Is the use of a radar detector morally justifiable?

[Nick_in_MB]

I don’t care what you call it, a crime is anything that is in violation of the law.

We have a local city law that says all motorcyclists need to wear a helmet. That law may very well violate state law which only puts a restriction on people under the age of 21. So not wearing a helmet in the city may in fact not be illegal, if the city’s law is deemed illegal. Our supreme court will decide that in about a month.

Just saying. Something might be in violation of the law, but the law itself might be illegal.

 

[CWBetts]

You are making excuses for the government to do whatever it darn well pleases. I brought up issues which you cannot answer. Police enforcing unjust laws for government profit. But instead of railing against that, you rail against me.

I already do contribute to the system I use. I pay gas taxes, license plates, registration fees, and a whole bevy of taxes. Are you advocating I hand over everything to the government? Sorry, I won’t do that.

And if federal law requires interstates to be safe at 70mph and local governments make under 70 speed limits because they didn’t follow the law, that’s a serious safety issue, which you ignore.

A couple? There are thousands upon thousands of people who’ve had their property confiscated and they were never charged with a crime.

isil.org/resources/lit/looting-of-america.html
fear.org/
codemonkeyramblings.com/2008/09/yet-another-reason-why-civil-asset-forfeiture-laws-are-terrible/
sovereignsociety.com/Default/ToServeandProtect/tabid/1494/Default.aspx
cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-179.html
edmontonjournal.com/news/Derailing+government+gravy+train+civil+forfeiture/1369349/story.html

I could go on. There is not a “couple” of things - there are a lot. So go on, feel free to ignore that.

If they are being used as revenue agents, the government doesn’t care about keeping anyone safe.

codemonkeyramblings.com/2008/09/yet-another-reason-why-civil-asset-forfeiture-laws-are-terrible/

edmontonjournal.com/news/Derailing+government+gravy+train+civil+forfeiture/1369349/story.html

No one should be forced to give up property to the state without being convicted of a crime.

I agree with that. Why don’t you agree with that?

This thread is about speeding violations, not confiscation of property. Speed limits are JUST LAWS. They do not violate the natural law in any way shape or form. Perhaps you could provide a reliable source, and not just something that was posted o the web? As I said before, you jusr dont wish to submit to the authority God has placed you under.

 

[CWBetts]

We have a local city law that says all motorcyclists need to wear a helmet. That law may very well violate state law which only puts a restriction on people under the age of 21. So not wearing a helmet in the city may in fact not be illegal, if the city’s law is deemed illegal. Our supreme court will decide that in about a month.

Just saying. Something might be in violation of the law, but the law itself might be illegal.

Until a law is shown to be illegal, it must be followed.

 

[Nick_in_MB]

Speed limits are JUST LAWS.

Yes, they are. And violating them would be immoral. So, having a radar detector for the purpose of speeding and to not get caught would also be immoral.
But would having a radar detector in general be immoral?

 

[CWBetts]

So can personal saftey!

You are placing a higher value on your own time (a selfish endeavor IMHO) over obedience to just laws. I am arguing placing public safety over the possibility I might be a few minutes late. The key here is we need to put others before ourselves, and not the other way aoround.

 

[Nick_in_MB]

Until a law is shown to be illegal, it must be followed.

That much should be obvious. And there’s a system in place to challenge the legality of laws. And it’s not by driving around the city without a helmet in protest.

No one should be forced to give up property to the state without being convicted of a crime.

Eminent domain. It’s legal, just not popular with people. Unless it benefits them, most times. People are all in favor of things like a new water tower for better water quality and pressure, until it shows up adjacent to their backyard.

 

[CWBetts]

Yes, they are. And violating them would be immoral. So, having a radar detector for the purpose of speeding and to not get caught would also be immoral.
But would having a radar detector in general be immoral?

Ive never argued that simply having one would be immoral, but I’m trying to figure out why anyone would want one.

 

[whatevergirl]

If anyone here who insists that the speed limits are actually set for driver safety can produce proof I will listen.

Traffic laws especially speed limits are for revenue generation and have little to do with safety. Speed limits are easy to enforce with ladar and radar.

If you will notice there are traffic laws that are enforced and those that are not.

Enforce the laws that the left lane hogs are breaking and you will improve safety and eliminate a lot of angry drivers.

If traffic laws were about safety cell phones would be illegal.

If traffic laws were aboutr safety there would not be drivers on the road with 10-12 DUI convictions.

Eddie Mac

*Hi Eddie;

On your last statement, my nephew’s soon to be ex wife, recently rec’d a DUI, and she is having her license taken away, except to go to work. Is that what you mean? People who have more than one DUI, will lose their license and face jail time for a while…I used to sell auto insurance and that was the law in PA. I now live in Florida, and it would be highly unlikely that someone with 10 dui’s would be driving around WITH a license, maybe illegally without one. Just curious as to your last comment. *

 

[Nick_in_MB]

Ive never argued that simply having one would be immoral, but I’m trying to figure out why anyone would want one.

A toy. However useless. A waste of money. Like GPS unit. I can use a map. Like satalite radio. I can use terrestrial radio for free (including EWTN radio on AM, so that’s for the person that mentioned that for Sirius). Like a DVD player in the car. Keeps kids occupied, but I played car bingo when I was younger.

 

[Shin]

Not all speed limits are just laws - all it takes is one flaw and it becomes unjust, however many other laudible sentiments of justice might be expressed within it.

For example, a small town needing revenue sets up a speed trap within its local roads, the limits of which are entirely unnecessary for that road for any purposes of safety. Unjust.

This is not even going into fundamentals here, this is just a specific example to show that it is easily possible to meet the criteria of ‘unjust’.

 

[CWBetts]

For those who insist on posting links for “proof”:

Extensions mean everything. I do not trust any “.com” or “.net” without researching or getting second opinions from people I trust first. Even this site was reccommended by my sponsor, my priest, and other friends at my parish. “.org” sites vary greatly. Whetehr or not I trust it is dependant on the subject matter. For example a bio od Martin Luther King from “Stormfront.org” is not as reliable as the bio from “Nobel.org” Bias is everything. “.edu” and governmental extensions “.gov” for the United States, “.uk” for Great Britain, etc. are the most reliable, and as such need little resaerch to viablilty, but inherent bias must be considered. Just something to keep in mind before posting links to what you deem to be “relaible information”

 

[Nick_in_MB]

Not all speed limits are just laws - all it takes is one flaw and it becomes unjust, however many other laudible sentiments of justice might be expressed within it.

For example, a small town needing revenue sets up a speed trap within its local roads, the limits of which are entirely unnecessary for that road for any purposes of safety. Unjust.

This is not even going into fundamentals here, this is just a specific example to show that it is easily possible to meet the criteria of ‘unjust’.

Well sure. A town in NJ that couldn’t afford new police cars petitioned to the state to allow them to lower the speed limit on a highway through their town. A short while later, new police cars. The speed limit for this road was uniform throughout the county, except in this one town.

Even so, like the helmet law in Myrtle Beach, they may be unjust, and outright illegal. But until they are ruled being illegal, you still need to follow it.

 

[Shin]

Even so, like the helmet law in Myrtle Beach, they may be unjust, and outright illegal. But until they are ruled being illegal, you still need to follow it.

This however, would be a matter of prudence, not morality.

 

[Nick_in_MB]

Prudence? To wear a helmet? Sure. But not wearing one, while maybe not the smartest decision, would still be breaking the law, even if the law is illegal. That’s yet to be determined.
As would be speeding, that too would be breaking the law, even if the speed limit set is unjust. In fact, worse here than not wearing a helmet. Speeding is a crime with points against your license. Not wearing a helmet is a civil infraction with a fine attached.

 

[whatevergirl]

***Regardless of our opinions (which doesn’t matter to the police really), if a speed limit is posted…just follow the law…don’t go beyond 5 to 7 miles over it. Obviously, one would have to stay focused on their speedometer to keep it right at 50 mph, or whatever the limit is. But, usually…the rule of thumb is to hover around 5 to 7 miles over, and you ‘shouldn’t’ receive a ticket.

I also will say this…I don’t know how many of you are familiar with Dr Oz, but he did a study that people who drive 10 to 20 miles an hour regularly, over the speed limit, have higher blood pressure on average, and are in general, in high strung/anxious moods. So, for health reasons alone…SLOW DOWN. ***

 

[1holycatholic]

***Regardless of our opinions (which doesn’t matter to the police really), if a speed limit is posted…just follow the law…don’t go beyond 5 to 7 miles over it. Obviously, one would have to stay focused on their speedometer to keep it right at 50 mph, or whatever the limit is. But, usually…the rule of thumb is to hover around 5 to 7 miles over, and you ‘shouldn’t’ receive a ticket.

I also will say this…I don’t know how many of you are familiar with Dr Oz, but he did a study that people who drive 10 to 20 miles an hour regularly, over the speed limit, have higher blood pressure on average, and are in general, in high strung/anxious moods. So, for health reasons alone…SLOW DOWN. ***

Following the law does not mean driving 5-7 mph over the posted speed limit.

 

[whatevergirl]

***True–but it is pretty tough to stay right at 60…or whatever the speed limit is, so there is room for error, human error. It probably is best to drive a little slower than the limit, then you won’t have to worry about it at all. But, if you can stay right at the speed limit at all times every single day, that’s impressive. ***

 

[BiologyBrain]

I wouldn’t say they’re bogus, but the fines on them are high for only the reason that out-of-towners won’t be able to return to the area to get the fine lowered in court.

A speeding ticket has a set fine. Ideally, you pay that fine, and the consequences (points) attached to it. Except, the cop issuing the ticket tells you, most times, to go to court “It’ll get lowered.”
My father just got a ticket because some yard waste fell out of his truck. Fine is $230. The cop told him to go to court, it’ll get lowered.

Well, why have it higher in the first place? Revenue.
Granted, the cop can’t decide the price. But a family that drove from Ontario to Myrtle Beach (it happens a lot) isn’t going to return in two months to go to court to have a speeding ticket lowered, he’ll probably spend more than he’ll save on the ticket in accomodations on the return trip. And the price for the lawyer will cost more than the ticket (they advertise to help tourists out). So, they pay the higher cost, while locals are able to make it to court to get the fine lowered.

I don’t know why fines are as high/low as they are. However, even if the fines seem ‘too high’, they’re still just if the party is guilty of breaking a law. The bottom line IMO is that laws need to be obeyed regardless of whether we personally think the fine should be higher/lower, limit higher/lower, etc. It may not seem fair (heck it probably isn’t fair) that people that protest their tickets get the fines lowered. However, its not injustice or dereliction of duty for the police to enforce the laws regardless of whether the individual is local or not.

I’m going to reiterate here - cops do not get paid more (or less) depending on how many tickets they write. I know you (Nick) didn’t imply that, but sometimes I think people seriously think that. To my knowledge in my state police organization there aren’t quotas for ticket writing. The troopers are judged on how they spend their time: motorist assist, traffic duty, patrol, domestic, etc. They are also judged on how safe they are while they do their jobs: safe driving awards, lowest # sick days, etc. However, on pay day, the trooper that wrote 100 tickets gets paid the same as the one that didn’t write any - as long as they put their time in that time period.

That’s not always possible. There are always distractions; swerving car in front of you, biker riding on the white dashed line between lanes. What’s wrong with having a third level, a device, to let you know an emergency vehicle is there? And, most times it detects such vehicles a lot further than you can see and hear the siren.

I can understand that point. I’m very interested in knowing about this particular type of device. I’d like to know how it works. Not all emergency vehicles have radar. Even those that do generally only use the radar portion intermittently (like cops to ‘paint’ a car to check for speeding). I’m interested to know how these detectors work and where they’re available for purchase.

 

[BiologyBrain]

First I don’t anyone determining “what I need” Second I’m a very private person in some rspects ,having a plice badge doesn’t make me trust a stranger going through my stuff anymore than anyone else . My time is very valuable to me Ill gladly trade a little of what you call saftey for punctuality…

I don’t really understand what you’re saying here… Who’s telling you what you need?

Being a private person really shouldn’t have that much to do w/ a cursory look at your car. Theoretically, anyone can look into the windows of your car when you park in a public lot. So a cop walking up to your vehicle & checking out the visible contents is not in any way violating your privacy. Actually, the purpose is not necessarily to see if you have anything illegal as much as its to check to see if you have anything dangerous to the officer himself. As for strangers going through your stuff, well, I guess you shouldn’t be flying any time soon, or going to the local courthouse, or anywhere they take security very seriously. Heck, at the Kentucky Derby everyone going into the infield had to have their persons & possessions searched for alcohol & other ‘contraband’. I guess that was a gross violation of their privacy…

One day you may very well trade your safety for what you call punctuality & end up losing the punctuality as well! Baring emergency-type situations, there is always a choice made when to leave to ensure you’ll arrive on time (or early) while maintaining speeds & other driving behaviors that are within the laws. Personally, my safety is more important to me than punctuality b/c God entrusted me to keep myself & those in contact w/ me safe. Its my choice whether I show up on time or not. I can plan and be safe as well as punctual. That’s my goal. I don’t necessarily give one up for the other. As a matter of fact, I’m not entirely sure that should ever be the option taken from a moral perspective. We are after-all temples of God and He desires us to keep our bodies in good shape. He also expects us to look out for our neighbors. I don’t think Jesus was preaching about punctuality in the NT. Also, unless you’re going a long distance or really fast, you don’t gain that much time by going 5-10 mph over the limit (do the math). So not only are you risking your personal safety & that of other drivers/people, you’re not even gaining the time you so desparately want…

Also, I’m confused now. Didn’t you earlier state that you don’t use your radar detector (if you have/had one) to evade tickets? Instead you use(d) it to monitor the police while they were monitoring you? If so, why are you now arguing that speeding for the sake of punctuality (or anything) is morally acceptable?

 

[1holycatholic]

***True–but it is pretty tough to stay right at 60…or whatever the speed limit is, so there is room for error, human error. It probably is best to drive a little slower than the limit, then you won’t have to worry about it at all. But, if you can stay right at the speed limit at all times every single day, that’s impressive. ***

It’s not that tough when operating a vehicle with a speedometer.

It’s legal to drive no faster than conditions permit and never faster than the posted speed limit.