Flashing Headlights to Warn Other Drivers: A First Amendment Right

[Dragonfly]

I certainly do NOT alert other drivers. I envision alerting a drunk driver to avoid a police stop, then he/she goes on and kills somebody. I am responsible for every action I take behind the wheel. I do not expect anyone to give me a heads up so I can shirk my responsibility to drive intelligently, and I am not going to do it for anyone else.

I do not look at it as an obstruction of justice, I look at it as merely a stupid thing to do.

Holy way to over-think the situation batman!!!!!

 

[Dragonfly]

They are not so simple. I thought maybe it was me but then one of my brothers said his mother in law has the same car and then commented "but when she lets me drive it she always makes me swear never to mess with the headlights".

Simple flick of the bright lights.... should not be difficult.

It's not even a button on the floor anymore. :2razz:
(who here remembers that?)

 

[Woodman909]

Holy way to over-think the situation batman!!!!!

If you ever lost someone to a drunk driver, you would not be so incredibly smug.

 

[Slyfox696]

I have before, will again, but only if I care enough to put forth the effort to do so. Which means I only do it on those rare occasions I think the police are taking less than honorable means for trying to catch speeders. When the police are actively trying to get people to speed so they can pull them over, that's wrong. If the officer is just sitting in plain view observing traffic as it comes by, I have no problem with that. The job of the police is to enforce the law, not to try and get people for speeding.

 

[soot]

It depends on the situation.

Out on the highway, yes I'll do it, but I don't do it like it's my job or anything. If I think of it, and if I'm not texting or hitting a joint with my non-steering hand, I'll do it.

In neighborhoods or other high population areas where folks really should be observing the speed limits? Never.

 

[Superfly]

I have before, will again, but only if I care enough to put forth the effort to do so. Which means I only do it on those rare occasions I think the police are taking less than honorable means for trying to catch speeders. When the police are actively trying to get people to speed so they can pull them over, that's wrong. If the officer is just sitting in plain view observing traffic as it comes by, I have no problem with that. The job of the police is to enforce the law, not to try and get people for speeding.

But.. but.. speeding is breaking the law. You don't get to pick and choose which laws you want to break, and which ones you want to follow. :shrug:

 

[Dragonfly]

But.. but.. speeding is breaking the law. You don't get to pick and choose which laws you want to break, and which ones you want to follow. :shrug:

Victimless "crimes" vs. the other kind.

Everything is relative.

I sure hope you wouldn't equate rape with going 8 mph over the posted speed limit as both being "laws broken".

 

[radcen]

No, I do not flash to warn other drivers about speed traps. I guess I am a "goody two shoes" but this is the way I look at it. If somebody's driving fast enough to get a ticket, and they get caught, they should get the ticket. Maybe it'll make them slow down the next time. I am on the road all the time, and I have my children with me. I'd rather somebody have to pay a $100 ticket than to be driving recklessly and cause my family to be involved in a wreck.

I'm certainly not doing it for the cops' sake. I'm not a fan of the police.

I will, however, flash if there's an obstruction in the road, or a break down, or maybe a couple of deer. That makes most people slow down, because they think I'm warning them of cops, but actually I'm just warning them to slow down.

For me, I make the distinction between a cop seeing a speeder while patrolling... as I believe they should be doing as their first priority... and sitting by the side of the road with a radar gun hanging out the window, effectively ignoring the rest of his jurisdiction and missing anything else that he could be helping with. I have no patience or sympathy for the radar hanger.

It's not even a button on the floor anymore. :2razz:
(who here remembers that?)

I do. :2wave:

I kinda wish they go back to that. Pretty much all vehicles were the same. Now they're all different.

 

[Superfly]

Victimless "crimes" vs. the other kind.

Everything is relative.

I sure hope you wouldn't equate rape with going 8 mph over the posted speed limit as both being "laws broken".

It's not victimless if you lose control of your car and run into a carload full of kids going to Disney World. 8 mph isn't reckless driving, anyway, and I was pretty clear about that. It's usually 20 to 25 mph over. I regularly drive about 5mph over on I-95 because if you don't, you'll get creamed. That level of speeding is not what I am talking about and is not reckless driving.

 

[Superfly]

For me, I make the distinction between a cop seeing a speeder while patrolling... as I believe they should be doing as their first priority... and sitting by the side of the road with a radar gun hanging out the window, effectively ignoring the rest of his jurisdiction and missing anything else that he could be helping with. I have no patience or sympathy for the radar hanger.

My youngest daughter and I went grocery shopping yesterday morning. We usually drive about a half-hour to grocery shop because we save so much money by shopping at the Commissary on base. So we left about 930am. There was a police car sitting in between a copse of trees off of I-95. We left and were headed home about 1100am, and the cop was still there. We drove by at 100pm to go to the dentist and he was still there, and was there when we left the dentist at 300pm. Seriously? All day?

I do. :2wave:

I kinda wish they go back to that. Pretty much all vehicles were the same. Now they're all different.

I remember those. My Dodge Coronet had one.

 

[Slyfox696]

But.. but.. speeding is breaking the law. You don't get to pick and choose which laws you want to break, and which ones you want to follow. :shrug:

I do not disagree with you, and if an officer pulled me over for speeding, I'd recognize I broke the law. With that said, there's a difference between trying to keep peace and safety and actively trying to get people. The first I have no problem with, the second is wrong.

 

[joko104]

I do it, but only after I know I'm out of sight of the cop in question, since as Maggie said, it is illegal in Illinois. Which is ridiculous. As others have said the alleged goal of speeding tickets is to get people to slow down. Flashing a warning at someone achieves that goal, but of course that means the local municipality doesn't get its $120 bucks, so they call it illegal because somebody has got to pay.

Where are speeding tickets only $120 anymore? Plus the $1000+ in higher insurance premiums.

 

[Dragonfly]

It's not victimless if you lose control of your car and run into a carload full of kids going to Disney World. 8 mph isn't reckless driving, anyway, and I was pretty clear about that. It's usually 20 to 25 mph over. I regularly drive about 5mph over on I-95 because if you don't, you'll get creamed. That level of speeding is not what I am talking about and is not reckless driving.

IF IF IF

That game can be played all day long....

Speed traps, in many places, will most likely ticket anyone and everyone for going more than 5 mph over the limit.

 

[Superfly]

IF IF IF

That game can be played all day long....

Speed traps, in many places, will most likely ticket anyone and everyone for going more than 5 mph over the limit.

Sucks to be you, then. Where I live, most people average 5 to 10 mph over the posted speed limit of 70 and the cops don't bat an eye.

 

[Superfly]

I do not disagree with you, and if an officer pulled me over for speeding, I'd recognize I broke the law. With that said, there's a difference between trying to keep peace and safety and actively trying to get people. The first I have no problem with, the second is wrong.

:thumbs:

 

[Dragonfly]

Sucks to be you, then. Where I live, most people average 5 to 10 mph over the posted speed limit of 70 and the cops don't bat an eye.

You're obviously ONLY talking about interstate driving.

What about all the secondary roads?

 

[joko104]

But.. but.. speeding is breaking the law. You don't get to pick and choose which laws you want to break, and which ones you want to follow. :shrug:

^ Government = God?

If all the laws, statutes, regulations, case law, of every jurisdiction were all added up, it would probably be 10,000,000,000 pages long. Of itself, I see no obligation whatsoever to follows laws just because they are laws. Decades ago, it was recognized that traffic tickets are mostly just a form of taxation.

Most people who get furious about someone speeding are extreme hypocrites in relation to laws they have also broken in the past. Ever smoke marijuana? Smoke a cigarette under age? Ever had more than 2 drinks and driven? Yet people who have many times broken far more severe laws get all self righteous and condemnatory about traffic laws?!

A fella name Torqueville back in the 1700s predicted this was the ultimate fate of the USA on democracy. It will become the most regulated country and people on earth - because a majority will always want to outlaw everything they don't like and don't do. Since there isn't a majority agreement on nearly anything, then essentially everything ultimately will be outlawed, regulated, monitored and controlled.

And "law from government" will somehow become like edicts from God - that it isn't just "illegal" to break a law, but immoral and such a person should be held in contempt as a "criminal" and "lawbreaker" - with total hypocrisy about that by basically everyone since all have been lawbreakers countless times themselves - just not law breakers it the same way - thus we all get to condemn each other as lawbreakers - meaning of course we need still more laws, monitoring, police and control.

I see attitudes about traffic laws near the top of that list. A person can be in the middle of nowhere out in the desert, not a car or structure in sight for miles in any direction. A car designed to easily go 100 better than econo-boxes can go 70. Yet if that person does go 100 and police aircraft catch it - it is likely they will treat that as more gravely a crime than a thief, will want hundreds of dollars in fines, there will be likely thousands more that has to be paid over the next years in insurance, and they may well try to take away that person's license "because it's the law" - which as exactly no relevancy to reality whatsoever and rather is just control.

 

[Superfly]

You're obviously ONLY talking about interstate driving.

What about all the secondary roads?

What about them? Don't want a ticket? Don't speed. The end. It's really simple. Or speed. Don't care. :lol: But I will not flash when the cops are waiting, and will probably laugh at you when you get a ticket. I usually do, anyway.

 

[Superfly]

^ Government = God?

If all the laws, statutes, regulations, case law, of every jurisdiction were all added up, it would probably be 10,000,000,000 pages long. Of itself, I see no obligation whatsoever to follows laws just because they are laws. Decades ago, it was recognized that traffic tickets are mostly just a form of taxation.

Most people who get furious about someone speeding are extreme hypocrites in relation to laws they have also broken in the past. Ever smoke marijuana? Smoke a cigarette under age? Ever had more than 2 drinks and driven? Yet people who have many times broken far more severe laws get all self righteous and condemnatory about traffic laws?!

A fella name Torqueville back in the 1700s predicted this was the ultimate fate of the USA on democracy. It will become the most regulated country and people on earth - because a majority will always want to outlaw everything they don't like and don't do. Since there isn't a majority agreement on nearly anything, then essentially everything ultimately will be outlawed, regulated, monitored and controlled.

And "law from government" will somehow become like edicts from God - that it isn't just "illegal" to break a law, but immoral and such a person should be held in contempt as a "criminal" and "lawbreaker" - with total hypocrisy about that by basically everyone since all have been lawbreakers countless times themselves - just not law breakers it the same way - thus we all get to condemn each other as lawbreakers - meaning of course we need still more laws, monitoring, police and control.

I see attitudes about traffic laws near the top of that list. A person can be in the middle of nowhere out in the desert, not a car or structure in sight for miles in any direction. A car designed to easily go 100 better than econo-boxes can go 70. Yet if that person does go 100 and police aircraft catch it - it is likely they will treat that as more gravely a crime than a thief, will want hundreds of dollars in fines, there will be likely thousands more that has to be paid over the next years in insurance, and they may well try to take away that person's license "because it's the law" - which as exactly no relevancy to reality whatsoever and rather is just control.

A lot of the crimes you mentioned are victimless crimes. Speeding is victimless, until it isn't, and then it's too late.

 

[joko104]

The other problem with "the law" is that it absolutely is not universally applied, is it? One driver gets pulled over and is searched and gets a ticket. Another is pulled over and gets a warning. Another is just let go by despite picked up on radar.

I've commented before that my wife drives like an old lady going to church if children are in the car, around pedestrians and bicyclists, and in traffic - but otherwise speed limit signs generally are irrelevant to her. She DOES get pulled over - though not around here anymore - but NEVER gets a ticket. They don't even write a warning - probably not to have then justify to some superior why they didn't give a ticket.

The only time I was along when she was stopped I watched this amazing thing unfold. We had stopped at a gas station and were just about to pull out when a deputy sheriff came racing in. Apparently he had picked her/us up as she flew by - him parked way off on some side point as she tore across the empty desert late at night on the Southern route from Florida to San Diego. He hadn't even got out enough behind to see his redlights or she would have pulled over. She never will try to outrun the police.

How the hell does a person avoid a ticket when doing 170+ mph hour (4 door Mercedes S65 AMG Renntech)? But she did. She is calm, perfectly honest (seemingly) and somehow so candid and likeable the officer has to decide whether or not to arrest her and really mess up her life - and decides not to. Nor does she make up emergency excuses nor even apologize.

The bottomline reason? Its a really cool car, no one was around and she wanted to see how fast it'd go. Basically her reason for going that fast boiled down to because she wanted to. For a quarter hour, then, she and he are each talking about their lives and looking at the motor with the hood up. He did do a token look in the backseat and trunk. The only negative comments by the officer? The officer got on MY case a little for letting her do it as it was my car. Curiously, I suspect if she had been going 19 miles an hour over he'd have maybe written a ticket.

Somehow, the EXTREME nature seems to work in her advantage. Nor would an officer dare try to explain to a superior why only a warning was given either, so none written. Me, had I been driving? I highly suspect that deputy would have me in handcuffs laid over the hood if I had been driving.

Traffic laws on not enforced uniformly or fairly and just about everyone knows it too.

 

[joko104]

^ She was technically truthful, but deceptive in it. She did not take my name at marriage and did not say I was her husband. Rather, I "am a friend of her parents" (I suppose that's true) and she's riding along (true) in my car (true) to California to see some people she knows (technically true but not the purpose of the trip). That I let her drive it (true always of course) and it's such a cool car she just wanted to see how fast it would go (true generally). When the officer told her she was going over 170, she said that it will "go almost 190 so maybe it was still accelerating when I passed you." ROLF!

I wonder if anyone else ever does that? Cop pulls the person over and tells the driver he/she was doing 87 mph in a 70 - and the driver says "that can't right, your radar must be off. I was doing at least 95."

 

[joko104]

A lot of the crimes you mentioned are victimless crimes. Speeding is victimless, until it isn't, and then it's too late.

Caution is always advisable, but fear is a terrible thing.

Some people live life in the fast lane, some in the slow lane and some figure it makes most practical sense to be in the middle lane. Generally, the middle lane actually is the slowest. My wife, in her own way and myself more often then not, live in the fast lane of life.

Actually, every crime I mentioned above is a victimless crime until it isn't and then it's too late. A person under the influence of pot has impaired judgment that can lead to harm to others that otherwise would not happen, certainly the same with drinking and drinking and driving. Cigarettes can lead a kid to have cancer and all the people that impacts.

Your mere existence endangers other people. Your going outside your door endangers other people. Life is dangerous. All people are dangerous to other people.

I suspect that slow drivers (but within the minimum and except the Interstate there likely is no minimum) cause more accidents than merely speeding 10 or 20 over the limit if not around people or in heavy traffic.

 

[joko104]

Does the word "safe" or "safety" even appear in the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights or Constitution?

I truly don't think the American revolution was because the King of England was too lax on laws and therefore not protecting people from endangering each other, was it?

The battle slogan wasn't "More rules to control me or death!"

And I suppose Paul Revere's ride of "The British are coming!" was like evil people flashing their headlights to warn of a cop ahead.

 

[HonestJoe]

Breaking and entering, along with theft does not equate to speeding.

They're both illegal. What other equability would be needed? It could be argued that speeding is worse since it has safety implications.

Your point seems to be that because you don't think something should be illegal, it's OK for you to protect people from breaking that law from the legal process. If it's something you do think should be illegal though, you don't hold the same standard.

And yes - I'd gladly warn somebody in the act of parking in a no-parking zone that they're in danger of a ticket/fine/towing.

I think there is a difference between preventing someone from breaking the law in the first place and protecting people who are breaking the law and will likely continue to do so.

 

[joko104]

They're both illegal. What other equability would be needed? It could be argued that speeding is worse since it has safety implications.

Your point seems to be that because you don't think something should be illegal, it's OK for you to protect people from breaking that law from the legal process. If it's something you do think should be illegal though, you don't hold the same standard.

I think there is a difference between preventing someone from breaking the law in the first place and protecting people who are breaking the law and will likely continue to do so.

Speeding is a more serious crime than breaking and entering and burglary because there are no safety implications of burglary? A whole family loses everything, all momentos of life, possibly complete financial ruin, total violation of their home and property - but at least there was no danger - where with a speeder there is a 1 in 100,000,000 chance someone might get hurt? Better to lose everything you have that even the possible slightest safety risk? :shock:

Why are so many people so intensely, totally paranoid? Constant crippling fear of others. How can such people force themselves to go out of the house? When did Americans become control-freaks driven by constant fear and chanting that the foremost purpose in life is safety? I suppose such a belief justifies a person doing nothing, attempting nothing and accomplishing nothing - because doing and being nothing is safer - if that is how a person defines "safety."

I think the greatest danger is a person wasting away their life because their life is control and restricted by crippling fear, which works well with laziness and apathy.