Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site cbuxc.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!bellcore!petrus!sabre!zeta!epsilon!gamma!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbuxc!jrm From: jrm@cbuxc.UUCP (John Miller) Newsgroups: net.auto Subject: Re: Radar Detectors Message-ID: <335@cbuxc.UUCP> Date: Thu, 12-Sep-85 10:14:57 EDT Article-I.D.: cbuxc.335 Posted: Thu Sep 12 10:14:57 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 14-Sep-85 03:59:48 EDT References: <215@mhuxn.UUCP> <453@enmasse.UUCP> <211@pyuxii.UUCP> <292@gcc-bill.ARPA> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Columbus Comp. Center Lines: 62 > In article <211@pyuxii.UUCP> tw8023@pyuxii.UUCP (T Wheeler) writes: > >Oh, FOO! "The towns are out to get your money and that's why > >they use radar." Horse Puckey!!! My town does not have a radar > >unit, but they borrow one now and again. I wish we had one so > >we could put the clamps on the idiots who constantly use my > >street for a test track for their BMWs. The speed limit is > >35, but there are enough twanks using it over 50 mph to > >populate every race track from here to Georgia. There are > >something over 57 kids who live within 100 yards of this > >street in a 1/4 mile stretch. Odds are, one of them is > >going to get hit by one of these feather brains. Our town > >does not need the money. We need our kids. And, I suspect > >that that is a valid reason for most towns to aquire a radar > >detector. The out to make money theory is just a bunch of > >hogwash dredged up by all of you twits who think owning a > >car is license to speed wherever and whenever you want. > >Wait till you have the patter of little feet running around > >the house and see how soon you start noticing the speed of > >cars past your front lawn. > >T. C. Wheeler > > Sure, if you have a residential street with kids, enforce that speed limit. > > What I object to is any small town's police force spending >50% of their > time setting up speed traps on the interstate. That is done, clearly, to > generate dollars, and not "to protect and serve." > -- > John Allred > General Computer Company > uucp: seismo!harvard!gcc-bill!john The incident that lead me to the store to buy a detector was a nice quiet drive down a country road near a small town (4 or 5 miles from the town) when upon rounding a corner there he was. I looked at the speedometer and noticed I was doing 50 mph. For the conditions (rural, sunny, dry, well-paved road ) the speed seemed reasonable. I did not recall seeing any speed signs. My next action was to keep watch in the rear-view mirror to see if he was pursuing - he was. I was nailed for 50 in a 35. Now I ask you, was he protecting the innocent villagers from a insane feather brain speeding driver. Where were the people this guy was protecting? (answer - 4 miles away) I felt like asking the cop if he enjoyed his job and if he felt he was really making a difference. I did ask him if radar detectors were legal in this state (he responded to the affirmative). The fine cost me 10$, 28$ went to overhead for a total of 38$. (The fine is really not such a bad deal - it's the overhead that gets you. I drove to radio shack and bought their best detector. Now I know when they are LURKING around the next corner. By the way, over the past 10 years I have probably managed to get 5 speeding tickets. In ALL of the incidents I was not driving excessively for the conditions. ALL of the incidents were radar traps. And I do mean traps! You might say that the frequency of the incidents do not justify the cost of the device. Well, strictly speaking that is correct, but the peace of mind the device offers is worth twice the price. P.S. I am VERY carefull when children are around.