Can't fix stupid <Driving "observation">

[John Mc.]

There's no teaching some people. I've taken the same route home for years
beyond count. Only made adjustments when there's road construction detours.
As I've mentioned before I'm a stickler for driving within 2-3 miles of
the speed limit on local roads. So the route I take is a fairly well
designed/maintained county road most of the trip. And there's always some
fellow trying to be Roger Ramjet who wants to fly down the road at 20 mph
over the limit. The local county sheriff's deputies actually patrol this
road and once or twice a week have someone stopped for speeding. I've
learned where they hide over the years and there's almost a pattern as to
where versus the day of the week. Now Tuesday there's these two idiots
behind me so close I can see their eye color. One of them whips past me and
just over the next hill a deputy pulls him over. The fellow in the truck
behind me and I slow as we pass them. Then the guy behind me passes me
like I'm standing still. Now today as I go home there's a deputy in that
same spot with someone pulled over. And I recognize the truck as the one
that passed me two days earlier. Face palm. How stupid can you be?


John Mc.

[Tim Wright]

Post by John Mc.
There's no teaching some people. I've taken the same route home for years
beyond count. Only made adjustments when there's road construction detours.
As I've mentioned before I'm a stickler for driving within 2-3 miles of
the speed limit on local roads. So the route I take is a fairly well
designed/maintained county road most of the trip. And there's always some
fellow trying to be Roger Ramjet who wants to fly down the road at 20 mph
over the limit. The local county sheriff's deputies actually patrol this
road and once or twice a week have someone stopped for speeding. I've
learned where they hide over the years and there's almost a pattern as to
where versus the day of the week. Now Tuesday there's these two idiots
behind me so close I can see their eye color. One of them whips past me and
just over the next hill a deputy pulls him over. The fellow in the truck
behind me and I slow as we pass them. Then the guy behind me passes me
like I'm standing still. Now today as I go home there's a deputy in that
same spot with someone pulled over. And I recognize the truck as the one
that passed me two days earlier. Face palm. How stupid can you be?
John Mc.

It may be spelled karma, but it's pronounced "Ha, ha, fuck you!"

[John Mc.]

Post by Tim Wright

Post by John Mc.
There's no teaching some people. I've taken the same route home for years
beyond count. Only made adjustments when there's road construction detours.
As I've mentioned before I'm a stickler for driving within 2-3 miles of
the speed limit on local roads. So the route I take is a fairly well
designed/maintained county road most of the trip. And there's always some
fellow trying to be Roger Ramjet who wants to fly down the road at 20 mph
over the limit. The local county sheriff's deputies actually patrol this
road and once or twice a week have someone stopped for speeding. I've
learned where they hide over the years and there's almost a pattern as to
where versus the day of the week. Now Tuesday there's these two idiots
behind me so close I can see their eye color. One of them whips past me and
just over the next hill a deputy pulls him over. The fellow in the truck
behind me and I slow as we pass them. Then the guy behind me passes me
like I'm standing still. Now today as I go home there's a deputy in that
same spot with someone pulled over. And I recognize the truck as the one
that passed me two days earlier. Face palm. How stupid can you be?
John Mc.

It may be spelled karma, but it's pronounced "Ha, ha, fuck you!"

I'll also go with: "There is a God."

John Mc.

[B***@BillTurlock.com]

Post by John Mc.
How stupid can you be?

At Least THAT stupid!

Oh, and what color were their eyes, hmmm??

[Richard Hershberger]

Post by John Mc.
There's no teaching some people. I've taken the same route home for years
beyond count. Only made adjustments when there's road construction detours.
As I've mentioned before I'm a stickler for driving within 2-3 miles of
the speed limit on local roads. So the route I take is a fairly well
designed/maintained county road most of the trip. And there's always some
fellow trying to be Roger Ramjet who wants to fly down the road at 20 mph
over the limit. The local county sheriff's deputies actually patrol this
road and once or twice a week have someone stopped for speeding. I've
learned where they hide over the years and there's almost a pattern as to
where versus the day of the week. Now Tuesday there's these two idiots
behind me so close I can see their eye color. One of them whips past me and
just over the next hill a deputy pulls him over. The fellow in the truck
behind me and I slow as we pass them. Then the guy behind me passes me
like I'm standing still. Now today as I go home there's a deputy in that
same spot with someone pulled over. And I recognize the truck as the one
that passed me two days earlier. Face palm. How stupid can you be?
John Mc.

You could help out the local constabulary by slowing down a bit while courteously edging over to the right, just before that spot.

Richard R. Hershberger

[John Mc.]

Post by Richard Hershberger

Post by John Mc.
There's no teaching some people. I've taken the same route home for years
beyond count. Only made adjustments when there's road construction detours.
As I've mentioned before I'm a stickler for driving within 2-3 miles of
the speed limit on local roads. So the route I take is a fairly well
designed/maintained county road most of the trip. And there's always some
fellow trying to be Roger Ramjet who wants to fly down the road at 20 mph
over the limit. The local county sheriff's deputies actually patrol this
road and once or twice a week have someone stopped for speeding. I've
learned where they hide over the years and there's almost a pattern as to
where versus the day of the week. Now Tuesday there's these two idiots
behind me so close I can see their eye color. One of them whips past me and
just over the next hill a deputy pulls him over. The fellow in the truck
behind me and I slow as we pass them. Then the guy behind me passes me
like I'm standing still. Now today as I go home there's a deputy in that
same spot with someone pulled over. And I recognize the truck as the one
that passed me two days earlier. Face palm. How stupid can you be?
John Mc.

You could help out the local constabulary by slowing down a bit while
courteously edging over to the right, just before that spot.
Richard R. Hershberger

I do edge over when they've stopped someone if there's room otherwise it's
slow down. One quibble I have with them though is that THEY don't try to
pull over out of the roadway when there's ample shoulder for them to do so.
The state police are particularly guilty of that.

John Mc.

[Snidely]

On Friday or thereabouts, John Mc. asked ...

Post by John Mc.

Post by Richard Hershberger

Post by John Mc.
There's no teaching some people. I've taken the same route home for years
beyond count. Only made adjustments when there's road construction detours.
As I've mentioned before I'm a stickler for driving within 2-3 miles of
the speed limit on local roads. So the route I take is a fairly well
designed/maintained county road most of the trip. And there's always some
fellow trying to be Roger Ramjet who wants to fly down the road at 20 mph
over the limit. The local county sheriff's deputies actually patrol this
road and once or twice a week have someone stopped for speeding. I've
learned where they hide over the years and there's almost a pattern as to
where versus the day of the week. Now Tuesday there's these two idiots
behind me so close I can see their eye color. One of them whips past me and
just over the next hill a deputy pulls him over. The fellow in the truck
behind me and I slow as we pass them. Then the guy behind me passes me
like I'm standing still. Now today as I go home there's a deputy in that
same spot with someone pulled over. And I recognize the truck as the one
that passed me two days earlier. Face palm. How stupid can you be?
John Mc.

You could help out the local constabulary by slowing down a bit while
courteously edging over to the right, just before that spot.
Richard R. Hershberger

I do edge over when they've stopped someone if there's room otherwise it's
slow down. One quibble I have with them though is that THEY don't try to
pull over out of the roadway when there's ample shoulder for them to do so.
The state police are particularly guilty of that.

I think that Richard is suggesting that you help them supplement the
budget by encouraging the vehicle behind you to take flight.

/dps

[N J Marsh]

Post by John Mc.

Post by Richard Hershberger

Post by John Mc.
There's no teaching some people. I've taken the same route home for years
beyond count. Only made adjustments when there's road construction detours.
As I've mentioned before I'm a stickler for driving within 2-3 miles of
the speed limit on local roads. So the route I take is a fairly well
designed/maintained county road most of the trip. And there's always some
fellow trying to be Roger Ramjet who wants to fly down the road at 20 mph
over the limit. The local county sheriff's deputies actually patrol this
road and once or twice a week have someone stopped for speeding. I've
learned where they hide over the years and there's almost a pattern as to
where versus the day of the week. Now Tuesday there's these two idiots
behind me so close I can see their eye color. One of them whips past me and
just over the next hill a deputy pulls him over. The fellow in the truck
behind me and I slow as we pass them. Then the guy behind me passes me
like I'm standing still. Now today as I go home there's a deputy in that
same spot with someone pulled over. And I recognize the truck as the one
that passed me two days earlier. Face palm. How stupid can you be?

You could help out the local constabulary by slowing down a bit while
courteously edging over to the right, just before that

I do edge over when they've stopped someone if there's room otherwise it's
slow down. One quibble I have with them though is that THEY don't try to
pull over out of the roadway when there's ample shoulder for them to do so.
The state police are particularly guilty of that.

That's purposeful. If it is at all possible when pulling a car over the cop
will not pull over their cruiser as far. (Eg. If you pulled ten feet over
onto the shoulder, the cop will pull five feet over onto the shoulder
behind you.). Even if it means they're hanging their side out into traffic.


That way their cruiser acts as a shield for them from oncoming traffic. If
someone is passing too close the cruiser is hit and is pushed forward while
they should be protected by the cruiser hitting the car in front of them.
The cruiser also protects them from a direct hit by traffic.

Considering the main cause of death for police is getting hit during a road
pull over, it's a sensible move and good to remember that when you are
pulled over, get as far over as you possibly can. It puts the cop in a
less fearful mood when they can park in a manner that optimizes their
safety. And it also helps to prevent that annoying "I'm not fully off the
road" thing they do.

[B***@BillTurlock.com]

Post by N J Marsh
Considering the main cause of death for police is getting hit during a road
pull over, it's a sensible move and good to remember that when you are
pulled over, get as far over as you possibly can. It puts the cop in a
less fearful mood when they can park in a manner that optimizes their
safety. And it also helps to prevent that annoying "I'm not fully off the
road" thing they do.

Sure. But then, if you're right up against a fence or the bushes,
he can't approach you from the passenger side, which is their
penultimae fear, AIUI

[bill van]

Post by B***@BillTurlock.com

Post by N J Marsh
Considering the main cause of death for police is getting hit during a road
pull over, it's a sensible move and good to remember that when you are
pulled over, get as far over as you possibly can. It puts the cop in a
less fearful mood when they can park in a manner that optimizes their
safety. And it also helps to prevent that annoying "I'm not fully off the
road" thing they do.

Sure. But then, if you're right up against a fence or the bushes,
he can't approach you from the passenger side, which is their
penultimae fear, AIUI

Surely they always want to approach the driver side. Their business is
with the person driving, not the passenger. Legally, they have no
business engaging the passenger. If they have reason to believe their
lives are in danger, they need to call for reinforcements before
engaging.

[Snidely]

Post by bill van

Post by B***@BillTurlock.com

Post by N J Marsh
Considering the main cause of death for police is getting hit during a road
pull over, it's a sensible move and good to remember that when you are
pulled over, get as far over as you possibly can. It puts the cop in a
less fearful mood when they can park in a manner that optimizes their
safety. And it also helps to prevent that annoying "I'm not fully off the
road" thing they do.

Sure. But then, if you're right up against a fence or the bushes,
he can't approach you from the passenger side, which is their
penultimae fear, AIUI

Surely they always want to approach the driver side. Their business is
with the person driving, not the passenger. Legally, they have no
business engaging the passenger. If they have reason to believe their
lives are in danger, they need to call for reinforcements before
engaging.

They want to see what the driver is doing.

/dps

[bill van]

Post by Snidely

Post by bill van

Post by B***@BillTurlock.com

Post by N J Marsh
Considering the main cause of death for police is getting hit during a road
pull over, it's a sensible move and good to remember that when you are
pulled over, get as far over as you possibly can. It puts the cop in a
less fearful mood when they can park in a manner that optimizes their
safety. And it also helps to prevent that annoying "I'm not fully off the
road" thing they do.

Sure. But then, if you're right up against a fence or the bushes,
he can't approach you from the passenger side, which is their
penultimae fear, AIUI

Surely they always want to approach the driver side. Their business is
with the person driving, not the passenger. Legally, they have no
business engaging the passenger. If they have reason to believe their
lives are in danger, they need to call for reinforcements before
engaging.

They want to see what the driver is doing.

Yet another reason for approaching from the driver's side.

[Snidely]

Post by bill van

Post by Snidely

Post by bill van

Post by B***@BillTurlock.com

Post by N J Marsh
Considering the main cause of death for police is getting hit during a road
pull over, it's a sensible move and good to remember that when you are
pulled over, get as far over as you possibly can. It puts the cop in a
less fearful mood when they can park in a manner that optimizes their
safety. And it also helps to prevent that annoying "I'm not fully off the
road" thing they do.

Sure. But then, if you're right up against a fence or the bushes,
he can't approach you from the passenger side, which is their
penultimae fear, AIUI

Surely they always want to approach the driver side. Their business is
with the person driving, not the passenger. Legally, they have no
business engaging the passenger. If they have reason to believe their
lives are in danger, they need to call for reinforcements before
engaging.

They want to see what the driver is doing.

Yet another reason for approaching from the driver's side.

No, the pillar blocks the view.

/dps

[bill van]

Post by Snidely

Post by bill van

Post by Snidely

Post by bill van

Post by B***@BillTurlock.com

Post by N J Marsh
Considering the main cause of death for police is getting hit during a road
pull over, it's a sensible move and good to remember that when you are
pulled over, get as far over as you possibly can. It puts the cop in a
less fearful mood when they can park in a manner that optimizes their
safety. And it also helps to prevent that annoying "I'm not fully off the
road" thing they do.

Sure. But then, if you're right up against a fence or the bushes,
he can't approach you from the passenger side, which is their
penultimae fear, AIUI

Surely they always want to approach the driver side. Their business is
with the person driving, not the passenger. Legally, they have no
business engaging the passenger. If they have reason to believe their
lives are in danger, they need to call for reinforcements before
engaging.

They want to see what the driver is doing.

Yet another reason for approaching from the driver's side.

No, the pillar blocks the view.

You mean the metal/plastic divider between the driver's side window
and the driver's-side back seat window? I don't see the problem. When
the police stop a car, it's normally because of the way it was being
driven, and the police have an issue with the driver. If something
else is involved that shifts the focus to a passenger, you need to
provide that information.

[s***@gmail.com]

Post by bill van

Post by Snidely

Post by bill van

Post by Snidely

Post by bill van

Post by B***@BillTurlock.com

Post by N J Marsh
Considering the main cause of death for police is getting hit during a road
pull over, it's a sensible move and good to remember that when you are
pulled over, get as far over as you possibly can. It puts the cop in a
less fearful mood when they can park in a manner that optimizes their
safety. And it also helps to prevent that annoying "I'm not fully off the
road" thing they do.

Sure. But then, if you're right up against a fence or the bushes,
he can't approach you from the passenger side, which is their
penultimae fear, AIUI

Surely they always want to approach the driver side. Their business is
with the person driving, not the passenger. Legally, they have no
business engaging the passenger. If they have reason to believe their
lives are in danger, they need to call for reinforcements before
engaging.

They want to see what the driver is doing.

Yet another reason for approaching from the driver's side.

No, the pillar blocks the view.

You mean the metal/plastic divider between the driver's side window
and the driver's-side back seat window? I don't see the problem. When
the police stop a car, it's normally because of the way it was being
driven, and the police have an issue with the driver. If something
else is involved that shifts the focus to a passenger, you need to
provide that information.

In particular, you want to see what the driver's hands are doing.

/dps

[Les Albert]

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by bill van

Post by Snidely

Post by bill van

Post by Snidely

Post by bill van
Surely they always want to approach the driver side. Their business is
with the person driving, not the passenger. Legally, they have no
business engaging the passenger. If they have reason to believe their
lives are in danger, they need to call for reinforcements before
engaging.

They want to see what the driver is doing.

Yet another reason for approaching from the driver's side.

No, the pillar blocks the view.

You mean the metal/plastic divider between the driver's side window
and the driver's-side back seat window? I don't see the problem. When
the police stop a car, it's normally because of the way it was being
driven, and the police have an issue with the driver. If something
else is involved that shifts the focus to a passenger, you need to
provide that information.

In particular, you want to see what the driver's hands are doing.

From the Mar. 2002 edition of Police Patrol - The Law Enforcement
Magazine, an article titled, "Departments : Officer Survival
The Right Approach" with a sub-heading, "Some departments frown on it,
but the safest way to issue a citation is from the passenger side."

Here is an excerpt from the article:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And there is a much safer way to make a traffic stop.

Consider the passenger side approach. By making contact with the
driver along the right side of the car, an officer can reduce by half
the areas of concern, eliminating the worry of being struck by an
approaching vehicle. Further, by not having to concentrate on passing
cars, the officer can now pay attention to the driver.

Also, if the driver is a criminal and not Joe Citizen trying to get
home a little faster, then the officer has one of the most important
advantages that anyone could ever have in a potentially violent
situation: the element of surprise. Most drivers have been conditioned
by previous experience and TV and movies to expect the officer to
approach on the driver's side during a traffic stop.

Not only is the passenger side approach unexpected by motorists, it
also allows the officer to position himself in a face-on position
toward the passenger side doorframe. For a right-handed officer, this
technique offers a view into the passenger side window with gun side
ready for a rapid response. Furthermore, whether an officer is left-
or right-handed, the passenger side door and passenger side of the
vehicle offer cover.

The passenger side approach also gives the officer room to maneuver.
If a gunfight occurs, he or she can move left, right, back up, or drop
straight to the ground without having to worry about oncoming traffic.

Finally, if the officer elects to have the driver unlock and open the
passenger door, it allows him or her an unobstructed view of the
interior of the passenger compartment. It also allows the officer to
receive information and paperwork from the driver more easily. ...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Les

[Charles Bishop]

Post by bill van

Post by Snidely

Post by bill van

Post by Snidely

Post by bill van

Post by B***@BillTurlock.com

Post by N J Marsh
Considering the main cause of death for police is getting hit during
a
road
pull over, it's a sensible move and good to remember that when you are
pulled over, get as far over as you possibly can. It puts the cop in a
less fearful mood when they can park in a manner that optimizes their
safety. And it also helps to prevent that annoying "I'm not fully off the
road" thing they do.

Sure. But then, if you're right up against a fence or the bushes,
he can't approach you from the passenger side, which is their
penultimae fear, AIUI

Surely they always want to approach the driver side. Their business is
with the person driving, not the passenger. Legally, they have no
business engaging the passenger. If they have reason to believe their
lives are in danger, they need to call for reinforcements before
engaging.

They want to see what the driver is doing.

Yet another reason for approaching from the driver's side.

No, the pillar blocks the view.

You mean the metal/plastic divider between the driver's side window
and the driver's-side back seat window? I don't see the problem. When
the police stop a car, it's normally because of the way it was being
driven, and the police have an issue with the driver. If something
else is involved that shifts the focus to a passenger, you need to
provide that information.

I think, and ICBW, that Snidely means that the best view of the driver
is through the passenger's side window. It gives a better view of what
might be happening on the driver's left hand side. It also give more
viewing time of the driver and the cop passes behind the car, then the
RH side rear window, and then the passenger's window.

Of course, different departments may have different concerns and do
things, well, differently.

[B***@BillTurlock.com]

On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 00:12:00 -0700, bill van

Post by bill van

Post by Snidely

Post by bill van

Post by B***@BillTurlock.com

Post by N J Marsh
Considering the main cause of death for police is getting hit during a road
pull over, it's a sensible move and good to remember that when you are
pulled over, get as far over as you possibly can. It puts the cop in a
less fearful mood when they can park in a manner that optimizes their
safety. And it also helps to prevent that annoying "I'm not fully off the
road" thing they do.

Sure. But then, if you're right up against a fence or the bushes,
he can't approach you from the passenger side, which is their
penultimae fear, AIUI

Surely they always want to approach the driver side. Their business is
with the person driving, not the passenger. Legally, they have no
business engaging the passenger. If they have reason to believe their
lives are in danger, they need to call for reinforcements before
engaging.

They want to see what the driver is doing.

Yet another reason for approaching from the driver's side.

Makes it easier for the shotgun-in-the-door attack, though.

[John Mc.]

Post by bill van

Post by B***@BillTurlock.com

Post by N J Marsh
Considering the main cause of death for police is getting hit during a road
pull over, it's a sensible move and good to remember that when you are
pulled over, get as far over as you possibly can. It puts the cop in a
less fearful mood when they can park in a manner that optimizes their
safety. And it also helps to prevent that annoying "I'm not fully off the
road" thing they do.

Sure. But then, if you're right up against a fence or the bushes,
he can't approach you from the passenger side, which is their
penultimae fear, AIUI

Surely they always want to approach the driver side. Their business is
with the person driving, not the passenger. Legally, they have no
business engaging the passenger. If they have reason to believe their
lives are in danger, they need to call for reinforcements before
engaging.

SWMBO has a lead foot. Where in a 55 it's rare to find me doing 58 she'll
be doing at least 60. When we'd travel by car I can remember two occasions
where she was stopped for speeding. Both of them at night. I was peacefully
sleeping when she was pulled over and each time there's a rap on my window
and a flashlight in my face. So they ARE NOSY. Try this sometime. When you
see a police car catching up to you at a light or driving down the road
avert your eyes when he pulls next to you. The officer will do everything
he can to get a look at your face. Then I've problems with the twenty
questions you go through when you are stopped. "Where are you going? Where
have you been? Where do you work? What's your address? " Asking your
address is fine. After that I've got problems.

John Mc.

[B***@BillTurlock.com]

Post by John Mc.

Post by bill van

Post by B***@BillTurlock.com

Post by N J Marsh
Considering the main cause of death for police is getting hit during a road
pull over, it's a sensible move and good to remember that when you are
pulled over, get as far over as you possibly can. It puts the cop in a
less fearful mood when they can park in a manner that optimizes their
safety. And it also helps to prevent that annoying "I'm not fully off the
road" thing they do.

Sure. But then, if you're right up against a fence or the bushes,
he can't approach you from the passenger side, which is their
penultimae fear, AIUI

Surely they always want to approach the driver side. Their business is
with the person driving, not the passenger. Legally, they have no
business engaging the passenger. If they have reason to believe their
lives are in danger, they need to call for reinforcements before
engaging.

SWMBO has a lead foot. Where in a 55 it's rare to find me doing 58 she'll
be doing at least 60. When we'd travel by car I can remember two occasions
where she was stopped for speeding. Both of them at night. I was peacefully
sleeping when she was pulled over and each time there's a rap on my window
and a flashlight in my face. So they ARE NOSY. Try this sometime. When you
see a police car catching up to you at a light or driving down the road
avert your eyes when he pulls next to you. The officer will do everything
he can to get a look at your face. Then I've problems with the twenty
questions you go through when you are stopped. "Where are you going? Where
have you been? Where do you work? What's your address? " Asking your
address is fine. After that I've got problems.
John Mc.

Don't know what you did in your previous life to get all this
negative driving karma, but I shirley do not want to be near you
and a vee-hicle

[John Mc.]

Post by B***@BillTurlock.com

Post by John Mc.

Post by bill van

Post by B***@BillTurlock.com

Post by N J Marsh
Considering the main cause of death for police is getting hit during a road
pull over, it's a sensible move and good to remember that when you are
pulled over, get as far over as you possibly can. It puts the cop in a
less fearful mood when they can park in a manner that optimizes their
safety. And it also helps to prevent that annoying "I'm not fully off the
road" thing they do.

Sure. But then, if you're right up against a fence or the bushes,
he can't approach you from the passenger side, which is their
penultimae fear, AIUI

Surely they always want to approach the driver side. Their business is
with the person driving, not the passenger. Legally, they have no
business engaging the passenger. If they have reason to believe their
lives are in danger, they need to call for reinforcements before
engaging.

SWMBO has a lead foot. Where in a 55 it's rare to find me doing 58 she'll
be doing at least 60. When we'd travel by car I can remember two occasions
where she was stopped for speeding. Both of them at night. I was peacefully
sleeping when she was pulled over and each time there's a rap on my window
and a flashlight in my face. So they ARE NOSY. Try this sometime. When you
see a police car catching up to you at a light or driving down the road
avert your eyes when he pulls next to you. The officer will do everything
he can to get a look at your face. Then I've problems with the twenty
questions you go through when you are stopped. "Where are you going? Where
have you been? Where do you work? What's your address? " Asking your
address is fine. After that I've got problems.
John Mc.

Don't know what you did in your previous life to get all this
negative driving karma, but I shirley do not want to be near you
and a vee-hicle

I've had ONE traffic ticket in the last 25 years. I had this idiot who one
minute was doing 40'in a 55 and then would speed up to the limit and rinse
and repeat. He drove me to distraction and I finally just floored it to
pass him and get away from his lunacy. Just as a state trooper came over
the hill behind me. All My Other police interactions have had to do with
vehicle infractions as in headlights and other bulbs. One interesting
occurrence- I was traveling home one evening at around 3 am. I was stopped
by a state policeman for having a "dirty license" plate. Face it -it was a
drunk check. Fine he runs my license and registration and issues a warning.
The next day I WASHED that car from stem to stern paying particular
attention to the plate. And I'll be damned if I wasn't stopped for the
same thing by a different trooper. It was the excuse of the month I
guess.

John Mc.

[Charles Bishop]

In article

Post by John Mc.

Post by bill van

Post by B***@BillTurlock.com

Post by N J Marsh
Considering the main cause of death for police is getting hit during a road
pull over, it's a sensible move and good to remember that when you are
pulled over, get as far over as you possibly can. It puts the cop in a
less fearful mood when they can park in a manner that optimizes their
safety. And it also helps to prevent that annoying "I'm not fully off the
road" thing they do.

Sure. But then, if you're right up against a fence or the bushes,
he can't approach you from the passenger side, which is their
penultimae fear, AIUI

Surely they always want to approach the driver side. Their business is
with the person driving, not the passenger. Legally, they have no
business engaging the passenger. If they have reason to believe their
lives are in danger, they need to call for reinforcements before
engaging.

SWMBO has a lead foot. Where in a 55 it's rare to find me doing 58 she'll
be doing at least 60. When we'd travel by car I can remember two occasions
where she was stopped for speeding. Both of them at night. I was peacefully
sleeping when she was pulled over and each time there's a rap on my window
and a flashlight in my face. So they ARE NOSY. Try this sometime. When you
see a police car catching up to you at a light or driving down the road
avert your eyes when he pulls next to you. The officer will do everything
he can to get a look at your face. Then I've problems with the twenty
questions you go through when you are stopped. "Where are you going? Where
have you been? Where do you work? What's your address? " Asking your
address is fine. After that I've got problems.

If I may, doing 60 in a 55 does not indicate a lead foot. It's too
little over the posted limit to qualify.

[John Mc.]

Post by Charles Bishop
In article

Post by John Mc.

Post by bill van

Post by B***@BillTurlock.com

Post by N J Marsh
Considering the main cause of death for police is getting hit during a road
pull over, it's a sensible move and good to remember that when you are
pulled over, get as far over as you possibly can. It puts the cop in a
less fearful mood when they can park in a manner that optimizes their
safety. And it also helps to prevent that annoying "I'm not fully off the
road" thing they do.

Sure. But then, if you're right up against a fence or the bushes,
he can't approach you from the passenger side, which is their
penultimae fear, AIUI

Surely they always want to approach the driver side. Their business is
with the person driving, not the passenger. Legally, they have no
business engaging the passenger. If they have reason to believe their
lives are in danger, they need to call for reinforcements before
engaging.

SWMBO has a lead foot. Where in a 55 it's rare to find me doing 58 she'll
be doing at least 60. When we'd travel by car I can remember two occasions
where she was stopped for speeding. Both of them at night. I was peacefully
sleeping when she was pulled over and each time there's a rap on my window
and a flashlight in my face. So they ARE NOSY. Try this sometime. When you
see a police car catching up to you at a light or driving down the road
avert your eyes when he pulls next to you. The officer will do everything
he can to get a look at your face. Then I've problems with the twenty
questions you go through when you are stopped. "Where are you going? Where
have you been? Where do you work? What's your address? " Asking your
address is fine. After that I've got problems.

If I may, doing 60 in a 55 does not indicate a lead foot. It's too
little over the posted limit to qualify.

I don't disagree. I will though point to my qualifier "at least". I should
have said "a minimum of" though. Seriously unless we're talking being in
traffic little keeps her from exceeding the limit by well more that 5mph.
That and her inability to use her turn signals at the proper time is the
reason I drive most of the time when we're together in a car.

John Mc.

[Charles Bishop]

In article

Post by John Mc.
,

Post by Charles Bishop
In article

Post by John Mc.

Post by bill van

Post by B***@BillTurlock.com

Post by N J Marsh
Considering the main cause of death for police is getting hit during a road
pull over, it's a sensible move and good to remember that when you are
pulled over, get as far over as you possibly can. It puts the cop in a
less fearful mood when they can park in a manner that optimizes their
safety. And it also helps to prevent that annoying "I'm not fully off the
road" thing they do.

Sure. But then, if you're right up against a fence or the bushes,
he can't approach you from the passenger side, which is their
penultimae fear, AIUI

Surely they always want to approach the driver side. Their business is
with the person driving, not the passenger. Legally, they have no
business engaging the passenger. If they have reason to believe their
lives are in danger, they need to call for reinforcements before
engaging.

SWMBO has a lead foot. Where in a 55 it's rare to find me doing 58 she'll
be doing at least 60. When we'd travel by car I can remember two occasions
where she was stopped for speeding. Both of them at night. I was peacefully
sleeping when she was pulled over and each time there's a rap on my window
and a flashlight in my face. So they ARE NOSY. Try this sometime. When you
see a police car catching up to you at a light or driving down the road
avert your eyes when he pulls next to you. The officer will do everything
he can to get a look at your face. Then I've problems with the twenty
questions you go through when you are stopped. "Where are you going? Where
have you been? Where do you work? What's your address? " Asking your
address is fine. After that I've got problems.

If I may, doing 60 in a 55 does not indicate a lead foot. It's too
little over the posted limit to qualify.

I don't disagree. I will though point to my qualifier "at least". I should
have said "a minimum of" though. Seriously unless we're talking being in
traffic little keeps her from exceeding the limit by well more that 5mph.
That and her inability to use her turn signals at the proper time is the
reason I drive most of the time when we're together in a car.

I've been thinking about this, but now I have a slight headache and it
isn't doing me any good. I do think there is more to "lead foot" than
just going over the limit, especially if the speed is "constant" and not
hot-footing it. So, "lead foot" has a meaning that is more than
speeding, and I can't find the distinctions I'm looking for.

Anyone?

[John Mc.]

Post by Charles Bishop
In article

Post by John Mc.
,

Post by Charles Bishop
In article

Post by John Mc.

Post by bill van

Post by B***@BillTurlock.com

Post by N J Marsh
Considering the main cause of death for police is getting hit during a road
pull over, it's a sensible move and good to remember that when you are
pulled over, get as far over as you possibly can. It puts the cop in a
less fearful mood when they can park in a manner that optimizes their
safety. And it also helps to prevent that annoying "I'm not fully off the
road" thing they do.

Sure. But then, if you're right up against a fence or the bushes,
he can't approach you from the passenger side, which is their
penultimae fear, AIUI

Surely they always want to approach the driver side. Their business is
with the person driving, not the passenger. Legally, they have no
business engaging the passenger. If they have reason to believe their
lives are in danger, they need to call for reinforcements before
engaging.

SWMBO has a lead foot. Where in a 55 it's rare to find me doing 58 she'll
be doing at least 60. When we'd travel by car I can remember two occasions
where she was stopped for speeding. Both of them at night. I was peacefully
sleeping when she was pulled over and each time there's a rap on my window
and a flashlight in my face. So they ARE NOSY. Try this sometime. When you
see a police car catching up to you at a light or driving down the road
avert your eyes when he pulls next to you. The officer will do everything
he can to get a look at your face. Then I've problems with the twenty
questions you go through when you are stopped. "Where are you going? Where
have you been? Where do you work? What's your address? " Asking your
address is fine. After that I've got problems.

If I may, doing 60 in a 55 does not indicate a lead foot. It's too
little over the posted limit to qualify.

I don't disagree. I will though point to my qualifier "at least". I should
have said "a minimum of" though. Seriously unless we're talking being in
traffic little keeps her from exceeding the limit by well more that 5mph.
That and her inability to use her turn signals at the proper time is the
reason I drive most of the time when we're together in a car.

I've been thinking about this, but now I have a slight headache and it
isn't doing me any good. I do think there is more to "lead foot" than
just going over the limit, especially if the speed is "constant" and not
hot-footing it. So, "lead foot" has a meaning that is more than
speeding, and I can't find the distinctions I'm looking for.
Anyone?

If by hot-footing it you mean moving when the light changes I'm guilty.
I've a problem with cars in front of me at a light not moving when the
light changes. I don't mean jack rabbit I mean "the light is green. Why is
your foot still on the brake?" I know there are red light runners about but
there's caution and then there's "Duh I'm on my cell."

John Mc

[Les Albert]

Post by Charles Bishop
I've been thinking about this, but now I have a slight headache and it
isn't doing me any good. I do think there is more to "lead foot" than
just going over the limit, especially if the speed is "constant" and not
hot-footing it. So, "lead foot" has a meaning that is more than
speeding, and I can't find the distinctions I'm looking for.
Anyone?

I always defined "lead foot" as someone who habitually drives too fast
under all conditions. But I found another defintion for it in this
post:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although the more common definition of 'leadfoot' is one who drives or
accelerates quickly, the definition that I learned of, when I had
Driver's Education in High School, is a driver with 'a foot made of
lead' that doesn't compensate his throttle position for road
conditions or terrain. According to the second definition, such a
driver would be unlikely to slow down for fog or rain, would not speed
up when traffic starts moving faster, would allow his vehicle to slow
down going up a hill, and would even speed up (possibly to a dangerous
point) when going down a hill. Such a driver was described as one of
the 'bad driver' types in the class. At the time I heard this
definition described in Driver's Ed class, I had believed that the
'fast driver' definition was the correct one. I was a bit confused
when someone (typically in a movie or TV show) would say "Out of the
way, LEADFOOT!" After all, a driver known for pushing the pedal to the
floor wouldn't be 'in the way' would he? So the alternate "Driver's Ed
Class" definition makes more sense in that context. Still, the 'quick
driver' definition seems to be the more commonly used, so I added the
"Driver's Ed Class" definition as the second, rather than the first.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Talk:leadfoot
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I never heard that definition before this, and I still think "lead
foot" just means one who habitually drives too fast.

Les

[Peter Boulding]

Post by Les Albert

Post by Charles Bishop
I've been thinking about this, but now I have a slight headache and it
isn't doing me any good. I do think there is more to "lead foot" than
just going over the limit, especially if the speed is "constant" and not
hot-footing it. So, "lead foot" has a meaning that is more than
speeding, and I can't find the distinctions I'm looking for.
Anyone?

I always defined "lead foot" as someone who habitually drives too fast
under all conditions. But I found another defintion for it in this
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the more common definition of 'leadfoot' is one who drives or
accelerates quickly, the definition that I learned of, when I had
Driver's Education in High School, is a driver with 'a foot made of
lead' that doesn't compensate his throttle position for road
conditions or terrain. According to the second definition, such a
driver would be unlikely to slow down for fog or rain, would not speed
up when traffic starts moving faster, would allow his vehicle to slow
down going up a hill, and would even speed up (possibly to a dangerous
point) when going down a hill. Such a driver was described as one of
the 'bad driver' types in the class. At the time I heard this
definition described in Driver's Ed class, I had believed that the
'fast driver' definition was the correct one. I was a bit confused
when someone (typically in a movie or TV show) would say "Out of the
way, LEADFOOT!" After all, a driver known for pushing the pedal to the
floor wouldn't be 'in the way' would he? So the alternate "Driver's Ed
Class" definition makes more sense in that context. Still, the 'quick
driver' definition seems to be the more commonly used, so I added the
"Driver's Ed Class" definition as the second, rather than the first.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Talk:leadfoot
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never heard that definition before this, and I still think "lead
foot" just means one who habitually drives too fast.

Oddly, it would appear, I don't recall coming across the expression at all.

But while I can accept the idea that it might imply a foot that has a lot if
inertia--for example, one who infuriatingly drives at forty mph all the time
whether the road currently permits a safe 50 or is dangerous and/or illegal
above 30, my immediate assumption on first reading it here was that it
implied that the diver is heavy on all* the pedals, without regard for fuel
consumption, brake wear, clutch wear, or passenger comfort ... that is, one
who both accelerates and decelerates harder than the norm; a fast, but not
necessarily unsafe, driver.


* Note that manual transmissions are the norm in the UK,

[Les Albert]

On Sat, 05 Aug 2017 16:11:55 +0100, Peter Boulding

Post by Peter Boulding

Post by Les Albert

Post by Charles Bishop
I've been thinking about this, but now I have a slight headache and it
isn't doing me any good. I do think there is more to "lead foot" than
just going over the limit, especially if the speed is "constant" and not
hot-footing it. So, "lead foot" has a meaning that is more than
speeding, and I can't find the distinctions I'm looking for.
Anyone?

I always defined "lead foot" as someone who habitually drives too fast
under all conditions. But I found another defintion for it in this
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the more common definition of 'leadfoot' is one who drives or
accelerates quickly, the definition that I learned of, when I had
Driver's Education in High School, is a driver with 'a foot made of
lead' that doesn't compensate his throttle position for road
conditions or terrain. According to the second definition, such a
driver would be unlikely to slow down for fog or rain, would not speed
up when traffic starts moving faster, would allow his vehicle to slow
down going up a hill, and would even speed up (possibly to a dangerous
point) when going down a hill. Such a driver was described as one of
the 'bad driver' types in the class. At the time I heard this
definition described in Driver's Ed class, I had believed that the
'fast driver' definition was the correct one. I was a bit confused
when someone (typically in a movie or TV show) would say "Out of the
way, LEADFOOT!" After all, a driver known for pushing the pedal to the
floor wouldn't be 'in the way' would he? So the alternate "Driver's Ed
Class" definition makes more sense in that context. Still, the 'quick
driver' definition seems to be the more commonly used, so I added the
"Driver's Ed Class" definition as the second, rather than the first.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Talk:leadfoot
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never heard that definition before this, and I still think "lead
foot" just means one who habitually drives too fast.

Oddly, it would appear, I don't recall coming across the expression at all.

Oddly for you, but it's purely an American expression, so it's
entirely possible that you wouldn't have come across it at all.

Post by Peter Boulding
But while I can accept the idea that it might imply a foot that has a lot if
inertia--for example, one who infuriatingly drives at forty mph all the time
whether the road currently permits a safe 50 or is dangerous and/or illegal
above 30, my immediate assumption on first reading it here was that it
implied that the diver is heavy on all* the pedals, without regard for fuel
consumption, brake wear, clutch wear, or passenger comfort ... that is, one
who both accelerates and decelerates harder than the norm; a fast, but not
necessarily unsafe, driver.

Most online dictionaries define "lead foot" pretty much the same:
someone who drives to fast. Here is one defintion from
http://www.wordsense.eu/leadfoot/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
leadfoot (English)
Origin & history
From lead (a heavy metal) + foot.
Noun
leadfoot (pl. leadfeet)
One who drives quickly or without subtlety, one who often engages in
and/or is fond of slamming and flooring the accelerator often.
The leadfoot screeched to a stop inches from the tree.
A driver that does not compensate the throttle position of his vehicle
for road conditions or terrain, invariable slowing down while going
uphill (irritating other drivers), and speeding up while going
downhill (preventing other drivers from passing), as if his foot were
"made of lead," thereby "preventing him from adjusting the throttle's
position."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oddly, I don't think "lead foot" was meant to apply to clutch or brake
use, but your idea of "one who both accelerates and decelerates harder
than the norm; a fast, but not necessarily unsafe, driver", seems to
me to also be a good definition.

Les

[Questor]

Post by Les Albert

Post by Charles Bishop
I've been thinking about this, but now I have a slight headache and it
isn't doing me any good. I do think there is more to "lead foot" than
just going over the limit, especially if the speed is "constant" and not
hot-footing it. So, "lead foot" has a meaning that is more than
speeding, and I can't find the distinctions I'm looking for.
Anyone?

I always defined "lead foot" as someone who habitually drives too fast
under all conditions. But I found another defintion for it in this
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the more common definition of 'leadfoot' is one who drives or
accelerates quickly, the definition that I learned of, when I had
Driver's Education in High School, is a driver with 'a foot made of
lead' that doesn't compensate his throttle position for road
conditions or terrain. According to the second definition, such a
driver would be unlikely to slow down for fog or rain, would not speed
up when traffic starts moving faster, would allow his vehicle to slow
down going up a hill, and would even speed up (possibly to a dangerous
point) when going down a hill. Such a driver was described as one of
the 'bad driver' types in the class. At the time I heard this
definition described in Driver's Ed class, I had believed that the
'fast driver' definition was the correct one. I was a bit confused
when someone (typically in a movie or TV show) would say "Out of the
way, LEADFOOT!" After all, a driver known for pushing the pedal to the
floor wouldn't be 'in the way' would he? So the alternate "Driver's Ed
Class" definition makes more sense in that context. Still, the 'quick
driver' definition seems to be the more commonly used, so I added the
"Driver's Ed Class" definition as the second, rather than the first.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Talk:leadfoot
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never heard that definition before this, and I still think "lead
foot" just means one who habitually drives too fast.

Since, per Carlin, anyone driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone
driving faster is a maniac, then a leadfoot is a driver who finds that most or
all of the drivers around them are idiots.

[B***@BillTurlock.com]

On Sun, 30 Jul 2017 23:01:38 -0700, bill van

Post by bill van
Surely they always want to approach the driver side. Their business is
with the person driving, not the passenger. Legally, they have no
business engaging the passenger. If they have reason to believe their
lives are in danger, they need to call for reinforcements before
engaging.

By mentioning a position, I was not suggesting that they were
interested in engaging the passenger, it's that it seems to be a
safer path to avoid ambush.

Plus, how often have you seen a car pulled over that had more
than one occupant. Hardly ever, I'd bet. Seems to be a 'rule' for
traffic stops—no corroborating witnesses that way.

[Questor]

Post by bill van

Post by B***@BillTurlock.com

Post by N J Marsh
Considering the main cause of death for police is getting hit during a road
pull over, it's a sensible move and good to remember that when you are
pulled over, get as far over as you possibly can. It puts the cop in a
less fearful mood when they can park in a manner that optimizes their
safety. And it also helps to prevent that annoying "I'm not fully off the
road" thing they do.

Sure. But then, if you're right up against a fence or the bushes,
he can't approach you from the passenger side, which is their
penultimae fear, AIUI

Surely they always want to approach the driver side. Their business is
with the person driving, not the passenger. Legally, they have no
business engaging the passenger. If they have reason to believe their
lives are in danger, they need to call for reinforcements before
engaging.

To the best of my recollection, every time I've been stopped on a highway or
freeway in at least the last 20+ years, the officer approached from the
passenger side.

[bill van]

Post by Questor

Post by bill van

Post by B***@BillTurlock.com

Post by N J Marsh
Considering the main cause of death for police is getting hit during a road
pull over, it's a sensible move and good to remember that when you are
pulled over, get as far over as you possibly can. It puts the cop in a
less fearful mood when they can park in a manner that optimizes their
safety. And it also helps to prevent that annoying "I'm not fully off the
road" thing they do.

Sure. But then, if you're right up against a fence or the bushes,
he can't approach you from the passenger side, which is their
penultimae fear, AIUI

Surely they always want to approach the driver side. Their business is
with the person driving, not the passenger. Legally, they have no
business engaging the passenger. If they have reason to believe their
lives are in danger, they need to call for reinforcements before
engaging.

To the best of my recollection, every time I've been stopped on a highway or
freeway in at least the last 20+ years, the officer approached from the
passenger side.

I believe you, but I think it's strange. Factors other than the
operation of the motor vehicle -- by the driver, who else? -- seem to
be governing the police officers' behaviour.

[Les Albert]

Post by bill van

Post by Questor

Post by bill van

Post by B***@BillTurlock.com

Post by N J Marsh
Considering the main cause of death for police is getting hit during a road
pull over, it's a sensible move and good to remember that when you are
pulled over, get as far over as you possibly can. It puts the cop in a
less fearful mood when they can park in a manner that optimizes their
safety. And it also helps to prevent that annoying "I'm not fully off the
road" thing they do.

Sure. But then, if you're right up against a fence or the bushes,
he can't approach you from the passenger side, which is their
penultimae fear, AIUI

Surely they always want to approach the driver side. Their business is
with the person driving, not the passenger. Legally, they have no
business engaging the passenger. If they have reason to believe their
lives are in danger, they need to call for reinforcements before
engaging.

To the best of my recollection, every time I've been stopped on a highway or
freeway in at least the last 20+ years, the officer approached from the
passenger side.

I believe you, but I think it's strange. Factors other than the
operation of the motor vehicle -- by the driver, who else? -- seem to
be governing the police officers' behaviour.

"The passenger side approach also gives the officer room to maneuver.
If a gunfight occurs, he or she can move left, right, back up, or drop
straight to the ground without having to worry about oncoming traffic.
Finally, if the officer elects to have the driver unlock and open the
passenger door, it allows him or her an unobstructed view of the
interior of the passenger compartment. It also allows the officer to
receive information and paperwork from the driver more easily. ...".
From Mar. 2002 edition of Police Patrol - The Law Enforcement
Magazine

Les

[bill van]

Post by Les Albert

Post by bill van

Post by Questor

Post by bill van

Post by B***@BillTurlock.com

Post by N J Marsh
Considering the main cause of death for police is getting hit during a road
pull over, it's a sensible move and good to remember that when you are
pulled over, get as far over as you possibly can. It puts the cop in a
less fearful mood when they can park in a manner that optimizes their
safety. And it also helps to prevent that annoying "I'm not fully off the
road" thing they do.

Sure. But then, if you're right up against a fence or the bushes,
he can't approach you from the passenger side, which is their
penultimae fear, AIUI

Surely they always want to approach the driver side. Their business is
with the person driving, not the passenger. Legally, they have no
business engaging the passenger. If they have reason to believe their
lives are in danger, they need to call for reinforcements before
engaging.

To the best of my recollection, every time I've been stopped on a highway or
freeway in at least the last 20+ years, the officer approached from the
passenger side.

I believe you, but I think it's strange. Factors other than the
operation of the motor vehicle -- by the driver, who else? -- seem to
be governing the police officers' behaviour.

"The passenger side approach also gives the officer room to maneuver.
If a gunfight occurs, he or she can move left, right, back up, or drop
straight to the ground without having to worry about oncoming traffic.
Finally, if the officer elects to have the driver unlock and open the
passenger door, it allows him or her an unobstructed view of the
interior of the passenger compartment. It also allows the officer to
receive information and paperwork from the driver more easily. ...".
From Mar. 2002 edition of Police Patrol - The Law Enforcement
Magazine

I believe that, too. Police interactions with motorists are bent out
of shape by the possibility that somebody will pull out a gun and
start firing. As you president has said about other things, "Sad."

[Greg Goss]

Post by bill van
I believe you, but I think it's strange. Factors other than the
operation of the motor vehicle -- by the driver, who else? -- seem to
be governing the police officers' behaviour.

In a gangsta zone, watching the driver's right hand may be more
important.

[Questor]

Post by bill van

Post by Questor

Post by bill van

Post by B***@BillTurlock.com

Post by N J Marsh
Considering the main cause of death for police is getting hit during a road
pull over, it's a sensible move and good to remember that when you are
pulled over, get as far over as you possibly can. It puts the cop in a
less fearful mood when they can park in a manner that optimizes their
safety. And it also helps to prevent that annoying "I'm not fully off the
road" thing they do.

Sure. But then, if you're right up against a fence or the bushes,
he can't approach you from the passenger side, which is their
penultimae fear, AIUI

Surely they always want to approach the driver side. Their business is
with the person driving, not the passenger. Legally, they have no
business engaging the passenger. If they have reason to believe their
lives are in danger, they need to call for reinforcements before
engaging.

To the best of my recollection, every time I've been stopped on a highway or
freeway in at least the last 20+ years, the officer approached from the
passenger side.

I believe you, but I think it's strange. Factors other than the
operation of the motor vehicle -- by the driver, who else? -- seem to
be governing the police officers' behaviour.

If, as stated above, the biggest risk to the LEO during a traffic stop is
getting hit by another car on the roadway, then approaching the vehicle from the
passenger side seems like obvious tactic to reduce that possibility.

[Greg Goss]

Post by Questor

Post by bill van
Surely they always want to approach the driver side. Their business is
with the person driving, not the passenger. Legally, they have no
business engaging the passenger. If they have reason to believe their
lives are in danger, they need to call for reinforcements before
engaging.

To the best of my recollection, every time I've been stopped on a highway or
freeway in at least the last 20+ years, the officer approached from the
passenger side.

That's odd. I've never been approached from the passenger side.
Maybe once, with a passenger in the vehicle, there was a second
officer watching from the right front fender, but the guy talking was
at my left shoulder.

In the past three or four years I've noticed the habit of parking the
patrol car about two feet further out than mine to provide a safety
box for the officer. I never noticed that before, but they may have
been doing it all along.

[bill van]

Post by Greg Goss

Post by Questor

Post by bill van
Surely they always want to approach the driver side. Their business is
with the person driving, not the passenger. Legally, they have no
business engaging the passenger. If they have reason to believe their
lives are in danger, they need to call for reinforcements before
engaging.

To the best of my recollection, every time I've been stopped on a highway or
freeway in at least the last 20+ years, the officer approached from the
passenger side.

That's odd. I've never been approached from the passenger side.
Maybe once, with a passenger in the vehicle, there was a second
officer watching from the right front fender, but the guy talking was
at my left shoulder.

Me too. I think we're seeing a genuine difference between how things
are done in Canada and across the line.

Post by Greg Goss
In the past three or four years I've noticed the habit of parking the
patrol car about two feet further out than mine to provide a safety
box for the officer. I never noticed that before, but they may have
been doing it all along.

I hadn't noticed it either. Seems like a good idea. With their light
displays active, the patrol cars would be unlikely to be rear-ended.

[John Mc.]

Post by bill van

Post by Greg Goss

Post by Questor

Post by bill van
Surely they always want to approach the driver side. Their business is
with the person driving, not the passenger. Legally, they have no
business engaging the passenger. If they have reason to believe their
lives are in danger, they need to call for reinforcements before
engaging.

To the best of my recollection, every time I've been stopped on a highway or
freeway in at least the last 20+ years, the officer approached from the
passenger side.

That's odd. I've never been approached from the passenger side.
Maybe once, with a passenger in the vehicle, there was a second
officer watching from the right front fender, but the guy talking was
at my left shoulder.

Me too. I think we're seeing a genuine difference between how things
are done in Canada and across the line.

Post by Greg Goss
In the past three or four years I've noticed the habit of parking the
patrol car about two feet further out than mine to provide a safety
box for the officer. I never noticed that before, but they may have
been doing it all along.

I hadn't noticed it either. Seems like a good idea. With their light
displays active, the patrol cars would be unlikely to be rear-ended.

Trust me you should see the zoned out semi drivers on our roads. There are
frequent fatalities with the typical discussion being. "Traffic had
stopped/slowed and the driver of the semi did not stop in time; slamming
into the minivan, killing the four children and their parents." This
usually occurs at the start of a construction zone.

John Mc

[Snidely]

Post by John Mc.

Post by bill van

Post by Greg Goss

Post by Questor

Post by bill van
Surely they always want to approach the driver side. Their business is
with the person driving, not the passenger. Legally, they have no
business engaging the passenger. If they have reason to believe their
lives are in danger, they need to call for reinforcements before
engaging.

To the best of my recollection, every time I've been stopped on a highway
or freeway in at least the last 20+ years, the officer approached from the
passenger side.

That's odd. I've never been approached from the passenger side.
Maybe once, with a passenger in the vehicle, there was a second
officer watching from the right front fender, but the guy talking was
at my left shoulder.

Me too. I think we're seeing a genuine difference between how things
are done in Canada and across the line.

Post by Greg Goss
In the past three or four years I've noticed the habit of parking the
patrol car about two feet further out than mine to provide a safety
box for the officer. I never noticed that before, but they may have
been doing it all along.

I hadn't noticed it either. Seems like a good idea. With their light
displays active, the patrol cars would be unlikely to be rear-ended.

Trust me you should see the zoned out semi drivers on our roads. There are
frequent fatalities with the typical discussion being. "Traffic had
stopped/slowed and the driver of the semi did not stop in time; slamming
into the minivan, killing the four children and their parents." This
usually occurs at the start of a construction zone.

Even without driver fatigue, at night time [it has been reported]
people swing over to take a better gander at what's going on, and swing
a little too far. Supposedly, this is worse with flashing red lights,
and some departments switch the rear-facing lamps of the light bar to
yellow to reduce this. CHP doesn't seem to be one of those
departments, but most of THEIR lights that I see are when they're
protecting a construction zone, and a big truck with a Scorpion (tm)
collision bag is with them.

/dps

[Questor]

Post by bill van
I hadn't noticed it either. Seems like a good idea. With their light
displays active, the patrol cars would be unlikely to be rear-ended.

There is supposedly "the moth effect," where drivers, particularly inebriated
ones, are sometimes drawn towards the lights and crash into them.

[John Mc.]

Post by Questor

Post by bill van
I hadn't noticed it either. Seems like a good idea. With their light
displays active, the patrol cars would be unlikely to be rear-ended.

There is supposedly "the moth effect," where drivers, particularly inebriated
ones, are sometimes drawn towards the lights and crash into them.

Also it's recommended when in white out conditions to pull WELL OFF the
road and shut your lights off. Drivers in these circumstances will steer
toward the lights even though you're stopped.

John Mc.

[B***@BillTurlock.com]

Post by Questor

Post by bill van
I hadn't noticed it either. Seems like a good idea. With their light
displays active, the patrol cars would be unlikely to be rear-ended.

There is supposedly "the moth effect," where drivers, particularly inebriated
ones, are sometimes drawn towards the lights and crash into them.

AKA "Target Fixation"

[Charles Bishop]

Post by bill van

Post by Greg Goss

Post by Questor

Post by bill van
Surely they always want to approach the driver side. Their business is
with the person driving, not the passenger. Legally, they have no
business engaging the passenger. If they have reason to believe their
lives are in danger, they need to call for reinforcements before
engaging.

To the best of my recollection, every time I've been stopped on a highway or
freeway in at least the last 20+ years, the officer approached from the
passenger side.

That's odd. I've never been approached from the passenger side.
Maybe once, with a passenger in the vehicle, there was a second
officer watching from the right front fender, but the guy talking was
at my left shoulder.

Me too. I think we're seeing a genuine difference between how things
are done in Canada and across the line.

Post by Greg Goss
In the past three or four years I've noticed the habit of parking the
patrol car about two feet further out than mine to provide a safety
box for the officer. I never noticed that before, but they may have
been doing it all along.

I hadn't noticed it either. Seems like a good idea. With their light
displays active, the patrol cars would be unlikely to be rear-ended.

Unlikely, umm. I haven't done a full search myself, but there are videos
of police vehicles getting hit during a traffic stop. Some are from
other vehicles out of control and the hit is "random". Others look as if
the other driver wasn't paying attention and ran directly into the
police vehicle.

The last few times I've been stopped I don't recall which side the
officer was on, but I think I pulled off of the main highway anyway,
onto a side street, perhaps.

[HVS]

On Thu, 03 Aug 2017 12:13:08 -0700, Charles Bishop

Post by Charles Bishop
In article

Post by bill van

Post by Greg Goss

Post by Questor

Post by bill van
Surely they always want to approach the driver side. Their business is
with the person driving, not the passenger. Legally, they have no
business engaging the passenger. If they have reason to

believe their

Post by Charles Bishop

Post by bill van

Post by Greg Goss

Post by Questor

Post by bill van
lives are in danger, they need to call for reinforcements before
engaging.

To the best of my recollection, every time I've been stopped

on a highway

Post by Charles Bishop

Post by bill van

Post by Greg Goss

Post by Questor
or
freeway in at least the last 20+ years, the officer approached from the
passenger side.

That's odd. I've never been approached from the passenger side.
Maybe once, with a passenger in the vehicle, there was a second
officer watching from the right front fender, but the guy

talking was

Post by Charles Bishop

Post by bill van

Post by Greg Goss
at my left shoulder.

Me too. I think we're seeing a genuine difference between how things
are done in Canada and across the line.

Post by Greg Goss
In the past three or four years I've noticed the habit of

parking the

Post by Charles Bishop

Post by bill van

Post by Greg Goss
patrol car about two feet further out than mine to provide a safety
box for the officer. I never noticed that before, but they may have
been doing it all along.

I hadn't noticed it either. Seems like a good idea. With their light
displays active, the patrol cars would be unlikely to be

rear-ended.

Post by Charles Bishop
Unlikely, umm. I haven't done a full search myself, but there are videos
of police vehicles getting hit during a traffic stop. Some are from
other vehicles out of control and the hit is "random". Others look as if
the other driver wasn't paying attention and ran directly into the
police vehicle.
The last few times I've been stopped I don't recall which side the
officer was on, but I think I pulled off of the main highway

anyway,

Post by Charles Bishop
onto a side street, perhaps.

Interesting thread, as it sounds as if getting pulled over by the
police in your jurisdictions is a more-or-less unremarkable
/everyday occurrence.

I recall being stopped a few times in Canada (Ontario to 1976, then
Alberta, 1976-82), but I don't think I've ever been pulled over by a
police patrol since I moved to England in 1982.

AFAIK I've not changed my driving style in any fundamental way - I
try to keep to the speed limit, for example, but there have been lots
of times when I've driven above it.

I wonder if it has anything to do with being required to have the
vehicle checked out once a year (when dead taillights and other
"excuses to pull cars over" get picked up) .

Dunno.

[Howard]

Post by HVS
Interesting thread, as it sounds as if getting pulled over by the
police in your jurisdictions is a more-or-less unremarkable
/everyday occurrence.
I recall being stopped a few times in Canada (Ontario to 1976, then
Alberta, 1976-82), but I don't think I've ever been pulled over by a
police patrol since I moved to England in 1982.
AFAIK I've not changed my driving style in any fundamental way - I
try to keep to the speed limit, for example, but there have been lots
of times when I've driven above it.
I wonder if it has anything to do with being required to have the
vehicle checked out once a year (when dead taillights and other
"excuses to pull cars over" get picked up) .
Dunno.

It varies a lot, but in the US there are some jurisdictions where the
police departments get a major percentage of their funding from traffic
tickets. Tax freezes have squeezed budgets, and some departments also
get fixated on buying expensive equipment, and it's tempting for chiefs
to start ordering officers to make a ton of stops.

There's a connection to protests in Ferguson Missouri and elsewhere.
Blacks get targeted disproportionately because they're seen as having a
lot less political influence and also out of prejudice, and communities
understandably are tired of it. Not that there aren't a lot of others
who get caught in the dragnet too.

[HVS]

Post by Howard

Post by HVS
Interesting thread, as it sounds as if getting pulled over by the
police in your jurisdictions is a more-or-less unremarkable
/everyday occurrence.
I recall being stopped a few times in Canada (Ontario to 1976, then
Alberta, 1976-82), but I don't think I've ever been pulled over by a
police patrol since I moved to England in 1982.
AFAIK I've not changed my driving style in any fundamental way - I
try to keep to the speed limit, for example, but there have been lots
of times when I've driven above it.
I wonder if it has anything to do with being required to have the
vehicle checked out once a year (when dead taillights and other
"excuses to pull cars over" get picked up) .
Dunno.

It varies a lot, but in the US there are some jurisdictions where the
police departments get a major percentage of their funding from traffic
tickets. Tax freezes have squeezed budgets, and some departments also
get fixated on buying expensive equipment, and it's tempting for chiefs
to start ordering officers to make a ton of stops.
There's a connection to protests in Ferguson Missouri and elsewhere.
Blacks get targeted disproportionately because they're seen as having a
lot less political influence and also out of prejudice, and communities
understandably are tired of it. Not that there aren't a lot of others
who get caught in the dragnet too.

Thanks; that pretty well explains it.

Local councils over here get accused of treating parking offences as a
revenue stream, but the police forces here who ticket for other offences
aren't funded locally.

If memory serves, there are around 40 police services in England, organised
by country and/or metropolitan areas, so I don't think the police have any
institutional budgetary interest in issuing tickets. (Speeding fines, for
example, go into the national government's coffers, not into funds for the
issuing forces.)

[Charles Bishop]

Post by HVS
On Thu, 03 Aug 2017 12:13:08 -0700, Charles Bishop

Post by Charles Bishop
In article

Post by bill van

Post by Greg Goss

Post by Questor

Post by bill van
Surely they always want to approach the driver side. Their

business is

Post by Charles Bishop

Post by bill van

Post by Greg Goss

Post by Questor

Post by bill van
with the person driving, not the passenger. Legally, they

have no

Post by Charles Bishop

Post by bill van

Post by Greg Goss

Post by Questor

Post by bill van
business engaging the passenger. If they have reason to

believe their

Post by Charles Bishop

Post by bill van

Post by Greg Goss

Post by Questor

Post by bill van
lives are in danger, they need to call for reinforcements

before

Post by Charles Bishop

Post by bill van

Post by Greg Goss

Post by Questor

Post by bill van
engaging.

To the best of my recollection, every time I've been stopped

on a highway

Post by Charles Bishop

Post by bill van

Post by Greg Goss

Post by Questor
or
freeway in at least the last 20+ years, the officer approached

from the

Post by Charles Bishop

Post by bill van

Post by Greg Goss

Post by Questor
passenger side.

That's odd. I've never been approached from the passenger side.
Maybe once, with a passenger in the vehicle, there was a second
officer watching from the right front fender, but the guy

talking was

Post by Charles Bishop

Post by bill van

Post by Greg Goss
at my left shoulder.

Me too. I think we're seeing a genuine difference between how

things

Post by Charles Bishop

Post by bill van
are done in Canada and across the line.

Post by Greg Goss
In the past three or four years I've noticed the habit of

parking the

Post by Charles Bishop

Post by bill van

Post by Greg Goss
patrol car about two feet further out than mine to provide a

safety

Post by Charles Bishop

Post by bill van

Post by Greg Goss
box for the officer. I never noticed that before, but they

may have

Post by Charles Bishop

Post by bill van

Post by Greg Goss
been doing it all along.

I hadn't noticed it either. Seems like a good idea. With their

light

Post by Charles Bishop

Post by bill van
displays active, the patrol cars would be unlikely to be

rear-ended.

Post by Charles Bishop
Unlikely, umm. I haven't done a full search myself, but there are

videos

Post by Charles Bishop
of police vehicles getting hit during a traffic stop. Some are from
other vehicles out of control and the hit is "random". Others look

as if

Post by Charles Bishop
the other driver wasn't paying attention and ran directly into the
police vehicle.
The last few times I've been stopped I don't recall which side the
officer was on, but I think I pulled off of the main highway

anyway,

Post by Charles Bishop
onto a side street, perhaps.

Interesting thread, as it sounds as if getting pulled over by the
police in your jurisdictions is a more-or-less unremarkable
/everyday occurrence.

Well, not now, but that's probably due to age and wisdom. It's easy to
speed here when driving a car and over the years, I've been ticketed or
cautioned a few times for the offense. With a rough calculation, I'd say
once every 3-5 years, on average, with the early years bringing it down
into that range.

Post by HVS
I recall being stopped a few times in Canada (Ontario to 1976, then
Alberta, 1976-82), but I don't think I've ever been pulled over by a
police patrol since I moved to England in 1982.
AFAIK I've not changed my driving style in any fundamental way - I
try to keep to the speed limit, for example, but there have been lots
of times when I've driven above it.

As much as 2 mph over? Daredevil! Here, on freeways, you can go 10 mph
over with "impunity" in as much as most others are doing so as well.

Post by HVS
I wonder if it has anything to do with being required to have the
vehicle checked out once a year (when dead taillights and other
"excuses to pull cars over" get picked up) .

No, I've only been pulled over for what looked like an excuse a couple
of times, and no citation was issued. Never did find out why I was
pulled over.

Post by HVS
Dunno.

Oh, just thought - it might have something to do with total miles driven
- The larger distances here mean I'm probably on the road more often
than some in your quiet corner.

I'll let others describe the "traffic school" method of removing or
reducing the penalties for tickets.

[B***@BillTurlock.com]

On Fri, 04 Aug 2017 09:47:30 -0700, Charles Bishop

Post by Charles Bishop
Well, not now, but that's probably due to age and wisdom. It's easy to
speed here when driving a car and over the years, I've been ticketed or
cautioned a few times for the offense. With a rough calculation, I'd say
once every 3-5 years, on average, with the early years bringing it down
into that range.

Thinking back, I have *never* been (righteously) pulled over for
a moving violation. Used to speed a lot, can't afford it now.

[N J Marsh]

Post by B***@BillTurlock.com

Post by N J Marsh
Considering the main cause of death for police is getting hit during a road
pull over, it's a sensible move and good to remember that when you are
pulled over, get as far over as you possibly can. It puts the cop in a
less fearful mood when they can park in a manner that optimizes their
safety. And it also helps to prevent that annoying "I'm not fully off the
road" thing they do.

Sure. But then, if you're right up against a fence or the bushes,
he can't approach you from the passenger side, which is their
penultimae fear, AIUI

I know that's the policy in some places. But I've never seen it here, ever.
It's weird to the point where one would slow down and gawk if witnessed.

[Howard]

N J Marsh <***@gmail.com> wrote

<major snip>

Post by N J Marsh
the main cause of death for police is getting hit during a
road pull over

Amazon has patented a drone to help police with traffic stops, and I
wonder whether before too long we'll be seeing police handling at least
part of traffic stops with drones.

https://www.geekwire.com/2016/alexa-drone-amazon-wins-patent-unmanned-
aerial-vehicle-assistant-controlled-voice/

http://tinyurl.com/y7xgmepb

It doesn't seem like the technology would be too far off for an officer
to stay in the their car safely and send a drone to get a video of the
driver, license, registration and interior view of the car. The officer
could run the info from the safety of their car and potentially even
use the drone to hand over the ticket.

Obviously there would be a significant percentage of times when drones
won't be able to replace an officer walking up to the car -- suspected
DUIs and stops in rotten weather, for example -- but it would seem like
a lot of run of the mill speeding tickets could be handled that way, and
you could lessen the risk of an officer getting hit by another driver.
You could also lessen the odds of innocent people getting shot, or for
that matter cops getting shot.

You could run into civil liberties issues I suppose if the drones are
equipped with sensors which push the boundaries of search and seizure
precedents. And I could see how some situations would be escalated by a
drone instead of a face to face encounter. But it doesn't seem like
they'd be inherently awful, at least until they join Skynet.

[John Mc.]

Post by Howard
<major snip>

Post by N J Marsh
the main cause of death for police is getting hit during a
road pull over

Amazon has patented a drone to help police with traffic stops, and I
wonder whether before too long we'll be seeing police handling at least
part of traffic stops with drones.
https://www.geekwire.com/2016/alexa-drone-amazon-wins-patent-unmanned-
aerial-vehicle-assistant-controlled-voice/
http://tinyurl.com/y7xgmepb
It doesn't seem like the technology would be too far off for an officer
to stay in the their car safely and send a drone to get a video of the
driver, license, registration and interior view of the car. The officer
could run the info from the safety of their car and potentially even
use the drone to hand over the ticket.
Obviously there would be a significant percentage of times when drones
won't be able to replace an officer walking up to the car -- suspected
DUIs and stops in rotten weather, for example -- but it would seem like
a lot of run of the mill speeding tickets could be handled that way, and
you could lessen the risk of an officer getting hit by another driver.
You could also lessen the odds of innocent people getting shot, or for
that matter cops getting shot.
You could run into civil liberties issues I suppose if the drones are
equipped with sensors which push the boundaries of search and seizure
precedents. And I could see how some situations would be escalated by a
drone instead of a face to face encounter. But it doesn't seem like
they'd be inherently awful, at least until they join Skynet.

I, for one, welcome our Drone Overlords.

John Mc.

[Questor]

Post by Howard
You could run into civil liberties issues I suppose if the drones are
equipped with sensors which push the boundaries of search and seizure
precedents.

I have a vague recollection that this has already been an issue somewhere...
wasn't there a police force that used a clipboard or something that sensed
airborne alcohol? They're standing next to your window, and while they look at
your license they can easily hold it near your face... most people won't suspect
what's going on.

[Tim Wright]

Post by Questor

Post by Howard
You could run into civil liberties issues I suppose if the drones are
equipped with sensors which push the boundaries of search and seizure
precedents.

I have a vague recollection that this has already been an issue somewhere...
wasn't there a police force that used a clipboard or something that sensed
airborne alcohol? They're standing next to your window, and while they look at
your license they can easily hold it near your face... most people won't suspect
what's going on.

All the LEOs that I know use a finely calibrated nose for alcohol detection.

[Les Albert]

Post by Tim Wright

Post by Questor

Post by Howard
You could run into civil liberties issues I suppose if the drones are
equipped with sensors which push the boundaries of search and seizure
precedents.

I have a vague recollection that this has already been an issue somewhere...
wasn't there a police force that used a clipboard or something that sensed
airborne alcohol? They're standing next to your window, and while they look at
your license they can easily hold it near your face... most people won't suspect
what's going on.

All the LEOs that I know use a finely calibrated nose for alcohol detection.

The only sure way of testing for suspected DUI:

Les

[Tim Wright]

Post by Les Albert

Post by Tim Wright

Post by Questor

Post by Howard
You could run into civil liberties issues I suppose if the drones are
equipped with sensors which push the boundaries of search and seizure
precedents.

I have a vague recollection that this has already been an issue somewhere...
wasn't there a police force that used a clipboard or something that sensed
airborne alcohol? They're standing next to your window, and while they look at
your license they can easily hold it near your face... most people won't suspect
what's going on.

All the LEOs that I know use a finely calibrated nose for alcohol detection.

http://youtu.be/64mlGnEEAF8
Les

Here is some good dash cam footage from a DUI stop.

[Les Albert]

Post by Tim Wright

Post by Les Albert

Post by Tim Wright
All the LEOs that I know use a finely calibrated nose for alcohol detection.

http://youtu.be/64mlGnEEAF8

Here is some good dash cam footage from a DUI stop.
http://youtu.be/eGCiXBJTonY

Do you believe that's for real? Tracey Ullman's was funnier.

Les

[Snidely]

Post by Les Albert

Post by Tim Wright

Post by Les Albert

Post by Tim Wright
All the LEOs that I know use a finely calibrated nose for alcohol detection.

http://youtu.be/64mlGnEEAF8

Here is some good dash cam footage from a DUI stop.
http://youtu.be/eGCiXBJTonY

Do you believe that's for real? Tracey Ullman's was funnier.

You don't do line dancing, I take it.

/dps

[Les Albert]

Post by Snidely

Post by Les Albert

Post by Tim Wright

Post by Les Albert

Post by Tim Wright
All the LEOs that I know use a finely calibrated nose for alcohol detection.

http://youtu.be/64mlGnEEAF8

Here is some good dash cam footage from a DUI stop.
http://youtu.be/eGCiXBJTonY

Do you believe that's for real? Tracey Ullman's was funnier.

You don't do line dancing, I take it.

I think your response is off the subject mark by the usual 30 degrees.
And no, I don't do line dancing.

Les

[s***@gmail.com]

Post by Les Albert

Post by Snidely

Post by Les Albert

Post by Tim Wright

Post by Les Albert

Post by Tim Wright
All the LEOs that I know use a finely calibrated nose for alcohol detection.

http://youtu.be/64mlGnEEAF8

Here is some good dash cam footage from a DUI stop.
http://youtu.be/eGCiXBJTonY

Do you believe that's for real? Tracey Ullman's was funnier.

You don't do line dancing, I take it.

I think your response is off the subject mark by the usual 30 degrees.

It is certainly your privilege to think that.

Post by Les Albert
And no, I don't do line dancing.

Yeah, it kinda doesn't go with the '60s sportscar and the cool jazz,
does it?
But it could expand your sense of humor beyond
polished Hollywood acts.

/dps

[Les Albert]

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by Les Albert

Post by Snidely

Post by Les Albert

Post by Tim Wright

Post by Les Albert

Post by Tim Wright
All the LEOs that I know use a finely calibrated nose for alcohol detection.

http://youtu.be/64mlGnEEAF8

Here is some good dash cam footage from a DUI stop.
http://youtu.be/eGCiXBJTonY

Do you believe that's for real? Tracey Ullman's was funnier.

You don't do line dancing, I take it.

I think your response is off the subject mark by the usual 30 degrees.

It is certainly your privilege to think that.

Post by Les Albert
And no, I don't do line dancing.

Yeah, it kinda doesn't go with the '60s sportscar and the cool jazz,
does it?
But it could expand your sense of humor beyond
polished Hollywood acts.

You haven't kept up: the '60s sports car is long in the past, and the
current obsession is my RX-7
https://www.flickr.com/photos/***@N05/4078113263/

Jazz, cool and otherwise, continues to be listened to by many people.
And what's wrong with polished Hollywood humorous acts, like Tracey
Ullman (although she now appears on BBC TV)?

Les

[John Mc.]

Post by Les Albert

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by Les Albert

Post by Snidely

Post by Les Albert

Post by Tim Wright

Post by Les Albert

Post by Tim Wright
All the LEOs that I know use a finely calibrated nose for alcohol detection.

http://youtu.be/64mlGnEEAF8

Here is some good dash cam footage from a DUI stop.
http://youtu.be/eGCiXBJTonY

Do you believe that's for real? Tracey Ullman's was funnier.

You don't do line dancing, I take it.

I think your response is off the subject mark by the usual 30 degrees.

It is certainly your privilege to think that.

Post by Les Albert
And no, I don't do line dancing.

Yeah, it kinda doesn't go with the '60s sportscar and the cool jazz,
does it?
But it could expand your sense of humor beyond
polished Hollywood acts.

You haven't kept up: the '60s sports car is long in the past, and the
current obsession is my RX-7
Jazz, cool and otherwise, continues to be listened to by many people.
And what's wrong with polished Hollywood humorous acts, like Tracey
Ullman (although she now appears on BBC TV)?
Les

I enjoy the stylings of Diana Krall if that counts as Jazz these days. I
seldom watch or listen to comedy acts these days. I'm not a fan of blue
humor and that's most of what's out there.

John Mc.

[Les Albert]

Post by John Mc.

Post by Les Albert

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by Les Albert

Post by Snidely

Post by Les Albert

Post by Tim Wright

Post by Les Albert

Post by Tim Wright
All the LEOs that I know use a finely calibrated nose for alcohol
detection.

http://youtu.be/64mlGnEEAF8

Here is some good dash cam footage from a DUI stop.
http://youtu.be/eGCiXBJTonY

Do you believe that's for real? Tracey Ullman's was funnier.

You don't do line dancing, I take it.

I think your response is off the subject mark by the usual 30 degrees.

It is certainly your privilege to think that.

Post by Les Albert
And no, I don't do line dancing.

Yeah, it kinda doesn't go with the '60s sportscar and the cool jazz,
does it?
But it could expand your sense of humor beyond
polished Hollywood acts.

You haven't kept up: the '60s sports car is long in the past, and the
current obsession is my RX-7
Jazz, cool and otherwise, continues to be listened to by many people.
And what's wrong with polished Hollywood humorous acts, like Tracey
Ullman (although she now appears on BBC TV)?

I enjoy the stylings of Diana Krall if that counts as Jazz these days. I
seldom watch or listen to comedy acts these days. I'm not a fan of blue
humor and that's most of what's out there.

Of course Diana Krall counts in the jazz scene. She plays and sings
her own interpretations of old jazz standards. And you are wrong that
blue humor is most of what's out there.

Les

[John Mc.]

Post by Les Albert

Post by John Mc.

Post by Les Albert

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by Les Albert

Post by Snidely

Post by Les Albert

Post by Tim Wright

Post by Les Albert

Post by Tim Wright
All the LEOs that I know use a finely calibrated nose for alcohol
detection.

http://youtu.be/64mlGnEEAF8

Here is some good dash cam footage from a DUI stop.
http://youtu.be/eGCiXBJTonY

Do you believe that's for real? Tracey Ullman's was funnier.

You don't do line dancing, I take it.

I think your response is off the subject mark by the usual 30 degrees.

It is certainly your privilege to think that.

Post by Les Albert
And no, I don't do line dancing.

Yeah, it kinda doesn't go with the '60s sportscar and the cool jazz,
does it?
But it could expand your sense of humor beyond
polished Hollywood acts.

You haven't kept up: the '60s sports car is long in the past, and the
current obsession is my RX-7
Jazz, cool and otherwise, continues to be listened to by many people.
And what's wrong with polished Hollywood humorous acts, like Tracey
Ullman (although she now appears on BBC TV)?

I enjoy the stylings of Diana Krall if that counts as Jazz these days. I
seldom watch or listen to comedy acts these days. I'm not a fan of blue
humor and that's most of what's out there.

Of course Diana Krall counts in the jazz scene. She plays and sings
her own interpretations of old jazz standards. And you are wrong that
blue humor is most of what's out there.
Les

I should say televised. But to be honest a good deal of modern humor eludes
me. An example is Jim Gaffigan. He works clean which is fine but he's not
funny. Before SWMBO got her masters and became a NP she was a cardiac
intensive care nurse. A benefit was her employer paid for CE (continuing
education). She'd go to conferences in conjunction with the National
Nurses Association in various cities and I'd tag along for the cost of my
airfare. Her per deim and expense voucher would cover both our meals. So it
was a cheap vacation. Several times it was Orlando. Once or twice it was
Vegas or Chicago. Twice in New Orleans. . Bill Cosby, Wayne Brady come to
mind. And Gaffigan. First two were hilarious then we had Gaffigan. Many of
the audience watched the opening act, a couple of comedy jugglers, gave
Gaffigan about ten-fifteen minutes and left. He's not funny amusing yes.
Funny no.

John Mc.

[Les Albert]

Post by John Mc.

Post by Les Albert

Post by John Mc.
I enjoy the stylings of Diana Krall if that counts as Jazz these days. I
seldom watch or listen to comedy acts these days. I'm not a fan of blue
humor and that's most of what's out there.

Of course Diana Krall counts in the jazz scene. She plays and sings
her own interpretations of old jazz standards. And you are wrong that
blue humor is most of what's out there.

I should say televised. But to be honest a good deal of modern humor eludes
me. An example is Jim Gaffigan. He works clean which is fine but he's not
funny. Before SWMBO got her masters and became a NP she was a cardiac
intensive care nurse. A benefit was her employer paid for CE (continuing
education). She'd go to conferences in conjunction with the National
Nurses Association in various cities and I'd tag along for the cost of my
airfare. Her per deim and expense voucher would cover both our meals. So it
was a cheap vacation. Several times it was Orlando. Once or twice it was
Vegas or Chicago. Twice in New Orleans. . Bill Cosby, Wayne Brady come to
mind. And Gaffigan. First two were hilarious then we had Gaffigan. Many of
the audience watched the opening act, a couple of comedy jugglers, gave
Gaffigan about ten-fifteen minutes and left. He's not funny amusing yes.
Funny no.

I never saw Jim Gaffigan. What do you think of Louis C.K.?

Les

[Charles Bishop]

Post by Tim Wright

Post by Les Albert

Post by Tim Wright

Post by Questor

Post by Howard
You could run into civil liberties issues I suppose if the drones are
equipped with sensors which push the boundaries of search and seizure
precedents.

I have a vague recollection that this has already been an issue somewhere...
wasn't there a police force that used a clipboard or something that sensed
airborne alcohol? They're standing next to your window, and while they look at
your license they can easily hold it near your face... most people won't suspect
what's going on.

All the LEOs that I know use a finely calibrated nose for alcohol detection.

http://youtu.be/64mlGnEEAF8
Les

Here is some good dash cam footage from a DUI stop.
http://youtu.be/eGCiXBJTonY

That was interesting, especially the ending - confession and realization.

This one

followed that one in my queue, and its use of classical music might be
of interest to some here. It might have been written for the video. I'm
wondering if it's all one piece.

ObFullDisclosure - drunk man in a convenience store performing a ballet,
or an opera, if someone wants to provide words.

[Charles Bishop]

Post by Tim Wright

Post by Questor

Post by Howard
You could run into civil liberties issues I suppose if the drones are
equipped with sensors which push the boundaries of search and seizure
precedents.

I have a vague recollection that this has already been an issue somewhere...
wasn't there a police force that used a clipboard or something that sensed
airborne alcohol? They're standing next to your window, and while they look at
your license they can easily hold it near your face... most people won't suspect
what's going on.

All the LEOs that I know use a finely calibrated nose for alcohol detection.

Drunks, are they?