You're seeing this in an almost disturbing black and white.

Everbody has their roles. You shouldn't break the law in the first place, if you think it is unfair or unreasonable then find ways to change that (Moved, get involved reseach gudielines request speed surveys etc.). Then should you break the law, it is the job of the Police to stop inform who of your infraction and use their judgement to warn or cite you. Then should you recieve a citation it is your job to use your judgement on how you should handle it, be it pay the fine or attend your court date to explain your side of things in attempt to show your innocence or request mercey from the jugde. It is then the judges role to decide innocence or guilt and the appropriate punishment.

Everyone has their role, how much of it you hoose to involve yourself is you descion. There is a system to maintain order, some may be cynical about it; but I find the VAST MAJORITY merely complain and don't do anything about it. Such is their proagative, but eventually people begin to turn a deaf ear to it. Edge posted some interesting links, if you don't like things I suggest you find an appropriatie healthy manner in which to change them.

 

Edge, well you just opened the can of worms so some questions.

First, I agree, and have talked to Ms Clover many times that all the mods to a great job and it cant be easy. Kudos ... It is a tough job. I do the same thing on other forums. And your pay must be great

Second, Street Racing. Always dangerous, deadly to the public. I dont think any reasonable driver can condone it.

But last, talking about ... how fast someone drove ...

I have no issue whatsoever with these rules. Hell, I'll thrown my IB4TL in quickly because the rules are the rules and we are a nation of laws. You join, you follow the rules.

But that does not mean they should not be questioned. This is the only forum I have found that does not allow discussions on how fast someone drove ... say in the Nevada desert, alone, at 2 AM. As you recognize, I doubt anyone here has never broken the speed limit. Just go to any performance related forum and you see it all the time.

Now I will admit its handled with a bit of maturity. Its not like "I smoked so and so at xxx and then bash some car. Rather, the posts tends to be somewhat mature in nature. I've read many posts were its a mature discussion about ... well I wanted to see what its really can do so ... That is far different from "I chased at xxx and smoked hit at xxx mph"

So what is the REAL reason for not allowing such discussions. It cannot be fear of lawyers because I believe the court cases against AOL have already made it clear that no online provider can be held liable for what is said in a public forum. Otherwise about every online forum would be shut down. I'm not going to go off and look up court cases but I would bet they exist that confirm Mark cannot be held liable.

As to "condoning" it ... that's a moral judgement. If that's how he feels, I stand behind the morals, but I see no legal reason why.

Comments?

 

Chows,

I think you'll find that the legal stance on ISPs (including AOL) regarding this matter is because the ISPs in question do not control the information, they just supply the data traffic. The majority of AOL's forums are largely unmoderated or uncontrolled (at least by AOL staff), so that gives them the ability to deny responsibility.

NAM is not an ISP, and NAM IS owned and operated by individual(s) who could very much be held "responsible" for what is permitted on the site. The only way around this might be to have no moderation at all... and then NAM wouldn't be the fantastic resource that it is.

Your example, while well intentioned, just doesn't fit.Hopefully you now do.

 

Edge, I understand its not an ISP ... its a distributor of information. I checked quickly, and believe your wrong.

http://www.vbulletin-faq.com/forum/s...ad.php?p=36848

CA supreme court cannot hold a forum liable because of federal law.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15817955/ (MSNBC reference to the ruling)

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions...ts/S122953.PDF

The ruling itself

"In the Communications Decency Act of 1996, Congress declared: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”
(47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1).)1 “No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.”(§ 230(e)(3).)

These provisions have been widely and consistently interpreted to confer broad immunity against defamation liability for those who use the Internet to publish information that originated from another source. The immunity has been
applied regardless of the traditional distinction between “publishers” and “distributors.”

Simply put, no state law can supercede federal law and the federal law grants immunity. It has been held up in courts consistently ...

http://www.chovy.com/2005/07/

The landmark case ... Zeran v. America On-Line,

The court held that the statute “creates a federal immunity to any cause of action that would make service providers liable for information originating with a third-party user of the service. Specifically, Sec. 230 precludes courts from entertaining claims that would place a computer service provider in a publisher’s role.” 129 F.3d at 330. The court also rejected an argument that AOL could be liable as a distributor, rather than as a publisher, holding that the distinction was not valid in this context.

In both rulings, the forum holder cannot be held liable as either a distributor or publisher. Your comment about moderations does not wash. If, in fact, moderators changed the context of post, they could say the site was "publishing". It still doesnt matter as the ruling clear say

The court also rejected an argument that AOL could be liable as a distributor, rather than as a publisher, holding that the distinction was not valid in this context.

http://www.legalserviceindia.com/art...e+a.htmProdigy case

"The court, in a questionable analysis, concluded that Prodigy's power to exert editorial control did not alter its essentially passive posture as a mere conduit of information so as to render it a "publisher" of bulletin board messages. "

Again, although moderated, Prodigy not held liable.

http://www.netlitigation.com/netlitigation/isp.htm

A great site ... with the court cases.

I am not a lawyer, obviously, and before changing the rule would seek legal advice but I do not think from reading these that NAM can be held liable ... even if the mods changed posts.

I would be far more worried about copyright infringement. The laws are pretty vague but how many pics are published without permission of the copyright owner ... just reffered back by URL without giving credit? Its a bit vague but professional photographers are getting very angry about it (i've been reading the photography forums ... xmas gift)

I would suggest Mark get some legal advice, of course, but there are many forums on the web with admins and moderators.

 

Both of your examples - AOL & Prodigy - are of ISPs. Perhaps the court case didn't focus on the ISP side of their business, but by the very fact they are very large ISPs, they have the ability to leverage that part of their business ("we just supply the bits and bytes") in any court case... not to mention that their considerable financial resources were available for legal proceedings.

However, I'm afraid that at this point I'm going to have to defer to the admins. I can only say so much as a moderator... my word is clearly not the final say.

It is not up to me to change the rules here, nor even ask that they be changed on behalf of a member who doesn't like them. My job is simply to enforce them, while trying to use fair judgment in doing so.

For this reason, I am going to have to discontinue my discussion on the topic.

 

Just to reaffirm Haemish's thoughts...

Tickets and speeding isn't the issue for NAM...its the glorifying/bragging or endorsement that we see as problems. I've had tickets for speeding and I expect other members to receive them from time to time. We just don't want issues to come up that gives the impression that the site advocates or tolerates illegal behavior (ie - excessive speeding, reckless driving, drifting, etc.). Going 75 in a 55 is an easy mistake to make. Going 100+ is intentional and only appropriate for a race course.

Mark

 

Thank You Mark

That is a thoughtful answer that explains your position

And ... I have always supported it.

I was just curious as to if there were any legal reasoning.

 

Ive been searching the internet for about an hour trying to find the legal definition of "Failure to Drive Right of Center". Anyone know what the full legal definition of it is?

 

The statute is 21-301(a), but you probably already knew that from your citation. The following is from a Maryland lawyer's page regarding Reasonable Suspicion and the various reasons a cop can pull a car over:


"Failure to stay right of the double line marker. 21-301(a). If a driver crosses over the yellow line, even if just momentarily, this is a ticketable offense and therefore the officer may lawfully pull you over. Once pulled over, the officer begins the "personal contact" phase of the stop which includes smelling inside the vehicle for alcohol, evaluating speech pattern, dress and the like. The mere smell of alcohol is generally enough to effectuate and arrest."

So it sounds like the title of the statute pretty much sums up the offense - if you cross over the yellow line into the other lane, you've violated the statute.

I'll post again if I find the actual text of the statute.

 

Found it -


http://mlis.state.md.us/cgi-win/web_...exe?gtr&21-301

Sounds like the gist of the statute is that you can't cross the yellow line unless an obstruction requires it, or you're executing a legal passing maneuver.

Also found that the fine is $90, and it's worth one point on your record.

 

Sounds by that, that all they need is a wheel over the line, I was hoping it was a certian percentage of the car or something. Thanks for helping to find the information for me.

 

In the absence of *any* other offenses, just getting a wheel over the line probably wouldn't get you stopped, and if you were stopped for nothing more than getting a wheel over, I can't imagine that it would hold up if you pressed it in court.

As one of several offenses for the same stop, it might stand, or you might be able to get it waived if you pled guilty to the other charges. There's a lot of leeway and discretion on the part of the judge in cases like that.

 

there were definatly other offenses, im just trying to see what i can bring to the plate when i talk to a lawyer. i honestly dont even believe i was over the center line. i think the cop was just reaching for the 3rd ticket to be sure my insurance will be dropped (if convicted of all three).

 

Depend upon where he was, there is a decent chance its on tape, but I don't know his dept. policy, some have camera com on with the lights, some have them all the time. When you go to the lawyer, the lawyer will know what the laws are, you bring your tickets with you for him (or her) to look at, if you haven't already done so write down your account of what happened in AS MUCH DETAIL AS POSSIBLE but if you are unclear about something say so, DO NOT make anything up (I'm not talking lying which I know you won't do but more it oculd of been this but I'm not sure so I'll say it was, cause if you're wrong it will come back to get you.) Memory fades as time passes the sooner you do this the better.

Personally yours sounds like a case of something got the officer mad so you got written up for everything that he validly could have. Being polite with the officer was a good move. talk to the lawyer, they will be able to help you.

 

Nice post Dr. But I guess I need a clarification. Are you advocating going to court and defending yourself for every ticket you might get? Is this just to try and get off because the judge doesn't want to deal with it? The legal system didn't catch you. The whole idea of defending yourself comes from the time when you were making sure that your rights weren't violated. This is the original reason for having a defense attorny. I have stated many times that if you are doing something worthy of a ticket you are gambling that you won't get caught. How can you advocate going to court just to try and get off with out any penalty for an offense you were giulty of?

 

Most likely he wasn't "Reaching" for anythingand probably could have found more to write you for if his goal was to write you for as much as possible. A lot of laws have very "Wide" deffinitions and slim requirements and can be used to cover multiple different scenerios.

 

So how did all this turn out?

 

Drivers like you give cops a reason to pinpoint Minis when they drive by. Thanks!

DEFINITELY. DEFINITELY. DEFINITELY. DEFINITELY. DEFINITELY. DEFINITELY. DEFINITELY. DEFINITELY.

Maybe now you'll remember it.

 

EEP! Double post.

 

Court is scheduled for 3/20/07. My lawyer said he is going to post-pone the date if posssible. Once I goto court I'll be sure to post the outcome.

 

I had a long winded post that I just deleted. What it all comes down to is that the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty. If the states ability to do this is in question, then have at them. If the states ability to do this isn't in question, then it's probably in your own interests to do something other than a trial.

Whatever one chooses, standing up to 1) get a bogus ticket dismissed or 2) getting an overly harsh ticket reduced or 3) just looking for a lower penalty or fine, or doing traffic school, or paying the fine, I don't think it's right to critisize someone for excursizing thier rights. That's what they are there for...

Matt

ps, you also assume that someone speeds that they are gambiling that they won't get caught... What if your assumption is wrong? What if they are gambiling that they won't be found guilty? Changes the arguement a bit as it moves the hurdle from detection of the act to proof of the act.

I still see this notion of acting against the law but not fighting if cought pretty arbitrary and purley a matter of asthetics.

 

You're going to get raped by your insurance company for the Reckless....

 

I haven't read every message in this thread, but a couple key (to me) points:

Traffic laws in the United States are generally underposted. No duh you're saying, I know. But the ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) endorses a scientific method (yes, science should be involved, not just politics) to setting speed limits. It's called the "85th percentile method". In short, most (make that MOST) people drive at a reasonable and safe speed REGARDLESS OF THE SPEED LIMIT. It's why the 55mph NMSL (National Maximum Speed Limit) was a joke- 55mph is absurbly slow on open interstates. Speed limits should be set at the 85th-90th percentile limit. Meaning the speed at which 85 to 90% of traffic is traveling at or below. Then focus enforcement efforts on the top few percent. But only about 10-20% of speed limits in the US adhere to this engineering method- most are set below the 50th percentile speed. Meaning over half of us are lawbreakers- is the problem all of us or the law? I don't break any other laws EVER (that I'm aware of). Maybe it's not me, maybe the problem is the law. . . But there's too much emotional public pressure that reducing speed limits reduces speed. It doesn't, it just results in more tickets and higher insurance premiums.

Would you want your state or local politician setting the weight limits on bridges? Only if they were a structural engineer. And likewise they should only set speed limits if they are transportation engineers. But VERY few people see speed limits as science or engineering, which it is.

And spare me the physics arguments about less time to react, greater stopping distance, etc. (yes I am an engineer, so I understand physics). I'm not proposing abolishment of speed limits (bring back Montana!), but you have to set the limit somewhere. There must be a consistent scientific way of doing it, and the 85th percentile method is THE way.

A few facts:
- When we finally got rid of the 55mph NMSL in 1987 after 15 years (talk about pent up frustration), 6 months afterwards, ACTUAL speeds had gone up about 3mph.
- People do not "automatically drive 10mph over the speed limit". See the previous point.
- INCREASING speed limits can actually INCREASE safety. Seems illogical but true. The reason is that speed variance (the average difference in speeds between vehicles) has been shown in some studies to be more important to increasing safety than actual speed. Example: better that everyone is driving between 65-70mph, than some vehicles going 55mph and others going 70mph.

I strongly encourage everyone to protest EVERY ticket. Laws do not change by themselves, and clogging up the courts with protests again laws that do nothing to enhance safety is our duty. And on the practical side, my experience is that showing up in court can often result in a reduced offense saving insurance premiums.

A great resource is the National Motorists Association: www.motorists.org.
(also have a ticket defense kit for defending yourself in court).

Another good resource also: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/

FWIW, I regularly drive at what I consider safe and reasonable speeds: 65-70mph on rural 2-lane highways that is posted at 55mph (depending on traffic) and 80-85 on interstates (posted at 65-70mph)- I hope the Indiana State Police aren't reading this. No tickets yet in almost of year with my CR MCSC!

 

That was a VERY educated post Dave. Thanks for the links .

 

I crossed the double yellow today to avoid a pothole, am I guilty?