agreed. You only look twice if it catches your eye.

Police aren't planning to ruin your day but you have to follow the law. As dumb as this sounds its a smart idea to have an illegal license plate from or something hanging from your mirror. If your nice to the cop instead of the stop sign ticket you may just receive an unclear plate ticket.

Moving violation, 2 points, 135$ fine
OR
Unclear plates, 56$

 

I'm pleased with a lot of the responses on this thread that are actually rational. I drive an Evo, and a lot of other Evo owners will take the wing off in hopes of flying under the radar. Well, I have arguably the biggest OEM wing available on any production car since the Plymouth Roadrunner, and I NEVER get hassled, despite being in a car that begs for attention, as even the stock exhaust is pretty loud. I've been pulled over once, and guess what... I was breaking the law (in the carpool lane by myself), but I was even let off with a verbal warning. Most Evo owners (and this includes other cars as well) who do get pulled over are whiners who complain about getting cited for not making a full stop, having tinted windows all around, not having installed their front license plate, speeding, etc. You've got to pay if you want to play, but if you want to play, at least play smart.

Before I started what I do now (insurance), I was very far into the hiring process for various law enforcement agencies. They have better stuff to do with their time then pin something on you just for the sake of ticketing, as it is very easy for them to find legitimate violations, though sometimes a few people complain when they get cited and resort to the whole "police should be out catching murderers and rapists, not my unable-to-come-to-a-complete-stop ass" excuse. I did a ride-along with CHP once on their morning shift (starts at 5:30am and goes until 2pm or something like that), and within one hour, we had reported to the scene of an accident and cited the driver who had caused the accident (not just for the accident, but he was an unlicensed driver, and because of that, the car got towed) and pulled over someone doing 90 mph on the freeway.

 

I had stepped on it a bit to get past a row of tailgaters to move into the right lane just inside the Dallas city limits when I saw a cop parked on the service road... It wasn't long before he was on my tail with me driving a mile or 2 under the speed limit, he took the 2nd exit down the road... Like Hayden says, loud exhaust is no big thing in Texas, but like Dew says 10PSI and free flowing exhaust gets unwanted attention especially when the pedal is down....Cruising under 60 or over 80 isn't bad, anything between is miserable but won't get you pulled over...

 

Maybe their shouldn't be laws for victimless crimes. Maybe the law is broken; a useless system used by the government to extort money from people under the guise of public safety.

Just because something is illegal does not make it wrong. Equally, just because something is legal does not make it right.

just saying.

 

Just to be quick and answer your question...YES.
If you look like you drive fast...more in likely you do...so they are going to follow.
I have my stock rims exactly for this reason...less attention from cops and teenage boys trying to race me in their Cavaliers w/ fart can exhaust.
I like my cars to look sleek...but also somewhat stock.

 

eh i also live in socal and cops down here profile like CRAZY back when i got my first car (93 camry) it was really beat up...i got pulled over every single week for "rolling stops" "speeding" "license plate light off" "accidently punched in a wrong letter on my license plate and my car came up stolen" "suspicion of stolen vehicle". you name it! i've heard all the lame excuses they give me...just try to stay under the radar. if a cop ever followed me, ill follow all traffic rules and drive around aimlessly untill he gets tired or bored.

 

I'm glad that you have no involvement in law making then. So rolling through stop signs is a victimless crime? Maybe not in itself, but that doesn't mean it can't be something that leads to there being a victim. Like I said in my first post, what if you happen to roll through a stop sign and hit somebody walking in front of you? I assume you think DUIs are also victimless crimes too. They are, until a drunk driver plows into a car with someone who you care about inside of it. And for those reasons, these things have to be enforced. Besides, is it really that hard for people to make a complete stop?

 

I always obey the traffic laws and never go over the speed limit. However, my car has gotten the attention from law more than once. I even had a city police turn around and follow me. Now that I had the new exhaust put on the car it worries me more! I went to work yesterday with a state police behind me but I followed the law and nothing happened. OK, I've got a Japanese good luck cat hanging from my tow hook, dual exhaust tips, little woot! and my third brake light is covered with a CF GD3 inlay! Nay, nothing unusual here! LOL!

Cat

 

There is some seriously flawed logic here.

Someone getting hit because someone else refuses to stop (when explicitly instructed to by that red sign with the white border) would not be a victimless crime. Granted it didn't happen this time but how is anyone sure that there was no victim? Is there someone out there who now feels unsafe to cross the street because of this? did someone's pet caterpillar get squashed because it didn't have enough time to get past the tire? yes... a little bit absurd, but still... potentially victims.

There is a Stop sign for a reason. They make a sign for rolling stops... it's called Yield.

As for the 2nd part (right/wrong), I can't agree with the 1st part. Illegal is almost in definition, wrong. Breaking the law... Wrong! while you may not morally agree with it, it is still wrong. I do however agree with just because something is legal does not automatically make it right. Like owning a fully automatic assault rifle - you know, like the founders of the constitution intended (and envisioned).

~SB

 

It is not flawed. If there is a crime committed, you punish the crime. If there was not law stating that you had to stop at a stop sign people would still stop. If you didn't stop and caused a crash or injured someone, then you would be punished. If two people both didn't stop, they share responsibility.

Much like speed limits. People drive how they feel comfortable, not what the sign tells them to drive. Some drive faster, some slower, and some at the speed limit. That would not change if you took the sign away. For the most part, people drive at whatever speed they feel comfortable. If someone is driving too fast and crashes or injures a person, you punish the crime. Speed is not the crime, not maintaining control of the vehicle is the crime.

It is really a matter of personal responsibility. Either you believe that you can control your own actions, or you need someone (i.e. the government) to tell you how to live. I guess as time progresses, more people need the government to direct their lives for them.


As for everything else, illegal does not make something wrong. Cultural moral and norms make things right or wrong.

For example. In NC the mere possession of a lottery ticket is illegal in North Carolina and may result in a $2,000 fine (14-290).

It is not wrong to possess a lottery ticket. Crossing from VA into NC with a VA lottery ticket is not wrong. It may be illegal, but not wrong. Of course now that NC has it's own lottery, I guess it is a mute point. Any way they can get your money, right?

Or this one from VA (18.2-344). Any person, not being married, who voluntarily shall have sexual intercourse with any other person, shall be guilty
of fornication, punishable as a Class 4 misdemeanor.

It is not wrong to have sex with another person even if you are not married, but it is illegal in VA.

Right and wrong, ethical and unethical, are pre-existing, and are not defined by the law. It's the other way around; the law should be defined by, should conform to, ethical standards. When they conflict, it is the law that is wrong, not ethics. FAR too often, the law does not conform to what is right and wrong; it violates peoples rights instead of protecting them. Our government is SUPPOSED to exist in order to secure the rights of the people, not to screw them over.

FYI: For the purposes of this post, a crime constitutes having a victim.

 

DUIs are victimless crimes, and they do little to deter drunk driving. Many DUIs are issued to repeat offenders, and little is done to keep them off the road.

I, however, abhor people who drive drunk. In fact, someone who drives drunk and kills someone should face the same penalties as 2nd degree murder. It wasn't premeditated, but being drunk does not absolve personal responsibility.

 

you really think that if there were no laws, people would behave? seriously? you have to admit that is an absurd assumption. people will stop at stop signs even if it's not illegal to run them? why would anyone obey laws if they didnt have to?

everyone would just begin deciding for themselves which rules they should follow. it'd be a huge mess.

 

So are you saying that if there were no laws you wouldn't behave? If you don't think others would, you must have some insecure feelings about your own morality.

People would obey their moral and ethical beliefs that already guide their actions more than laws ever will. If someone thinks/knows something is right, but it is illegal, they will do it anyways. If someone thinks/knows something is wrong, but it is legal, they will not do it. The law rarely overrides personal morality.

I think it is absurd to think you can legislate conformity.

 

Drawing attention to yourself and breaking the law at the same time is asking for trouble. Try not doing both at the same time.

 

haha way to draw a completely unrelated tangent. well, best of luck to you changing the world and all.

 

dont break the law and you wont have to worry about it.

 

this one is good. so, your statement is, if there were no laws people would behave due to their innate morals and ethics?

WRONG! if there were no laws, people would run around smoking crack which would impair their "ethical and moral" self and kill your moral loving ass. they dont care, they want crack with your hard earned ethical money.

second, people will drive drunk because they dont care if they kill you because they dont know that when they start their car and drive off if there were no laws.

more? rape, incest, motherlovin, murder, man slaughter, MAYHEM!

why because humans are animals. we are animals that like to destroy each other. its in our nature, we kill and steal because our brains are hardwired this way. we are TAUGHT not to do so, that is why most of us are good behaving citizens in our communities.

as a child we are punished by our parents if we did wrong. that punishment is the fear we have inside and we do good so we dont get punished. same thing as we are adults, instead of parental guidance and supervision it is the LAW that is regulating our behavior now. we dont do bad things because you dont want to get fined(punished financially) and we dont kill and steal because we get time out(jail time/lethal injected death).

people1234 you should really think things through before you start typing away at some naive nonsensical ethics and moral crap.

 

Cops let me off for tickets in the fit. In the t-bird its another story.

Moving out of Cali would probably solve 95% of your police problems.

 

I highly doubt that DUI's don't deter drunk driving. Maybe the severity of punishment doesn't deter enough but do you have any Idea how many people would be out on the road if there weren't any DUI laws? Morality also does not play into a DUI situation as DUI is impairment in judgment so people are realistically not able to make moral decisions as well as if they are sober.

Also as for Morals & Ethics. different Cultures have different Morals and the US is most certainly a mix of every culture. Whose morals do we go by? Yours? mine? (obviously these are different).

Stop signs are also more than safety, they help with flow of traffic. They also help determine right of way. How many accidents would we have if people just decided to ignore all stop signs. Every intersection would be an accident multiple times/day. and not because they weren't being personally responsible, but because someone else was.

How many people ignore the consequences now (when there are consequences). How many people would ignore them if there weren't?

~SB

 

First of all, we are animals. That much of your post is true.

The rest is garbage. Humans do have have "instincts" to protect themselves and their loved ones. They do not, however, have strong desires to kill another human. That is, we are not hard wired for killing. In fact, humans have superior community and relational skills to many other animals. I'll point you to the fact that most species of animals do not kill their own, unless threatened. Large scale violence in the past was the result of the zeitgeist of that time.

Furthermore, humans have much higher levels of frontal lobe function than almost every other species of animal. It is what makes us different. It also allows to rationalize or override primal instincts.

Parents use punishment to mold their children moral and ethical values. Once a person becomes an adult, they continue that trend to their children. For the most part, morality is a stable trait through life. Again, the law has no affect on a person's morality. Adults don't need the government to parent them.


You go by no one set of morality. One is no more right than another. Again, I am not advocating anarchy. In fact, quite the opposite. Crimes with victims such as murder, manslaughter, theft, fraud, rape, and any other crime that has a victim should be heavily enforced and punished. No one has the right to take away anyone else's freedom. Basically, if you can live out your moral and ethical beliefs and not affect another person, you should be allowed to do so freely. With that freedom, comes personal responsibility.


The fact that you point out that people ignore the consequences validates the concept that the law is not the controlling factor. People follow the law only when it coincides with their personal beliefs. No amount of legislation will change that concept.