advertisement
Forums

The Forum is sponsored by 
 

AAPL stock: Click Here

You are currently viewing the Tips and Deals forum
Sure, Woods. No special treatment
Posted by: samintx
Date: April 07, 2021 06:07PM
Tell me I would not receive a ticket for driving 87 mph in a 45 zone. He received no special treatment.Really?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Sure, Woods. No special treatment
Posted by: MrNoBody
Date: April 07, 2021 06:56PM
Really. Speed was estimated, not clocked or even observed.
No one else was injured & no property damage of any note.
<case closed>



39°36'17"N 75°44'43"W

DuckDuckGo
The search engine that doesn't track you.

Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Sure, Woods. No special treatment
Posted by: N-OS X-tasy!
Date: April 07, 2021 07:06PM
Quote
MrNoBody
Really. Speed was estimated, not clocked or even observed.
No one else was injured & no property damage of any note.
<case closed>

Speed data was pulled from the vehicle black box - it was NOT estimated.

In 100% of the times I've received a speeding ticket (a fairly high number, mind you), no one was injured and there was no property damage at all.

What else ya got?



It is what it is.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 04/07/2021 07:09PM by N-OS X-tasy!.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Sure, Woods. No special treatment
Posted by: hal
Date: April 07, 2021 07:21PM
Don't you have to be observed speeding to get a ticket for speeding?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Sure, Woods. No special treatment
Posted by: NewtonMP2100
Date: April 07, 2021 07:36PM
.....so you think they were strokin'......the Woods.......tenderly......???



_____________________________________

I reject your reality and substitute my own!
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Sure, Woods. No special treatment
Posted by: C(-)ris
Date: April 07, 2021 08:12PM
Quote
hal
Don't you have to be observed speeding to get a ticket for speeding?

Depends on the state.



C(-)ris
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Throwback Thursday Signature:
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Sure, Woods. No special treatment
Posted by: Sarcany
Date: April 07, 2021 09:20PM
Quote
samintx
Tell me I would not receive a ticket for driving 87 mph in a 45 zone. He received no special treatment.Really?

Watched highlights from the sheriff's press conference.

Officials said that the "black box" showed that he hit the gas right before the accident. Never touched the brake. Looks like his foot hit the gas instead of the brake on the curve. Thus, an accident and not willful speeding.

Would have to have hit the gas pretty hard to go from 40 to 80 so quickly, and that would seem to support the idea that he was impaired, but he was lucid and they didn't test him on the scene so they have no evidence of impairment.







Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/07/2021 10:33PM by Sarcany.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Sure, Woods. No special treatment
Posted by: testcase
Date: April 07, 2021 09:20PM
"Don't you have to be observed speeding to get a ticket for speeding?"


NO!


On "limited access" roads where there are tolls, authorities KNOW the distance between toll booths / electronic scanners. They also know the time you entered / passed a sensor and can easily determine your average speed. Cameras would show WHO the driver is.

I'm NOT aware of any jurisdictions actually using this easily obtained data yet BUT, I can see in the future, as governments claw for additional money to piss away, it's only a matter of time before it happens. Of course, they'll "cloak" the fines as a safety measure. old fogey smiley
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Sure, Woods. No special treatment
Posted by: JoeH
Date: April 07, 2021 10:23PM
Quote
C(-)ris
Quote
hal
Don't you have to be observed speeding to get a ticket for speeding?

Depends on the state.

Exactly. Unless they recently changed law here, to issue a ticket the officer needs to do so within a limited distance and time from the site where the infraction occurred. Or they have to be in continuing observation of the vehicle from the initial point of infraction.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Sure, Woods. No special treatment
Posted by: MrNoBody
Date: April 07, 2021 10:30PM
Quote
N-OS X-tasy!
...
Speed data was pulled from the vehicle black box - it was NOT estimated.

In 100% of the times I've received a speeding ticket (a fairly high number, mind you), no one was injured and there was no property damage at all.

What else ya got?

Good luck getting "black box" data admitted into evidence sans witnesses,
radar, traffic cam, or some other verifiable video recording.

In 100% of the times I've received a speeding ticket...
And I'd wager none of those tickets was from black box data, they were
all from LEO observation, speed cams, and/or clocking, right?



39°36'17"N 75°44'43"W

DuckDuckGo
The search engine that doesn't track you.

Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Sure, Woods. No special treatment
Posted by: N-OS X-tasy!
Date: April 07, 2021 10:50PM
Quote
MrNoBody
In 100% of the times I've received a speeding ticket...
And I'd wager none of those tickets was from black box data, they were
all from LEO observation, speed cams, and/or clocking, right?

Wow, you missed the point COMPLETELY! Wanna try again?



It is what it is.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Sure, Woods. No special treatment
Posted by: vision63
Date: April 07, 2021 10:54PM
Quote
N-OS X-tasy!
Quote
MrNoBody
In 100% of the times I've received a speeding ticket...
And I'd wager none of those tickets was from black box data, they were
all from LEO observation, speed cams, and/or clocking, right?

Wow, you missed the point COMPLETELY! Wanna try again?

Government certified and calibrated black box data? That would be the problem in court.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Sure, Woods. No special treatment
Posted by: N-OS X-tasy!
Date: April 08, 2021 12:36AM
According to this site: [www.ncsl.org]

Seventeen states--Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington--have enacted statutes relating to event data recorders and privacy. Among other provisions, these states provide that data collected from a motor vehicle event data recorder may only be downloaded with the consent of the vehicle owner or policyholder, with certain exceptions.

This information is current as of October 2020.

In California, data can only be downloaded from the event data recorder (EDR) under one of the following conditions:

1) with owner’s consent;
2) court order;
3) vehicle safety research;
4) diagnosing, servicing, or repairing the vehicle.

Clearly one of those requirements has been met, because the authorities are in possession of the data.

(Remember: Tiger borrowed this vehicle - he is NOT the owner and it was not a rental.)

The question then becomes: Is the data admissible in court? The implication seems to be that, if data was obtained from the EBR in accordance with the law, it can be used in court. This article speaks to that to some degree: [www.forbes.com]

And some interesting info from this site: [www.bellas-wachowski.com]

Most vehicles are now equipped with event data recorders (“EDR’s”), or as they are commonly referred to, Black Boxes. These recorders contain information such as the speed before impact, if the brakes were applied, or if the seat belts were in use.

As yet, no Court has excluded data down loaded from a Sensing and Diagnostic Module (“SDM”) or EDR. There are two reasons for this. First, the party offering the data went to great pains to establish the reliability of the data. Also, in most of these cases, the data was supported by other evidence. In Bachman v. General Motors Corp., 332 Ill.App.3d 760 (4th District, 2002), a case involving a claimed inadvertent deployment of the air bag, the plaintiff moved, in limine, to exclude data downloaded from the subject vehicles SDM which indicated that the air bag had deployed properly. At the Fry hearing GM produced evidence from a senior project engineer from its supplier, Delphi, which was responsible for designing and developing SDMs, a systems engineer from Delphi who was involved in implementing the system in the specific vehicle the plaintiff was operating, the GM supervisor of diagnostic software activities who released the data to Vetronix so it could develop a crash data retrieval system, a GM staff development engineer who had worked with NHTSA on EDR technology, and another staff engineer who had co-authored a paper with a NHTSA employee entitled “Recording Automotive Crash Event Data. These employees dealt with every possible issue that could be raised to attack the admissibility of the data.

Bachman is a “must read” case for anyone addressing the admissibility of SDM data. This is true, whether it is in a product liability case, any other civil trial or a criminal case where the data contained within the SDM is important to either side. It contains the most extensive discussion of EDRs generally and SDMs particularly that one will find outside of an engineering text.

Another important lesson from Bachman is that, in any serious products liability case or any other case of serious injury or death, we need to ascertain and recover the applicable EDR data as soon as we can. In Bachman, the plaintiff sustained serious injuries when her air bag inadvertently deployed causing her to lose control of her vehicle. The vehicle, a Chevrolet Cavalier, had been the subject of a recall as a result of low speed deployments of the air bag. The plaintiff offered testimony of other people who had actually experienced low speed deployments in Cavaliers, but, still the jury found for GM. It appears that, despite credible evidence to the contrary, the jury went with the data.


Looping back to my original argument: Yes, there is more than sufficient admissible evidence available to prove that Woods was traveling more than forty miles over the speed limit in a residential area, which in my opinion should be more than enough to convict him of reckless driving -- which is only a frickin' misdemeanor, for gosh sakes.



It is what it is.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Sure, Woods. No special treatment
Posted by: vision63
Date: April 08, 2021 02:14AM
I understand what you're saying. Just because they can, doesn't mean they'll pursue it. Nobody was hurt other than him. He's all jacked up and they're not trying to add to that. The might if people scream hard enough. I'd be suspicious of why they cared.

It's just speculation that everyone that is stopped for high speed is pursued for the max penalty. People get off all the time. I've only gotten one moving violation in my life (1981), but according to my journals, I've been stopped over 50 times. Only one time since 1992. A few fixit tickets. Never arrested. I got socked by an Inglewood cop in 1978. We resolved it.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Sure, Woods. No special treatment
Posted by: Mr645
Date: April 08, 2021 06:30AM
In Florida, data like this is not used to issue tickets. Falls under the same reason red light cameras stopped being used.

All the accused does is exercise their right to question their accuser. Red Light cameras and black boxes are really bad at answering such inquiries. Lawyers were having a field day with these tickets.

Florida changed the red light camera tickets to non moving violation and had no many issues trying to collect they finally gave up
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Sure, Woods. No special treatment
Posted by: rjmacs
Date: April 08, 2021 08:10AM
He ended his career with a stupid mistake, and people here won't be satisfied that he's been adequately punished until he gets a ticket on top of it.

<smh>



rj
AKA
Vreemac, Moth of the Future
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Sure, Woods. No special treatment
Posted by: Speedy
Date: April 08, 2021 08:57AM
Quote
Sarcany
Quote
samintx
Tell me I would not receive a ticket for driving 87 mph in a 45 zone. He received no special treatment.Really?

Watched highlights from the sheriff's press conference.

Officials said that the "black box" showed that he hit the gas right before the accident. Never touched the brake. Looks like his foot hit the gas instead of the brake on the curve. Thus, an accident and not willful speeding.

Would have to have hit the gas pretty hard to go from 40 to 80 so quickly, and that would seem to support the idea that he was impaired, but he was lucid and they didn't test him on the scene so they have no evidence of impairment.

So, he was using his phone to let somebody know he was late and hit the wrong pedal.



Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Sure, Woods. No special treatment
Posted by: Blankity Blank
Date: April 08, 2021 11:43AM
Quote
rjmacs
He ended his career with a stupid mistake, and people here won't be satisfied that he's been adequately punished until he gets a ticket on top of it.

<smh>
Okay, it’s not just me noticing there seemed to be a lot of heat and light over the ticket in this situation.

Quote
Speedy
So, he was using his phone to let somebody know he was late and hit the wrong pedal.
Or, he just hit the wrong pedal. It happens. I did it once; no impairment (Actually, somehow my foot was still partially on the gas pedal, and the car lurched and braked at the same time). Luckily, no damage or injury to anyone or anything.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Sure, Woods. No special treatment
Posted by: MrNoBody
Date: April 08, 2021 11:43AM
Ignoring why all the outrage over 'special treatment' and listening to
LA County Sheriff Alex Villanueva's report (couldn't find a transcript);
he used the term "estimated speed(s)" at least twice and Capt. James Powers
stated "speculated and believed".

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but that sounds like the 'black box' does not actually
record speeds. It records accelerator and brake applications amongst
other data.

Quote
NPR 4/07/2021 -
"Estimated speeds at the first area of impact were 84 to 87 mph, and
the final estimated speed when the vehicle struck the tree was 75 mph,"
Sheriff Alex Villanueva told reporters as he announced the department's
findings about the cause of the crash.

The posted speed on the road was 45 mph, Capt. James Powers said later.

He suggested a factor that may have contributed to the crash: "There
was no evidence of braking throughout this collision. It is speculated
and believed that Tiger Woods inadvertently hit the accelerator instead
of the brake pedal." The accelerator was pushed down just below the
maximum, Powers said.
[www.npr.org]



39°36'17"N 75°44'43"W

DuckDuckGo
The search engine that doesn't track you.

Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Sure, Woods. No special treatment
Posted by: N-OS X-tasy!
Date: April 08, 2021 12:29PM
Quote
Blankity Blank
Quote
rjmacs
He ended his career with a stupid mistake, and people here won't be satisfied that he's been adequately punished until he gets a ticket on top of it.

<smh>
Okay, it’s not just me noticing there seemed to be a lot of heat and light over the ticket in this situation.

I'm arguing a position of principle only - I don't give two shakes what happens either way.

I am genuinely curious, however, how it is that a driver who exceeded the speed limit by 40 MPH in a residential neighborhood and lost control of his vehicle to the extent that it jumped the median, crossed the street, left the road, hit a tree and overturned, leaving the vehicle totally destroyed, doesn't receive a ticket, while every time I'm pulled over for traveling 15 MPH over the limit on a freeway I DO get a ticket.

Not to mention that we would be having a very different discussion if Woods had collided with a vehicle traveling on the other side of the road - imagine what a head-on collision of that type would have involved. Just because a tragedy didn't occur doesn't mean we should ignore how Woods' actions could have very easily led to one.

Finally, most of you are not familiar with the area and do not know that there is a high school located just a bit farther up that street. I don't believe classes had reconvened at the time of this accident, but once again that's just a big of good luck, isn't it? Who can say what traffic traveling up the Hill would have looked like if school were in session?

So many factors came together just right so that Woods was the only person injured by his actions - this could have easily been so much worse. Frankly, I'm astounded by how many are prepared to excuse his indiscretions simply because no one was injured.



It is what it is.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Sure, Woods. No special treatment
Posted by: rjmacs
Date: April 08, 2021 01:52PM
Quote
N-OS X-tasy!
Quote
Blankity Blank
Quote
rjmacs
He ended his career with a stupid mistake, and people here won't be satisfied that he's been adequately punished until he gets a ticket on top of it.

<smh>
Okay, it’s not just me noticing there seemed to be a lot of heat and light over the ticket in this situation.

I'm arguing a position of principle only - I don't give two shakes what happens either way.

I am genuinely curious, however, how it is that a driver who exceeded the speed limit by 40 MPH in a residential neighborhood and lost control of his vehicle to the extent that it jumped the median, crossed the street, left the road, hit a tree and overturned, leaving the vehicle totally destroyed, doesn't receive a ticket, while every time I'm pulled over for traveling 15 MPH over the limit on a freeway I DO get a ticket.

I suspect it's because you got caught red-handed, not pulled out of your car with grotesquely mangled legs.

Quote
N-OS X-tasy!

Not to mention that we would be having a very different discussion if Woods had collided with a vehicle traveling on the other side of the road - imagine what a head-on collision of that type would have involved. Just because a tragedy didn't occur doesn't mean we should ignore how Woods' actions could have very easily led to one.

Finally, most of you are not familiar with the area and do not know that there is a high school located just a bit farther up that street. I don't believe classes had reconvened at the time of this accident, but once again that's just a big of good luck, isn't it? Who can say what traffic traveling up the Hill would have looked like if school were in session?

So many factors came together just right so that Woods was the only person injured by his actions - this could have easily been so much worse. Frankly, I'm astounded by how many are prepared to excuse his indiscretions simply because no one was injured.

Here's where an argument based on 'principle' tends to fall apart. He didn't collide with another car, and he didn't injure any children. Could it have been worse? Yes, but it wasn't, and we can't infer that he would have made the same mistake in the presence of other vehicles or pedestrians. He had the accident that he had, and it ended his career - one of the most successful in professional golf. That's an enormous price to pay, and I think speculating about 'what could have happened' is just what it is - idle speculation with an attached desire for an imagined righteous outcome. I don't get it - he has suffered unimaginably already for this error, which hurt only himself. What more do we need?



rj
AKA
Vreemac, Moth of the Future
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Sure, Woods. No special treatment
Posted by: Lux Interior
Date: April 08, 2021 04:05PM
Quote
testcase
as governments claw for additional money to piss away

Piss away?

On things like police officer's pay/pensions?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Sure, Woods. No special treatment
Posted by: mrbigstuff
Date: April 08, 2021 04:19PM
Quote
rjmacs
Quote
N-OS X-tasy!
Quote
Blankity Blank
Quote
rjmacs
He ended his career with a stupid mistake, and people here won't be satisfied that he's been adequately punished until he gets a ticket on top of it.

<smh>
Okay, it’s not just me noticing there seemed to be a lot of heat and light over the ticket in this situation.

I'm arguing a position of principle only - I don't give two shakes what happens either way.

I am genuinely curious, however, how it is that a driver who exceeded the speed limit by 40 MPH in a residential neighborhood and lost control of his vehicle to the extent that it jumped the median, crossed the street, left the road, hit a tree and overturned, leaving the vehicle totally destroyed, doesn't receive a ticket, while every time I'm pulled over for traveling 15 MPH over the limit on a freeway I DO get a ticket.

I suspect it's because you got caught red-handed, not pulled out of your car with grotesquely mangled legs.

Quote
N-OS X-tasy!

Not to mention that we would be having a very different discussion if Woods had collided with a vehicle traveling on the other side of the road - imagine what a head-on collision of that type would have involved. Just because a tragedy didn't occur doesn't mean we should ignore how Woods' actions could have very easily led to one.

Finally, most of you are not familiar with the area and do not know that there is a high school located just a bit farther up that street. I don't believe classes had reconvened at the time of this accident, but once again that's just a big of good luck, isn't it? Who can say what traffic traveling up the Hill would have looked like if school were in session?

So many factors came together just right so that Woods was the only person injured by his actions - this could have easily been so much worse. Frankly, I'm astounded by how many are prepared to excuse his indiscretions simply because no one was injured.

Here's where an argument based on 'principle' tends to fall apart. He didn't collide with another car, and he didn't injure any children. Could it have been worse? Yes, but it wasn't, and we can't infer that he would have made the same mistake in the presence of other vehicles or pedestrians. He had the accident that he had, and it ended his career - one of the most successful in professional golf. That's an enormous price to pay, and I think speculating about 'what could have happened' is just what it is - idle speculation with an attached desire for an imagined righteous outcome. I don't get it - he has suffered unimaginably already for this error, which hurt only himself. What more do we need?

Drivers who collide with telephone poles and injured are cited, and *charged* with the cost of pole replacement. No one is arguing that he should be cited or damage charges levied outside of what would normally occur. His injuries are awful and regrettable but were entirely preventable. His career that depends on his physical prowess should not be a factor. It's just something that would not typically occur, and I don't much care either whether the county or city collects a few hundred dollars.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Sure, Woods. No special treatment
Posted by: rjmacs
Date: April 08, 2021 04:54PM
Quote
mrbigstuff

Drivers who collide with telephone poles and injured are cited, and *charged* with the cost of pole replacement. No one is arguing that he should be cited or damage charges levied outside of what would normally occur. His injuries are awful and regrettable but were entirely preventable. His career that depends on his physical prowess should not be a factor. It's just something that would not typically occur, and I don't much care either whether the county or city collects a few hundred dollars.

Are you familiar with the policy and practices of the police department in question? Please elaborate, because these are hardly uniform across the country.



rj
AKA
Vreemac, Moth of the Future
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Sure, Woods. No special treatment
Posted by: mrbigstuff
Date: April 08, 2021 05:27PM
Quote
rjmacs
Quote
mrbigstuff

Drivers who collide with telephone poles and injured are cited, and *charged* with the cost of pole replacement. No one is arguing that he should be cited or damage charges levied outside of what would normally occur. His injuries are awful and regrettable but were entirely preventable. His career that depends on his physical prowess should not be a factor. It's just something that would not typically occur, and I don't much care either whether the county or city collects a few hundred dollars.

Are you familiar with the policy and practices of the police department in question? Please elaborate, because these are hardly uniform across the country.

Just one citation from LA. Thirty years ago, so perhaps LA county has reversed that policy and now allows reckless drivers (as well as non-reckless drivers) to skate free when they damage public property. Could be different everywhere, true.

[www.latimes.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Sure, Woods. No special treatment
Posted by: rjmacs
Date: April 08, 2021 05:37PM
Quote
mrbigstuff
Quote
rjmacs
Quote
mrbigstuff

Drivers who collide with telephone poles and injured are cited, and *charged* with the cost of pole replacement. No one is arguing that he should be cited or damage charges levied outside of what would normally occur. His injuries are awful and regrettable but were entirely preventable. His career that depends on his physical prowess should not be a factor. It's just something that would not typically occur, and I don't much care either whether the county or city collects a few hundred dollars.

Are you familiar with the policy and practices of the police department in question? Please elaborate, because these are hardly uniform across the country.

Just one citation from LA. Thirty years ago, so perhaps LA county has reversed that policy and now allows reckless drivers (as well as non-reckless drivers) to skate free when they damage public property. Could be different everywhere, true.

[www.latimes.com]

I'm sorry, but I read the story you linked and I'm not sure I remember reading that Woods' accident took down a telephone pole or fire hydrant or highway guardrail. Perhaps you can inform me?



rj
AKA
Vreemac, Moth of the Future
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Sure, Woods. No special treatment
Posted by: N-OS X-tasy!
Date: April 08, 2021 05:52PM
Quote
rjmacs
Quote
mrbigstuff
Quote
rjmacs
Quote
mrbigstuff

Drivers who collide with telephone poles and injured are cited, and *charged* with the cost of pole replacement. No one is arguing that he should be cited or damage charges levied outside of what would normally occur. His injuries are awful and regrettable but were entirely preventable. His career that depends on his physical prowess should not be a factor. It's just something that would not typically occur, and I don't much care either whether the county or city collects a few hundred dollars.

Are you familiar with the policy and practices of the police department in question? Please elaborate, because these are hardly uniform across the country.

Just one citation from LA. Thirty years ago, so perhaps LA county has reversed that policy and now allows reckless drivers (as well as non-reckless drivers) to skate free when they damage public property. Could be different everywhere, true.

[www.latimes.com]

I'm sorry, but I read the story you linked and I'm not sure I remember reading that Woods' accident took down a telephone pole or fire hydrant or highway guardrail. Perhaps you can inform me?

You're deliberately being obtuse, aren't you?



It is what it is.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Sure, Woods. No special treatment
Posted by: rjmacs
Date: April 08, 2021 06:14PM
Quote
N-OS X-tasy!
Quote
rjmacs
Quote
mrbigstuff
Quote
rjmacs
Quote
mrbigstuff

Drivers who collide with telephone poles and injured are cited, and *charged* with the cost of pole replacement. No one is arguing that he should be cited or damage charges levied outside of what would normally occur. His injuries are awful and regrettable but were entirely preventable. His career that depends on his physical prowess should not be a factor. It's just something that would not typically occur, and I don't much care either whether the county or city collects a few hundred dollars.

Are you familiar with the policy and practices of the police department in question? Please elaborate, because these are hardly uniform across the country.

Just one citation from LA. Thirty years ago, so perhaps LA county has reversed that policy and now allows reckless drivers (as well as non-reckless drivers) to skate free when they damage public property. Could be different everywhere, true.

[www.latimes.com]

I'm sorry, but I read the story you linked and I'm not sure I remember reading that Woods' accident took down a telephone pole or fire hydrant or highway guardrail. Perhaps you can inform me?

You're deliberately being obtuse, aren't you?

I'm deliberately asking for the poster to make clear the argument, which seems to be drifting from 'if I had been in this accident I wouldn't have gotten away with it' to 'he should have gotten a ticket because when I speed I get tickets' to 'he should be charged for damage to public property' (without saying whether he actually did).

If that's obtuse, then guilty as charged.



rj
AKA
Vreemac, Moth of the Future
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Sure, Woods. No special treatment
Posted by: Sarcany
Date: April 08, 2021 06:34PM
Some traffic tickets are strict liability. Others require an element of motive/willfulness/fault.

If he lost control of the vehicle and accidentally hit the accelerator instead of the brake then he may not be liable for the infraction.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Sure, Woods. No special treatment
Posted by: mrbigstuff
Date: April 08, 2021 07:07PM
Quote
rjmacs
Quote
mrbigstuff
Quote
rjmacs
Quote
mrbigstuff

Drivers who collide with telephone poles and injured are cited, and *charged* with the cost of pole replacement. No one is arguing that he should be cited or damage charges levied outside of what would normally occur. His injuries are awful and regrettable but were entirely preventable. His career that depends on his physical prowess should not be a factor. It's just something that would not typically occur, and I don't much care either whether the county or city collects a few hundred dollars.

Are you familiar with the policy and practices of the police department in question? Please elaborate, because these are hardly uniform across the country.

Just one citation from LA. Thirty years ago, so perhaps LA county has reversed that policy and now allows reckless drivers (as well as non-reckless drivers) to skate free when they damage public property. Could be different everywhere, true.

[www.latimes.com]

I'm sorry, but I read the story you linked and I'm not sure I remember reading that Woods' accident took down a telephone pole or fire hydrant or highway guardrail. Perhaps you can inform me?

I guess it depends on how you used the word, "these."
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Sure, Woods. No special treatment
Posted by: N-OS X-tasy!
Date: April 08, 2021 07:31PM
Quote
Sarcany
Some traffic tickets are strict liability. Others require an element of motive/willfulness/fault.

If he lost control of the vehicle and accidentally hit the accelerator instead of the brake then he may not be liable for the infraction.

That'll be the story I go with the next time I get pulled over.



It is what it is.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Sure, Woods. No special treatment
Posted by: rjmacs
Date: April 09, 2021 08:21AM
Quote
N-OS X-tasy!
Quote
Sarcany
Some traffic tickets are strict liability. Others require an element of motive/willfulness/fault.

If he lost control of the vehicle and accidentally hit the accelerator instead of the brake then he may not be liable for the infraction.

That'll be the story I go with the next time I get pulled over.

I think the point is, he wasn't pulled over. There were zero witnesses. You can drive to a police station and say, 'Officer, I drove my car here at 30 miles per hour over the speed limit - can you issue me a citation?' The police officer will look you in the eye as though you are nuts, and say, 'I can't give you a speeding ticket for something I didn't witness.'



rj
AKA
Vreemac, Moth of the Future
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Sure, Woods. No special treatment
Posted by: N-OS X-tasy!
Date: April 09, 2021 10:46AM
Quote
rjmacs
Quote
N-OS X-tasy!
Quote
Sarcany
Some traffic tickets are strict liability. Others require an element of motive/willfulness/fault.

If he lost control of the vehicle and accidentally hit the accelerator instead of the brake then he may not be liable for the infraction.

That'll be the story I go with the next time I get pulled over.

I think the point is, he wasn't pulled over. There were zero witnesses. You can drive to a police station and say, 'Officer, I drove my car here at 30 miles per hour over the speed limit - can you issue me a citation?' The police officer will look you in the eye as though you are nuts, and say, 'I can't give you a speeding ticket for something I didn't witness.'

In the example you present, the office is unable to issue a citation because he did not witness the infraction and there is no other evidence the infraction occurred.

In the Woods situation, there is ABUNDANT evidence - physical and otherwise - that an infraction occurred.



It is what it is.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Sure, Woods. No special treatment
Posted by: rjmacs
Date: April 09, 2021 02:06PM
Quote
N-OS X-tasy!
Quote
rjmacs
Quote
N-OS X-tasy!
Quote
Sarcany
Some traffic tickets are strict liability. Others require an element of motive/willfulness/fault.

If he lost control of the vehicle and accidentally hit the accelerator instead of the brake then he may not be liable for the infraction.

That'll be the story I go with the next time I get pulled over.

I think the point is, he wasn't pulled over. There were zero witnesses. You can drive to a police station and say, 'Officer, I drove my car here at 30 miles per hour over the speed limit - can you issue me a citation?' The police officer will look you in the eye as though you are nuts, and say, 'I can't give you a speeding ticket for something I didn't witness.'

In the example you present, the office is unable to issue a citation because he did not witness the infraction and there is no other evidence the infraction occurred.

In the Woods situation, there is ABUNDANT evidence - physical and otherwise - that an infraction occurred.

Which means if you were in charge of the department's policies, you could have issued a citation. What I'm objecting to here is the presumption that he didn't get one because he's Tiger Woods, when in fact there is zero evidence of that.



rj
AKA
Vreemac, Moth of the Future
Options:  Reply • Quote
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 190
Record Number of Users: 186 on February 20, 2020
Record Number of Guests: 5122 on October 03, 2020