reliably without the human element, period.
Cause humans are so reliable, and accurate. Ugh. But I never advocated removing humans altogether.

RE: ...
By GregoryCJohnson on 12/25/2008 11:27:18 PM , Rating: 2
Nice try, but you'll get more people to believe Elvis is alive.

Let's not forget that the state is quite literally threatening to execute you. Like the Terminators, they WILL NOT STOP until you comply or you're dead.

RE: ...
By stlrenegade on 12/23/2008 12:21:19 PM , Rating: 2
I'd have to disagree slightly regarding using photo enforcement strictly as a revenue stream. I work for a city/police and the redlight cameras "profit" tapers off the longer it is in use. This is because initially a lot of money comes in from people running the redlights, and more money is coming in than what is required for monthly maintenance fees on photo enforcement. As the months go by, and people learn to adapt at these intersections, ticket revenue drops, and there is less money that goes to the city/police after paying monthly fees on the cameras.

Initially, photo enforcement does bring in more money, but eventually tapers off and barely covers the cost of running the system. It was initially put in for the sole purpose of reducing accidents/injuries/fatalities. At all of the meetings I attended, making money wasn't a major decision on bringing photo enforcement to our city.

RE: ...
By napalmjack on 12/22/2008 10:36:12 AM , Rating: 5
These cameras are unconstitutional. What happened to due process and the right to confront your accuser? The pranksters raise some valid concerns, such as 'what happens when the computer is wrong?' Are we going to have robots for circuit court judges now as well?

These cameras are not installed to make anything safer. Ask any city/county councilperson; they are revenue machines, pure and simple.

RE: ...
By ebakke on 12/22/2008 10:46:00 AM , Rating: 3
These cameras are unconstitutional.
I disagree. You still have due process, and you can still confront your accuser.

I was making the argument that these could be modified so that the computer is more accurate, but when it can't make a definitive conclusion the information is directed to a human who ultimately makes the judgment call. And if the driver disagrees, he can contest it. Just like if I'm hauling to get to the hospital 'cause my wife's giving birth, and I get pulled over and cited. I can contest that all I want.

RE: ...
By HVAC on 12/22/2008 11:19:25 AM , Rating: 3
No. Some "courts of record" do not have normal due process. It is a travesty, but it happens.

RE: ...
By ebakke on 12/22/2008 5:45:11 PM , Rating: 2
That's not a problem with the cameras. That's a problem with the system, and how your legislators have chosen to run it.

RE: ...
By therealnickdanger on 12/22/2008 11:38:29 AM , Rating: 3
As someone in the business of traffic safety engineering, I can say whole-heartedly that red-light-running cameras and speed cameras WORK!

Suggested reading:

I've got a file cabinet loaded with reports from agencies around the globe with hard data proving the effectiveness on safety that these PhotoCop-tools provide. Is it then end-all, be-all solution? Of course not, there are even a few select sites where the benefits are not significant, but when used as part of a larger safety program, the benefits are staggering.

RE: ...
By ZmaxDP on 12/22/2008 12:25:53 PM , Rating: 4

Trust me on this one, surgically altering all males and females to be infertile between the ages of 12 and 30 would be an extremely effective way to lower the birth rate and control world population. Sure, a few people would find the effects to be irreversible; but the benefits in reducing world hunger and environmental damage would be staggering!

Also, humanely euthanizing all children who are drug dependent or with a potentially fatal disease would be an extremely effective way to reduce the monetary impact of these cases on our healthcare system. Sure a few healthy babies would accidentally be offed, but the benefits would be staggering on the overall health of our population and cost of heathcare.

I can come up with 100 situations where violating individual's rights would be beneficial in a "staggering" manner, where the solution would "work" great, and with tons of "data" proving it. In NONE of these cases does it mean it is right, legal, constitutional, or even a moderately good idea. There are a number of reasons why these things are unconstitutional, and hopefully our court system will work for once and they will be made illegal for good in all 50 states (and outlying territories).

RE: ...
By ebakke on 12/22/2008 12:33:20 PM , Rating: 2
I can come up with 100 situations where violating individual's rights would be beneficial in a "staggering" manner, where the solution would "work" great, and with tons of "data" proving it.
And the two examples you provided as examples permanently and physically damage (or at least affect) the person involved. You're comparing apples to Oreos.

RE: ...
By ebakke on 12/22/2008 12:34:19 PM , Rating: 2
"examples as examples" eh? ::sigh::

me. proofing. fail.

RE: ...
By therealnickdanger on 12/22/2008 12:43:10 PM , Rating: 1
There is nothing unconstitutional about photo enforcement, no matter what a handful of scare-mongering activists like yourself believe.

RE: ...
By hashish2020 on 12/22/2008 11:20:49 PM , Rating: 3
Wait. Are you telling me the IIHS and other car insurance rackets found evidence speed kills?

I mean, it's not like they make a ton of money by jacking up the rates stupidly high for insurance every time you get a few points for going 10 over. Conflict of interest anyone?

RE: ...
By Tewal on 12/22/2008 11:40:07 AM , Rating: 2
with regards to photo enforcement, your due process rights have been all but eliminated. most states have changed camera captured infractions from a criminal offense to a civil offense. what this means is that you, the violator, are responsible for proving your innocence. you are in fact guilty until you prove otherwise. cities get away with this by "ticketing" the registered owner of the car and not the driver who committed the moving violation. by doing this, no points can be assessed to you license as would be if an actual LEO were to stop you. this duplicity of law is certainly unconstitutional and many state high courts have agreed.

RE: ...
By ebakke on 12/22/2008 12:37:24 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that they are not being used properly today, but I don't think the technology or the premise is inherently bad. The crime should be the same regardless of whether a person spotted you, or a camera spotted you. But the technology allows for greater efficiency. It allows police departments to either devote more resources to other issues, or decrease their size (and thus, taxpayer burden).

RE: ...
By stlrenegade on 12/23/2008 12:30:44 PM , Rating: 2
Where I work, photo enforcement goes through 3 levels of officers reviewing material before sending out a citation. I've watched a few co-workers (officers) over their shoulder as they approved/denied redlight citations. They consider several circumstances when determined if an infraction was committed. There is leniency on "right turns on red" and if you are over the line when the light turns red, and it's 0.15 seconds or below, they don't issue the ticket.

RE: ...
By MamiyaOtaru on 12/22/2008 11:43:48 PM , Rating: 2
whoo! panopticon here we come

RE: ...
By arazok on 12/22/2008 10:08:51 AM , Rating: 2
While I’d fully expect the police to do their job and totally hammer you if you get caught doing this, the safety argument is a bit paranoid. I don’t think it’s anything other then what it is…a frigin hilarious prank.

I like this even better because it highlights the absurdity of using an automated ticket dispenser for law enforcement. If this became a common prank, it might be enough to convince governments to get rid of the stupid things.

RE: ...
By SilentSin on 12/22/2008 10:15:01 AM , Rating: 2
I've actually seen these in action as I have friends who live in the Montgomery Co area. The one trap I have seen is not in a school zone at all and is in a mostly commercialized area. My friends who live there find them to be an extreme nuisance as people become overly cautious around them, braking hard in the middle of traffic when they see their speed readout and the sign that says the limit is photo enforced. Braking like that in a high traffic area can be much more dangerous than the act of speeding itself and I'm sure has caused more than one accident.

In my opinion, these kind of tactics used by local governments do not address the actual problem at all. The DC/MD area is notorious for this kind of law "enforcement". The cameras take pictures of anyone traveling 5mph over the posted limit. That is a speed most officers won't ever pull you over for, and insurance companies wouldn't care about. All this will teach people to do is not drive fast in areas marked as being a speed trap. It is much more effective and humbling to be pulled over at random from a cop that you didn't even know was there. This is simply a way to generate revenue off people who don't know the area and the location of the cameras. Everyone who does know about them simply reduces speed there and as soon as the coast is clear it's back to the bad habits.

I realize there are benefits to this strategy: it frees up an officer from having to physically be there, it does effectively reduce people's speeds -in a very specific location, and sometimes in a dangerous manner-, and it can be used 24/7. However there are obviously problems with a system that is left unattended as highlighted by this article.

Check out this link for some examples of what might come next for the speed cameras: . People don't like to be controlled in this way, some faceless robotic camera giving you a ticket is not exactly going to instill a sense of goodwill in your citizens. There's no accountability on the side of the government, and that's why when you get one of these tickets in the mail it's a straight $40 fine, no court appearance, no points on your license, nothing. There would be no representation from the county there to back it up, the only evidence is a photo of a car you might not even be driving. All the government wants is the money.

RE: ...
By ebakke on 12/22/2008 10:21:19 AM , Rating: 3
...people become overly cautious around them, braking hard in the middle of traffic when they see their speed readout and the sign that says the limit is photo enforced. Braking like that in a high traffic area can be much more dangerous than the act of speeding itself and I'm sure has caused more than one accident.
I completely agree. People who panic are more dangerous than people who drive past the posted speed limit (for the most part).
That is a speed most officers won't ever pull you over for, and insurance companies wouldn't care about.
But it's still a speed that breaks the law. And it's a conscious decision to drive that speed.

RE: ...
By WhiteBoyFunk on 12/22/2008 10:29:47 AM , Rating: 3
You must have forgotten Asian women...

RE: ...
By Sunrise089 on 12/22/2008 12:05:47 PM , Rating: 3
Oh yes, the incredible danger of driving 36 mph (or 40mph if here is a threshold before a ticket is issued) in a 35 mph zone. And surely the police state-esque, guilty-until-proven-innocent speed cameras are just necessary to protect the citizens from themselves, right?

I love how if the military started setting up checkpoints and demanding money from citizens to finance a luxurious lifestyle, people who tried to undermine the system would be hailed as freedom fighters, but when the police department enforces arbitrary speed limits no one votes on and then keeps the revenue themselves we stand right in line and say "thanks for taking my liberty away, may I have another?"

RE: ...
By goz314 on 12/22/2008 1:43:36 PM , Rating: 3
Agreed. Its all the more reason that states should seriously consider raising the legal age for licensing drivers. If teenagers, as a demographic, prove they can't accept the responsibility of driving without breaking the law or knowingly putting other drivers and pedestrians in danger, then they should no longer have that privilege.

RE: ...
By Frank Stein on 12/22/2008 1:50:54 PM , Rating: 2
There is only one solution to all the problems, from wild teens (did I ever love being one of those), to Israel and the Middle East, to the economy and the loose dog problem.

Personal Nukes. Yes, individualized small nuclear weapons. If you piss someone off terminally or they are just having a bad day, THWAP... a vaporization of the whole area.

Respect will follow.

RE: ...
By jimbojimbo on 12/22/2008 5:00:20 PM , Rating: 3
These little ****s would be in a world of pain if pulled over by a real cop
Oh, you mean liking getting a firm speaking to and then later having their records expunged because they are minors?

All crimes should be treated and punished equally for anybody.

RE: ...
By hashish2020 on 12/22/2008 11:27:15 PM , Rating: 1
I agree.

If a person gets caught for shoplifting in California at ages 4, 6, and 9, they should go away for life. Three strikes, what!?!

"We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs
Related Articles

Most Popular ArticlesSmartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
UN Meeting to Tackle Antimicrobial Resistance
September 21, 2016, 9:52 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Update: Problem-Free Galaxy Note7s CPSC Approved
September 22, 2016, 5:30 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki