Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site baylor.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!rocksvax!rocksanne!sunybcs!kitty!baylor!peter
From: peter@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: net.auto,net.legal
Subject: Re: Radar Surveillance
Message-ID: <364@baylor.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 12-Aug-85 16:11:42 EDT
Article-I.D.: baylor.364
Posted: Mon Aug 12 16:11:42 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 15-Aug-85 00:13:40 EDT
References: <1081@homxa.UUCP> <4891@allegra.UUCP>
Organization: Ancient Illuminated Seers of Bavaria
Lines: 21
Xref: linus net.auto:6595 net.legal:1683

> agree that radar guns are unconstitutional or feel his privacy
> invaded.  These laws exist for a purpose, and their enforcement helps
> keep our roads somewhat safe.  I feel threatened when someone whizzes
> by at 80 MPH and cuts in front of me; I *want* someone to be there to
> catch these guys.  I've heard liberatarian arguments from people who
> believe that almost all laws should be abolished;  I don't think that
> intent can be read into our constitution's concept of freedom.

Yes, speed limits need to be enforced. They also need to be raised.
55 MPH, for god's sake? Or 30MPH on a 4-lane boulevard surrounded by
at least 100 yards of open feild on either side? How about an across-
the-board increas of 25% for all non-residential streets?

If someone is doing 80 MPH the police don't need a radar gun to catch them.
If they're doing 3MPH over the limit (a friend of mine was gotten by this one
on a feeder road, for god's sake!) the police shouldn't be after them. Radar
guns give the police too much ability to go after borderline cases.
-- 
	Peter da Silva (the mad Australian)
		UUCP: ...!shell!neuro1!{hyd-ptd,baylor,datafac}!peter
		MCI: PDASILVA; CIS: 70216,1076