BMW M5 Forum and M6 Forums banner

1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
400 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Well the do gooders in our legislature slipped this one past us.

As of July 1 2005 any device which can or was designed to interfere with police radar OR laser will be illegal to have in the car , even if not in use. Apparently, the police are now able to, if they suspect that such a unit is in a car, pull it over, check for it, and confiscate it.

So, if your traveling through Colorado be careful.

Reference house bill 1045.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
58 Posts
i guess that i can chalk that one onto the short list of good reasons for moving from colorado to ohio. although i think that this trend will only continue-

bryon

:cheers:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,414 Posts
Gotta love the Democrat controled legislature. I bet we will see the radar vans put back on the main streets vs. in school zones etc.

Tree huggin to follow
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,856 Posts
Tim W said:
Gotta love the Democrat controled legislature. I bet we will see the radar vans put back on the main streets vs. in school zones etc.
The NHTSA is putting on a big photo-radar push, the photo-radar manufacturers have apparently purchased NHTSA administrator Runge.

I just sent a $200 contribution to the NMA (http://www.motorists.org) legislative (lobbying) fund.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,414 Posts
I don't have a problem with it when use correctly. They were using it on the highways and major streets to generate revenue. It was pitched as a resource to be used in school zones etc. But they spent zero time in school zones.

They got their wee wee smacked and were restricted to the correct locations. But that was with the previous legislature. Who knows what will happen next. England wants to put meteres in each car to charge a per mile tax. Lord knows whe that poop will be here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,572 Posts
...can't help but hear Taxman in my head right now...I think George wrote that one -- **** good job on it too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
400 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Unfortunetly, the possibility of abusing this new power is pretty frightening.

Say a cop wants to pull you over, he can always say that he shot you with a laser gun, it didnt give a reading, so he assumed you had an illegal device in your vehicle. Wouldnt be the first time a cop aimed a laser gun at a car and did not get a reading, he can always say the gun may have malfunctioned when the judge asks why he didnt find any device in the car.

Sounds to me like you can get pulled over and searched for absolutley nothing now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,414 Posts
By reading the bill HERE it says the devices are illegal but says nothing about "Enforcement". I am not a legal guy so can any of you shed anymore info on this and its enforcement?

The key question is HOW they enforce it.
 

·
Moderator Emeritus
Joined
·
10,698 Posts
This was signed by the governor of Co? These laws are easy to pass as they masquerade as "pro safety".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
754 Posts
What donut eatin' cop would be able to determine the little black box under the bumper is a Lidatek transponder?
Put a deer whistle on the side of it and claim it scares the deers off the road.
If I lived in Colorado, I would remove the lidatek stickers on the transponders, just to be on the safe side.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
175 Posts
JEM,
Good idea for any driver here in the states to join the National Motorists Association. Well worth the small annual fee. I too have contributed to the lobbying fund. NMA monitors legislative actions in all the 50 states that are designed to stifle drivers rights and freedoms, and fights them in the state and federal legislatures (hence the lobbying fund).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,414 Posts
They have posed this as a sftey issue....you are correct.

Here is the text "and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate
preservation of the public peace, health, and safety."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,572 Posts
Tim W said:
They have posed this as a sftey issue....you are correct.

Here is the text "and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate
preservation of the public peace, health, and safety."
Hmmm....about 41 people per day (on average over a year's time) die on the highways of the USA due to drunk driving/drivers. The majority of these are innocent people taken out by a drunk behind the wheel. It is such a sick realization that "nobody really cares" about drunk driving enough such that the problem is solved. Since the Iraq war started, something like 33,000 people have been taken out due to drunk drivers on USA roads. We hear on the news everyday about another group of people dying in Iraq but total silence in regard to the 41/day death toll that just keeps on humming along here at home. I wonder how many people a YEAR are killed by someone driving too fast with a Lidatek jammer? Maybe 1? 1 vs 15,000... Yep, this "bill" is all about "safety". Wonder what the mass media would do if 33,000 people had been killed due to terrorism in the USA since the war started?

Ok, I'm done. Sorry for the diatribe. :blabla:
 

·
Moderator Emeritus
Joined
·
10,698 Posts
Try winning a soundbite battle on the side of speeders. Nearly impossible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
201 Posts
CSBM5 said:
Hmmm....about 41 people per day (on average over a year's time) die on the highways of the USA due to drunk driving/drivers. The majority of these are innocent people taken out by a drunk behind the wheel. It is such a sick realization that "nobody really cares" about drunk driving enough such that the problem is solved.
Unfortunately, your data is likely based on neo-prohibitionist propaganda spewed by organizations like MADD, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (and higher insurance premiums), and the NHTSA. Pressure is put on cops to classify whatever they can as an alcohol related crash, especially if fatalities are involved. Drunk pedestrian hit by a car? Chalk that up to alcohol related. Passenger in a car is drunk and they get into an accident? Alcohol related again. That's why these statistics are so eagerly repeated by the press; because their grossly inflated numbers send the public into a frenzy and panic about the "epidemic" at hand.

The fact is that all people care about drunks and DUI related deaths. People also care about getting persecuted for having a drink with dinner by the aggressive techniques of law enforcement to enforce DUI laws. But no one wants to stand up to this pressure in society for fear of being labeled a sympathizer to DUI offenders. Also, the latest ad campaigns by law enforcement and MADD are pushing a campaign for absolutely no drinking and driving. Zero, nada, no glass of wine with dinner, nothing. We are no longer adults capable of making a choice for ourselves. This is prohibitionist rhetoric thinly disguised by the people who are pushing it. Everyone is in on the scheme now though. Thousands of dollars in fines for DUI's, zero tolerance buzzwords being tossed around everywhere, public ridicule and possible termination by your employer in some circles, the threat of expulsion from society to a small island is the only punishment they haven't explored yet.

The sad thing is that going after social drinkers is just going to generate more criminals out of responsible members of society. Repeat DUI offenders and habitual drunks with high BAC's are the ones who need to have the book thrown at them. Unfortunately, that's a more difficult problem to tackle, and it's easier to just throw general increased police presence and enforcement down the throats of all citizens.

Adam Wilson
www.e12m535i.com
'80 //M535i 4145018
'94 //M5 3.8
Illinois State Activist for the NMA
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,572 Posts
Knowing the crew at the local firehouse along with law enforcement in this area, I have seen no evidence of your claim that they are purposely inflating these stats on some grand scale. I purposely used a value 20% under what is commonly reported in my stat above by the way just so nobody would come back and say I had an inflated claim. Guess that tactic didn't work. :D

Years ago I was almost killed by a drunk girl in a Chevette running a stop sign and hitting me in the side. I was fortunate to have accelerated 'just enough' to have her hit the side of my car just behind me. She wasn't sited for drunk driving even though it was plainly obvious (wine bottles in car, clearly drunk out of her mind)...not even tested. Fortunately those days are behind us. ;)
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Top