Ticket for no registration

[EK 2.0]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

convenience always has a cost... wooooorth it

This...

[ercchry]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This...

plus... you gotta help keep @dannie in new Porsches!

[BMDUBS]

Yup happened to me too. Got pulled over on 42nd ave and Macleod trail north bound literally 3 blocks from the impound. I asked the officer to help me out and escort me to the impound lot to save me the tow. Fucker refused and still towed me. Wonder why police have such a bad reputation, scum bags some of them literally.

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Hee hee.

I have nothing more to offer on these topics these days because I’m a jar head and stupid, but just wanted to let you know that was a good laugh while having my morning coffee.

I don't know you personally, but there is exceptions to every rule. And I probably should've been more specific and said TRAFFIC cops, not police in general. But if you do happen to be in traffic, I'd actually love to hear your mindset on enforcement. I know any RCMP that I've known over the years when I was up north, they hated their time in traffic, because it is exactly as I said, they are out senselessly executing marching orders and not making a difference at all.

[J-hop]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I don't know you personally, but there is exceptions to every rule. And I probably should've been more specific and said TRAFFIC cops, not police in general. But if you do happen to be in traffic, I'd actually love to hear your mindset on enforcement. I know any RCMP that I've known over the years when I was up north, they hated their time in traffic, because it is exactly as I said, they are out senselessly executing marching orders and not making a difference at all.

Counter to your point. You specifically highlighted rolling through a stop sign and a cop ticketing.

Who is the stupid jar head in that situation? The cop for giving the ticket? Or the guy so idiotic or oblivious that they rolled a stop sign in front of the cop?

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Counter to your point. You specifically highlighted rolling through a stop sign and a cop ticketing.

Who is the stupid jar head in that situation? The cop for giving the ticket? Or the guy so idiotic or oblivious that they rolled a stop sign in front of the cop?

Cop has no idea if you made due diligence to ensure a clear path before your roll through. I got no sympathy for anyone getting nailed for that. I'm sure a traffic cop could make better use of his/her time, but that is probably the one scenario where their BS excuse of "I'm just doing my job" holds up.

[J-hop]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Cop has no idea if you made due diligence to ensure a clear path before your roll through. I got no sympathy for anyone getting nailed for that. I'm sure a traffic cop could make better use of his/her time, but that is probably the one scenario where their BS excuse of "I'm just doing my job" holds up.

Just a page ago you used a cop giving out a rolling stop ticket as an example of why they are idiot jar heads

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I wouldn't say that. Without a doubt, speeding is the most crooked revenue enforcement scam going. How the hell does something that accounts for less than 1% of accidents, be what 80% of tickets are written for?

But anything distracted driving related I can't say is revenue based. It is a legit massive safety concern as it is the number one leading cause of accidents.

Then you have stuff like failure to stop at a stop sign. It can be dangerous, but if you confirmed the way was clear and safe then a complete stop ticket is just ignorant. That's the problem is Cops are stupid. They're jar heads, they aren't trained to think for themselves. So they just go out and execute marching orders, they never stop to think about whether what they are doing is relevant to their job description or not.

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Just a page ago you used a cop giving out a rolling stop ticket as an example of why they are idiot jar heads

Way to try and take things out of context again.

[J-hop]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Way to try and take things out of context again.

Explain your context then if I missed it? Were you being sarcastic in your first post?

[ShermanEF9]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Cop has no idea if you made due diligence to ensure a clear path before your roll through. I got no sympathy for anyone getting nailed for that. I'm sure a traffic cop could make better use of his/her time, but that is probably the one scenario where their BS excuse of "I'm just doing my job" holds up.

So what exactly is a traffic cop, who as far as I am aware CHOOSES to work traffic (at least this is the case in Sheriffs, EPS, CPS, etc.) supposed to do day to day? You do understand their duty is to enforce the TSA, right?

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Explain your context then if I missed it? Were you being sarcastic in your first post?

What is there to explain? Traffic police do not generally make any subjective effort whatsoever, they execute marching orders. I already pointed out the statistical support for this by talking about the massive percentage of tickets being for speeding, despite that it is not a statistically important variable in traffic safety. And how many people just in this thread have been towed and impounded for a lapse in registration, despite it being a victimless issue that is not remotely tied to traffic safety whatsoever.

You seem hung up on the stop sign thing, without ever taking into account the separate conversation I was having at the time. There is plenty of stop signs we all know about that can be safely rolled through without question, cops are not oblivious to this themselves, yet for the most part that's an instant ticket despite the officer knowing full well you did nothing unsafe. Whether the person safely rolling through that stop sign is stupid or not is irrelevant. It was an example of how police can be fairly clueless about the purpose of their job.

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So what exactly is a traffic cop, who as far as I am aware CHOOSES to work traffic (at least this is the case in Sheriffs, EPS, CPS, etc.) supposed to do day to day? You do understand their duty is to enforce the TSA, right?

Awww, the great misconception. I knew it would come up. This might be a small detail, but it has huge consequences in the way police operate. The purpose of a police officers job is NOT to blindly just enforce laws. Their primary function is to protect and serve the public. The laws are the tools they have at their disposal to protect and serve. It only takes a bit of critical thinking to understand if the ticket they are issuing serves the public or the government. The overwhelming percentage of traffic tickets do not serve or protect the public. So that means you have 3 types of traffic police.

A) One who follows orders to issue irrelevant tickets despite knowing better.
B) One who just doesn't know better, and believes the nonsense they're told about the reasoning behind the tickets they are being told to issue.
C) One who is just an asshole that enjoys handing out fines to random people.

Part of me wants to believe there is a D) One that makes it his/her mission to enforce traffic safety, and tells his/her superiors to shove it every time their performance appraisal comes up and they get ragged on for not issuing enough speeding tickets. Haven't seen any evidence of this type yet though. Maybe Phil is the guy!!!


Oh, and what are they supposed to do day to day? They should fulfil their primary function, which is to protect and serve through enforcement. Therefore they should be enforcing behaviors that have high statistical probability to cause accidents. Distracted driving is the big kicker as it's responsible for majority of accidents by a landslide. It's not like these people are hard to catch, you drive beside them and they're staring into their lap not even aware you're next to them. These officers certainly should not be doing revenue collection for the Province or Municipality.

[J-hop]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What is there to explain? Traffic police do not generally make any subjective effort whatsoever, they execute marching orders. I already pointed out the statistical support for this by talking about the massive percentage of tickets being for speeding, despite that it is not a statistically important variable in traffic safety. And how many people just in this thread have been towed and impounded for a lapse in registration, despite it being a victimless issue that is not remotely tied to traffic safety whatsoever.

You seem hung up on the stop sign thing, without ever taking into account the separate conversation I was having at the time. There is plenty of stop signs we all know about that can be safely rolled through without question, cops are not oblivious to this themselves, yet for the most part that's an instant ticket despite the officer knowing full well you did nothing unsafe. Whether the person safely rolling through that stop sign is stupid or not is irrelevant. It was an example of how police can be fairly clueless about the purpose of their job.

You don’t seem to seeing the conflict in your logic. I’m not hung up on the example it’s just the example you gave.

First you say cops are stupid jar heads for not using subjective effort to determine if the driver did something unsafe rolling through a stop sign when you’ve ‘checked’ and the coast is obviously clear. Then on the next breath you say

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Cop has no idea if you made due diligence to ensure a clear path before your roll through. I got no sympathy for anyone getting nailed for that. I'm sure a traffic cop could make better use of his/her time, but that is probably the one scenario where their BS excuse of "I'm just doing my job" holds up.

If you can’t see the massive logical discontinuity between your first statement and the quote above I don’t know what to tell you


Edit: here are your two statements, I just removed the preamble in the first not directly related to the stop sign ticket. No taking out of context, no misrepresenting.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Then you have stuff like failure to stop at a stop sign. It can be dangerous, but if you confirmed the way was clear and safe then a complete stop ticket is just ignorant. That's the problem is Cops are stupid. They're jar heads, they aren't trained to think for themselves. So they just go out and execute marching orders, they never stop to think about whether what they are doing is relevant to their job description or not.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Cop has no idea if you made due diligence to ensure a clear path before your roll through. I got no sympathy for anyone getting nailed for that. I'm sure a traffic cop could make better use of his/her time, but that is probably the one scenario where their BS excuse of "I'm just doing my job" holds up.

[ShermanEF9]

I don't think you understand what enforcing laws means. The purpose of a ticket is in reality a teaching tool. its not always required to get the point across. people often will pay much more attention when there is a monetary punishment. a slap on the wrist doesn't always do it. you need to get your head out of your ass, your tinfoil hat is going to give you an infection.

Bring it back to the OP, Do you think he will remember next year the EXACT date he has to renew for? you betcha.

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You don’t seem to seeing the conflict in your logic. I’m not hung up on the example it’s just the example you gave.

First you say cops are stupid jar heads for not using subjective effort to determine if the driver did something unsafe rolling through a stop sign when you’ve ‘checked’ and the coast is obviously clear. Then on the next breath you say



If you can’t see the massive logical discontinuity between your first statement and the quote above I don’t know what to tell you

If you don't understand that not every stop sign controlled intersection is exactly the same, that says a lot more about your logic than mine. I'm sure most times a cop can tell if your rolling stop was safe or not, but regardless, it's a stop sign, just stop for it. It's usually there for a reason. Traffic police being jarheads, and me not having sympathy for a driver getting caught running something that is generally there for a reason is not mutually exclusive. It's called seeing both sides of the coin, try it some time.

[J-hop]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If you don't understand that not every stop sign controlled intersection is exactly the same, that says a lot more about your logic than mine. I'm sure most times a cop can tell if your rolling stop was safe or not, but regardless, it's a stop sign, just stop for it. It's usually there for a reason. Traffic police being jarheads, and me not having sympathy for a driver getting caught running something that is generally there for a reason is not mutually exclusive. It's called seeing both sides of the coin, try it some time.

Guess you missed my edit, you are saying a cop is an idiot jar head yet completely justified giving a rolling stop ticket. That isn’t seeing both sides of the coin, that’s massive logical inconsistently.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Then you have stuff like failure to stop at a stop sign. It can be dangerous, but if you confirmed the way was clear and safe then a complete stop ticket is just ignorant. That's the problem is Cops are stupid. They're jar heads, they aren't trained to think for themselves. So they just go out and execute marching orders, they never stop to think about whether what they are doing is relevant to their job description or not.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Cop has no idea if you made due diligence to ensure a clear path before your roll through. I got no sympathy for anyone getting nailed for that. I'm sure a traffic cop could make better use of his/her time, but that is probably the one scenario where their BS excuse of "I'm just doing my job" holds up.

I’m saying nothing about the relative safety of intersection, just your logic

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The purpose of a ticket is in reality a teaching tool.

DING DING DING!!! You're getting somewhere now. Well almost, the rest of your post says otherwise. So if the point of a monetary fine is to teach something, why would we issue them for infractions that have no lesson?

[ShermanEF9]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If you don't understand that not every stop sign controlled intersection is exactly the same, that says a lot more about your logic than mine. I'm sure most times a cop can tell if your rolling stop was safe or not, but regardless, it's a stop sign, just stop for it. It's usually there for a reason. Traffic police being jarheads, and me not having sympathy for a driver getting caught running something that is generally there for a reason is not mutually exclusive. It's called seeing both sides of the coin, try it some time.

Exactly like I mentioned in the other thread you're going on a run in: You standardize how a stop sign works, there is no questions. It doesn't matter if its "safe", the law is the law.

Stopping before entering highway
36(1) In this section, “street” means a street within the meaning of
the Highways Development and Protection Act.
(2) A person driving a vehicle that is about to enter
(a) onto a provincial highway or street from a road, service
road, alley or driveway, or
(b) into an alley or onto a road from a driveway,
shall, unless the intersection of the 2 roadways is marked with a
“yield” sign or a “merge” sign, bring the vehicle to a stop
(c) before entering on the intersecting roadway and at a point
no further than 3 metres back from the intersecting
roadway, or
(d) in the case where there is
(i) a marked crosswalk on the near side of the
intersection, immediately before entering on the
crosswalk, or
(ii) a marked stop line on the near side of the
intersection, at the stop line.
(3) Notwithstanding subsection (2), a person driving a vehicle
(a) that is emerging from an alley or driveway shall
(i) stop the vehicle before driving onto a sidewalk or a
vehicle crossway over a sidewalk, and
(ii) yield the right of way to any pedestrian on the
sidewalk or the vehicle crossway over the sidewalk,

Section 37 AR 304/2002 USE OF HIGHWAY AND RULES OF THE ROAD REGULATION
26
or
(b) that is entering an alley or driveway shall yield the right of
way to any pedestrian on a sidewalk or a vehicle crossway
over a sidewalk.
AR 304/2002 s36;152/2009
Stop signs
37 A person driving a vehicle that is about to enter onto a
highway from another highway that is marked by a “stop” sign
shall bring the vehicle to a stop
(a) before entering on the intersecting roadway and at a point
no further than 3 metres back from the intersecting
roadway, or
(b) in the case where there is
(i) a marked crosswalk on the near side of the
intersection, immediately before entering on the
crosswalk, or
(ii) a marked stop line on the near side of the
intersection, at the stop line.
Proceeding after stopping
38 When a person driving a vehicle is required to stop the vehicle
pursuant to section 36 or 37, that person
(a) shall not cause the vehicle to proceed until the condition
of the traffic on the highway being entered on is such that
the vehicle can enter onto the highway in safety, and
(b) shall yield the right of way to all vehicles and pedestrians
approaching that person’s vehicle and that are on the
highway being entered.

It does not get more clear how a stop sign works in all situations. There is ZERO valid arguement for contravening ANY traffic law set in place.

- - - Updated - - -

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

DING DING DING!!! You're getting somewhere now. Well almost, the rest of your post says otherwise. So if the point of a monetary fine is to teach something, why would we issue them for infractions that have no lesson?

Please name any instance in this thread where there is not a teaching lesson?

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Guess you missed my edit, you are saying a cop is an idiot jar head yet completely justified giving a rolling stop ticket. That isn’t seeing both sides of the coin, that’s massive logical inconsistently.

I don't understand your problem? There is times it would be justified, and others it wouldn't be. It doesn't matter if it's justified or not, 9 times out of 10 you're getting a ticket because the officer will not utilize any subjective analysis of the specific situation.

- - - Updated - - -

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Exactly like I mentioned in the other thread you're going on a run in: You standardize how a stop sign works, there is no questions. It doesn't matter if its "safe", the law is the law.




It does not get more clear how a stop sign works in all situations. There is ZERO valid arguement for contravening ANY traffic law set in place.

- - - Updated - - -



Please name any instance in this thread where there is not a teaching lesson?

Ok so you're opinion on traffic enforcement is that it is NOT based on safety. Fair enough, that's your opinion and you're welcome to it despite how ignorant it might be.

[J-hop]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I don't understand your problem? There is times it would be justified, and others it wouldn't be. It doesn't matter if it's justified or not, 9 times out of 10 you're getting a ticket because the officer will not utilize any subjective analysis of the specific situation.

Yes but then you yourself then say there is no way a cop can tell if you’ve done your due diligence and is therefore justified giving you the ticket.

Am I not explaining the logical discontinuity well?

You say: “at some intersections it’s safe to do a rolling stop if you ensure it’s clear- if a cop gives you a ticket in those cases he’s an idiot jarhead”
You also say: “there is no way a cop can tell if you’ve done your due diligence and ensured the path is clear therefore it’s a logical conclusion to give you a ticket”

?????