# Public Safety and Common Sense



## Guest (Sep 20, 2006)

As a commuter who has endured the construction on Route 3 and who is happy to see it behind us, I have also watched the average speed during rush hour in the morning approach 80 mph. I understand the need for speed limit enforcement, but I find speed traps on Route 3 South at 4:45 in the afternoon, at the crossover several miles north of 128, absolutely a slap in the face of motorists.
As soon as there is police activity, on go the brake lights, and we, already facing an unpleasant and dangerous ride, start the ride north with two miles of stop-and-go, and get to see the state police waltzing around at their cruisers. They could not care less about the inconvenienced motorists in the northbound lanes. Let's put it this way: they are either ignorant or apathetic, or both. But, as a clue, you answer the question, "If police officers are subject to the same traffic laws as you and I, unless, of course, they are responding to an emergency with their lights on and sound devices in operation, in which case they might be seen exceeding the speed limit, or stopping at a red light, then proceeding through with caution, why do they routinely cruise the highways of Massachusetts at 80-85 mph and more, with impunity, while we most certainly would receive a ticket for those speeds?"
I'll give you a clue: they don't have to sit in traffic. On go the blue lights, everyone pulls over, and off they go. It's commonplace. Ambulance drivers, fire department vehicles: they all do it. And the most ironic thing is that the law in Massachusetts says that you have to pull over if a police officer is behind you. Get this: if you are going the speed limit or below and don't pull over, he can cite you for failure to keep right. He'll put on the ticket that traffic was passing you on the right, that you weren't passing anyone, whatever he wants to say, because it's his word against yours. Naturally, if you're going over the limit and he's behind you, you're automatically heading for trouble, at his discretion, of course. And this discretion is the case in point which I want to make about traffic safety: cell phones.
Cell phones are in the eyes of most serious and safe drivers I know the biggest hazard to highway safety extant. These buffoons are not attentive: they are concentrating on their conversation. They can not hear horns or other warning sounds. They can not turn their heads at an on-ramp or changing lanes to see the car in the blind spot, or don't even care to. They ride in the high-speed lane at rush hour at 55, oblivious to other drivers. They ride in the center lane at 55, oblivious to other drivers. Please, someone tell me what these dolts did behind the wheel before cell phones came along. It's easy, and they're still doing it: eating, putting on make-up, reading, drinking coffee. I know an Italian guy who smokes, drinks coffee, talks with a hand-held, and drives all at the same time, and he gesticulates all the while.
I thought that the law in Massachusetts says that you must have both hands available for operation of your vehicle at all times. Talking on a hand-held cell phone is prima facie evidence that that law is being broken. Why is the law not enforced? This is a serious safety problem. 
If the law enforcement community grows a set of balls and starts to enforce the two hands concept, and of course a total ban on cell phones wouldn't be a bad idea, I won't bitch about the speed traps on Route 3 or about non-emergency behind-the-wheel shenanigans of Massachesetts State Police.
Let's get the cell phonies off the roads, or are you waiting for a friend or relative to be killed in an accident caused by one?


----------



## Andy0921 (Jan 12, 2006)

This should be a good one! Some douche bag asked the same question a while ago. Search through the forums Model.


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2006)

modelcitizen said:


> I thought that the law in Massachusetts says that you must have both hands available for operation of your vehicle at all times. Talking on a hand-held cell phone is prima facie evidence that that law is being broken. Why is the law not enforced? This is a serious safety problem.


I forget where I heard it, but I guess those bluetooth thingys for the cellphone or any headsets for phones are illegal to use while driving. Does anyone know a law that would prohibit that, whether it specifies headsets in the law or something that you could say prohibits it if you get into technicalities of it. Just wondering since the subject of talking on cell phones while driving was brought up.


----------



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

Why Don't You


----------



## 2-Delta (Aug 13, 2003)

It should be noted that not all responses to calls for service require lights or sirens.


----------



## SOT (Jul 30, 2004)

not this shit again....

Maybe we should have a help line of FAQ

If you are a whiny citizen with a complaint about the
MSP Press or say 1.
Local Police press or say 2.
need for you to try and equate what your meaningless life stands for in the whole scope of things press or say 3.


----------



## MM1799 (Sep 14, 2006)

You are a complete and utter waste of bandwidth. For the sake of informing the ingorant:

The cruiser could have been looking for a BOLO with 2 suspected rapists in the car, do you know? I don't.

We go faster so we can observe traffic. If we both go 75, then I see your dumbass all 8.5hrs. That will really work out well. If the police go 55, everyone waits behind and traffic jams happen and citizens complain. Oh, kinda like you did (re: speed traps - please dont call them again, thanks!)

Let's say you are in a bad spot but I dont exactly know where (just unconfirmed reports). Why would I go blazing up code 3 when I dont know where you are? I would rather just left-lane travel and get their as quickly (and safely) as I can. 

I drive better than you.

I dont care about cellphone drivers, I am too busy responding to people who think they know all about my job and dont have a clue.

(On a side note: kwflatbed I love the 'go ask daddy' image you put after that kid speaks, lmao.)


----------



## benike84 (Apr 11, 2006)

I'm going to sit here and wait for the responses. This is going to be interesting.


----------



## benike84 (Apr 11, 2006)

look at that 3 responses while i was typing mine


----------



## SOT (Jul 30, 2004)

Although I don't really know I thought those were legal. When they mention headsets in the law, I think they mean walkman like headsets for music.
I'm sure you've seen it, a shitass car with nice rims driving down the road. El Torro lost his Alpine to a radio theft a whole back so now he pumps music right into his pea brain via an iPod shuffle and some big honking Koss headsets that make him look like a cross between chewbacca and princess leigh.



djgj200 said:


> I forget where I heard it, but I guess those bluetooth thingys for the cellphone or any headsets for phones are illegal to use while driving. Does anyone know a law that would prohibit that, whether it specifies headsets in the law or something that you could say prohibits it if you get into technicalities of it. Just wondering since the subject of talking on cell phones while driving was brought up.


----------



## Mortal knight (Jun 17, 2003)

modelcitizen said:


> *I thought* that the law in Massachusetts says that you must have *both hands available for operation of your vehicle at all times.* Talking on a hand-held cell phone is* prima facie evidence* that that law is being broken. Why is the law not enforced?


*Chapter 90: Section 13.*
No person, when operating a motor vehicle, shall permit to be on or in the vehicle or on or about his person anything which may interfere with or impede the proper operation of the vehicle or any equipment by which the vehicle is operated or controlled, *except that a person may operate a motor vehicle while using a citizens band radio or mobile telephone as long as one hand remains on the steering wheel at all times. *

So you thought wrong, and stop trying to impress us with legal terms, we are not lawyers, we're cops. We know the laws, and UNLESS you have a scanner in your KIA and listening to all frequency how do YOU know why the cop is doing what he is doing. YOU see the blue pull over.


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2006)

MM1799 said:


> You are a complete and utter waste of bandwidth. For the sake of informing the ingorant: The cruiser could have been looking for a BOLO with 2 suspected rapists in the car, do you know? I don't.
> A. This is based on driving 60,000 miles/year+ in the Commonwealth, not on some isolated incident. I see Massachusetts State Police, for whom I have the greatest respect except when they show their disdain for the general public in the name of highway safety, on a daily basis, most of the times at speeds greater than 80 mph. The rest of the time they're sitting on Route 3 collecting overtime on safety details for Modern Continental.
> 
> We go faster so we can observe traffic. If we both go 75, then I see your dumbass all 8.5hrs. That will really work out well. If the police go 55, everyone waits behind and traffic jams happen and citizens complain. Oh, kinda like you did (re: speed traps - please dont call them again, thanks!)
> ...


----------



## zebra3 (Feb 28, 2006)

Please do not get me wrong, and I of course mean no disrespect to any law-enforcement personnel, but cell phones are a danger. It's the same as wearing seat belts or helmets: if people are going to commit acts of stupidity by not wearing them, the government must stop them. It's the cost to society, not the taking away of an individual's rights, that we must consider.

([/quote]

You should send your concerns to legislators who can put the issue to a vote or try to amend the law. We only enforce the Laws of the Commonwealth, we don't make them. If a crash investigation reveals that cell phone use was a contributing factor, it will be considered in assigning fault and possibly a charge driving to endanger due to negligence.


----------



## MM1799 (Sep 14, 2006)

There you go with the bandwidth problem again. 
Holy hell 60k a yr???? OMG! Let me bow down to you because clearly you are the master of the road. Like Mortal knight said, you have no idea what they are doing. Get out of their way and get on with your life. Is it that big of a deal? I bet if they didn't go by you you'd complain that there weren't enough on the road, right?

Actually its a security guard at Stop & Shop. I like to pace people in the parking lot and then give them tickets.....  You really want to know PM me.
You see a crusier you slow down for 5 seconds, then speed right back up. I am a driver too. I didn't say that police always go by people or always go the speed limit. We are paid to keep traffic moving that the whole point. Intentionally? You are an idiot. Rubbernecks are NOT the police's fault. If people realized that in that 4 seconds nothing exciting is going to happen and kept their eyes on the road -- this wouldn't be a problem.

Yes, I can say for certain, I am a better driver than you.

Before you go mouthing off, get some facts. I can sit behind a computer and tell someone what I have seen in my VAST experience of being an ordinary driver, in rush hour traffic. I am so fucking impressed. Yes cellphones are dangerous, so aren't people eating when driving, OTHER PEOPLE IN THE CAR TALKING, bald tires, rubberneckers, bad signs on the road, tailgaters, people speeding... and many, many more. What do you want? Go to an academy, become a cop and deal with these problems yourself. Fill out activity sheets about cellphones all day and tell me how that goes.

You dont mean disrespect, how could you? You dont know the meaning of respect. Read your posts about ingorance, and sitting their doing nothing getting paid, speeding police cars (for no reason), and intentially causing traffic jams. You're a riot.


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2006)

SOT_II said:


> Although I don't really know I thought those were legal. When they mention headsets in the law, I think they mean walkman like headsets for music.
> I'm sure you've seen it, a shitass car with nice rims driving down the road. El Torro lost his Alpine to a radio theft a whole back so now he pumps music right into his pea brain via an iPod shuffle and some big honking Koss headsets that make him look like a cross between chewbacca and princess leigh.


yea, haha. maybe whoever said that thought it fell under the same catagory. like i said, I can't remember who said it, I remember hearing it last winter. But like mortal knight posted, the operator of a vehicle can use a mobile phone if one hand is on the steering wheel. the operator isn't holding the phone itself but its along the same lines and actually allows the driver to maintain two hand on the wheel. just curious. i will see what i can find about those walkman headsets.


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2006)

Yup, its illegal. last sentence of C.90 S.13 and I quote:



> No person shall operate a motor vehicle while wearing headphones, unless said headphones are used for communication in connection with *controlling the course or movement* of said vehicle.


So no bluetooth while operating. Not that I care, I rarely talk on the cellphone to begin with. Just something nice to know.


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2006)

MM1799 said:


> We are paid to keep traffic moving that the whole point. Intentionally? You are an idiot. Rubbernecks are NOT the police's fault. If people realized that in that 4 seconds nothing exciting is going to happen and kept their eyes on the road -- this wouldn't be a problem.


OK, I am not going to confuse you with the facts because your mind is already made up. The Massachusetts State Police who are running the speed trap can see that the northbound side is backed up for miles and should know, unless they are obtuse, that simply by sitting there with two cruisers, that they are causing the back-up. Many people have never seen a cruiser before! They've been doing this since the road opened, and continue to do so, regardless of the effect on traffic. Rubbernecks are NOT the police's fault, but they should recognize a situation which will cause rubber-necking, and if they are paid "to keep traffic moving," they won't set up speed traps there and at that time of day.


----------



## MM1799 (Sep 14, 2006)

Ok just because I am getting ready for work and am bored at this moment, I'll humor you with a response (again). I'll give you some situation that are plausible of why they are sitting there. Ok?

1) As I state before, they are looking for a specific car. Maybe it was involved in a rape? If it were my mother or sisters I'd be happy as hell to see the police out their doing what they can to find the perp.
2) Maybe they are on a break.. you seem to know the laws. Working 8.5hrs, are they entitled to a break? And maybe they were conscience enough to realise (in such a traffic jam) they should stay close to road incase a serious accident w/ injuries happened.
3) Hey who knows, maybe they were waiting for the idiots that blow up the BDL at high speeds and potentially kill anyone who might fixing a flat or whatever.
4) They might have been tired of answering ignorant motorists questions about how they perform their jobs and decided to sit back and watch the motorists do it themselves.

The point is you dont know, so I dont see how you have any reason to come on a *police* board and question their actions and actually expect a sypathetic ear.


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2006)

MM1799 said:


> Ok just because I am getting ready for work and am bored at this moment, I'll humor you with a response (again). I'll give you some situation that are plausible of why they are sitting there. Ok?
> 
> 1) As I state before, they are looking for a specific car. Maybe it was involved in a rape? If it were my mother or sisters I'd be happy as hell to see the police out their doing what they can to find the perp.
> 2) Maybe they are on a break.. you seem to know the laws. Working 8.5hrs, are they entitled to a break? And maybe they were conscience enough to realise (in such a traffic jam) they should stay close to road incase a serious accident w/ injuries happened.
> ...


If this is a multiple-choice test, all of the above are wrong. The officers are standing in the break-down lane southbound, with their cruisers in the crossover. One is shooting the cars with his radar gun, the other is flagging down the unfortunate shlubs who are speeding.
You are very, very defensive about people questioning how you do your job. I'm sure you do it well, but learn to accept constructive criticism. This is, by no means, a character assassination.


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2006)

Maybe they're searching for people like you that get pissed off during rush hour and engage in road rage.


----------



## MM1799 (Sep 14, 2006)

I accept constructive criticism from people who have a clue how my job is done. Not someone who 'sees' it all and has driven over 60,000 miles a year. Maybe I should set a house on fire and then 'see' how the big red truck responds... then I'll criticize them. You know, cause I 'see' them.
So according to you, just because their is traffic means that the police should allow people to speed? Call your congressman and tell him that everytime an officer runs radar traffic slows down on both sides of the road and you dont understand why. Tell him to enact a new law in the MGL saying that police cannot run radars from 6-10am and 4-10pm.

Exactly where do you work that gives you such knowledge that you can criticize other professions?


----------



## O-302 (Jan 1, 2006)

modelcitizen said:


> As a commuter who has endured the construction on Route 3 and who is happy to see it behind us, I have also watched the average speed during rush hour in the morning approach 80 mph. I understand the need for speed limit enforcement, but I find speed traps on Route 3 South at 4:45 in the afternoon, at the crossover several miles north of 128, absolutely a slap in the face of motorists.
> As soon as there is police activity, on go the brake lights, and we, already facing an unpleasant and dangerous ride, start the ride north with two miles of stop-and-go, and get to see the state police waltzing around at their cruisers. They could not care less about the inconvenienced motorists in the northbound lanes. Let's put it this way: they are either ignorant or apathetic, or both. But, as a clue, you answer the question, "If police officers are subject to the same traffic laws as you and I, unless, of course, they are responding to an emergency with their lights on and sound devices in operation, in which case they might be seen exceeding the speed limit, or stopping at a red light, then proceeding through with caution, why do they routinely cruise the highways of Massachusetts at 80-85 mph and more, with impunity, while we most certainly would receive a ticket for those speeds?"
> I'll give you a clue: they don't have to sit in traffic. On go the blue lights, everyone pulls over, and off they go. It's commonplace. Ambulance drivers, fire department vehicles: they all do it. And the most ironic thing is that the law in Massachusetts says that you have to pull over if a police officer is behind you. Get this: if you are going the speed limit or below and don't pull over, he can cite you for failure to keep right. He'll put on the ticket that traffic was passing you on the right, that you weren't passing anyone, whatever he wants to say, because it's his word against yours. Naturally, if you're going over the limit and he's behind you, you're automatically heading for trouble, at his discretion, of course. And this discretion is the case in point which I want to make about traffic safety: cell phones.
> Cell phones are in the eyes of most serious and safe drivers I know the biggest hazard to highway safety extant. These buffoons are not attentive: they are concentrating on their conversation. They can not hear horns or other warning sounds. They can not turn their heads at an on-ramp or changing lanes to see the car in the blind spot, or don't even care to. They ride in the high-speed lane at rush hour at 55, oblivious to other drivers. They ride in the center lane at 55, oblivious to other drivers. Please, someone tell me what these dolts did behind the wheel before cell phones came along. It's easy, and they're still doing it: eating, putting on make-up, reading, drinking coffee. I know an Italian guy who smokes, drinks coffee, talks with a hand-held, and drives all at the same time, and he gesticulates all the while.
> ...


You can be honest with us....you're on psych meds aren't you?


----------



## Andy0921 (Jan 12, 2006)

When you make a call for service we will go 15mph over the speed limit to get to the location of your complaint too. Just because we are not going to an emergency that requires the use of emergency lights and sirens, we need to get to places quick. Many agencies are understaffed and have a shit load of calls for service holding. All we are trying to do is to get there in a reasonable amount of time so that people don't complain that it took us 45 mins to get to a little loud music complaint, but no matter what you people will never be happy with our service and will continue to complain.


----------



## zebra3 (Feb 28, 2006)

modelcitizen said:


> The officers are standing in the break-down lane southbound, with their cruisers in the crossover. One is shooting the cars with his radar gun, the other is flagging down the unfortunate shlubs who are speeding.


What I don't get is, in one breath your explaining the dangers of cell phone use while operating a motor vehicle. In another your complaining about speed traps and "the unfortunate shlubs" who are getting stopped for speeding. In a lot of crashes speed is a determining factor. 
My unit, in Somerville, uses accident data as a factor in where we choose to do speed enforcement. In some cases we have dramatically reduced crashes in several areas of our city. Unfortunately we do not set the fines, fines are set bythe Commonwealth. 
No one likes to get stopped by the police but it is a necessity to maintain order on the roadways. How many times have YOU noticed an operator of a vehicle committing a violation and muttered under your breath "there's never a cop around when you need one". 
It's funny how civilians are constantly criticizing Police Officers when approximately 8 out of 10 people I stop will look me in the eye and LIE! These same people will appeal the citation and look the judge in the eye and say that the Police Officer is completely wrong and made it up.


----------



## Mortal knight (Jun 17, 2003)

OK I'm conufused. Is he bitching about:
A) cell phones being danergous 
B) Cops causing traffic Jams
C) Cops pulling cars over Shlubs
D) Not getting hired as cop so he's coming here to piss and moan on how we do our jobs?

AND what makes him a model citizen?
Are you blond 5'6" 34-25-32, cuz that would be a model citizen!!!! 
Have you never broken a law? Do you ALWAYS use you directional when changing lanes? Is your registration sticker current and affixed in the upper right hand cornor of your REAR plate? Do you have a front plate? Is your registration in your glove box? Do you always have your license in possesion? Do you Always wear your seat belt?
Do you do the peanut butter trick with your dog? Do you stop at yellow lights? DO you dim your high beam when approaching other M/V? Do you slow down at all intersection regardless of the light? Do you have anything hanging from your mirror or any stickers in your windows ( besides the blue line sticker you bought on E-bay)?
Seriously, I want to know, cuz I want to be like YOU!!!!!!


----------



## robinlow (Feb 18, 2006)

modelcitizen said:


> A. Where do you work, as a Security Guard at Wal-Mart? I know that red lights and high visibility of police cars are both deterrents to speed. I have seen Massachusetts State Police in the right-hand lane hidden next to and going the same speed as trailer trucks, just waiting for some cretin to go whizzing by in the left lanes. And you just don't get it about about rubber-neck delays during rush hour caused intentionally by Massachusetts State Police. They inconvenience thousands of motorists so they can write a handful of tickets. They could slow down traffic southbound just by being in it.


What's wrong with Security Guards at Wal-Mart? When did they offend you? You got caught shoplifting or something?



modelcitizen said:


> I drive better than you.
> A. That's your opinion, you have no idea where I went to driving school, but as the old quote says, "Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself, but talent instantly recognizes genius."


I drive better than you = I have gone through courses to make sure I can handle my cruiser at high speeds. (Not I can put on make up, drink coffee, smoke and be on my cell phone at the same time while driving.)



modelcitizen said:


> I dont care about cellphone drivers, I am too busy responding to people who think they know all about my job and dont have a clue.
> A. The fact that you do not recognize cell phone users as a hazard to the public safety tells me at once you aren't too aware. I do not know all about your job, but I do know the hazards which I have to avoid on a daily basis, and more are caused by cell phone users than by drunk drivers.


Cops do not write the law, if there is no law against cell phone users, they cannot stop people who use cell phones while driving.

I ride a motorcycle and I know there are hazards. There are also old people who cannot drive straight and little ladies in big SUVs who turn without signalling. Unless they commit an offence in front of an officer, the officer cannot pull someone over just because they are, 1) too old to drive, 2) too small for their SUV, 3) talk on cell phone while driving.



modelcitizen said:


> Please do not get me wrong, and I of course mean no disrespect to any law-enforcement personnel, but cell phones are a danger. It's the same as wearing seat belts or helmets: if people are going to commit acts of stupidity by not wearing them, the government must stop them. It's the cost to society, not the taking away of an individual's rights, that we must consider.


Complain to your mayor and govenor. Start a protest, a hunger strike. Write a petition!

But don't complain to the police about things they cannot enforce like "My boyfriend don't take showers" or "Burger king did not give me my burger they way I like it."


----------



## Clouseau (Mar 9, 2004)

_*fire department vehicles:* _

You're right modelcitizen. I agree 100%.

I've been complaining about the fire department for years!


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2006)

How about the MFD attempting to stop a car for running a red light without their lights on, then the FF's reported to the police an erratic operator because the person thought the FFs were like hitmen or something and tried to evade them. That was hilarious.


----------



## Pacman (Aug 29, 2005)

modelcitizen said:


> *Please do not get me wrong, and I of course mean no disrespect to any law-enforcement personnel*, but cell phones are a danger. It's the same as wearing seat belts or helmets: if people are going to commit acts of stupidity by not wearing them, the government must stop them. It's the cost to society, not the taking away of an individual's rights, that we must consider.





modelcitizen said:


> As soon as there is police activity, on go the brake lights, and we, already facing an unpleasant and dangerous ride, start the ride north with two miles of stop-and-go, and get to see the state police waltzing around at their cruisers. They could not care less about the inconvenienced motorists in the northbound lanes. Let's put it this way: *they are either ignorant or apathetic, or both.*


How is it sir, that you are even allowed to have access to the internet? I didn't realize that half way homes for liberals had computers. I have two very good words for you, FUCK YOU!

I do my job to the best of my ability. I am an aggressive officer that enforces the laws that your elected officials wrote and enacted. I am the type of officer I would want to respond to an issue my family had to deal with.

I would also like to point out that WE don't make people slow down when they see a police officer on the side of the road. The drivers do! The speed limit is 55 or 65 depending on the road in question. If the operators slow down to 30 to get by the police officer then that it his or her fault, not ours.


----------



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)




----------



## Pacman (Aug 29, 2005)

Here is your Model Citizen's Girl Scout Badge. Thank you for playing.


----------



## no$.10 (Oct 18, 2005)

modelcitizen said:


> You are very, very defensive about people questioning how you do your job. I'm sure you do it well, but learn to accept constructive criticism. This is, by no means, a character assassination.


OK, so let us know what you do for a living, so that we can begin to tell you how you can better achieve efficiency. I am sure we have some ideas.

"many people have never seen a police cruiser" ???? If they are that new to the world, the should NOT be driving. Operating a motor vehicle on a public way is a PRIVILEDGE not a RIGHT. That's why everyone is not allowed to do so (without going through the proper application process).

Please go bash Comcast, or Verizon,or maybe Exxon, and leave us the hell alone. You are the same dumb ass that will expect us to catch someone who robs you, hits your vehicle and screws, whatever, but you expect carte blanche on whatever laws YOU think are not important.

OH, and for the record, if your liberal hero Patrick gets in, you can look forward to an ever increasing commute delay, as illegal immigrants will be granted the privilege to drive without the same training required of your (or your neighbors) 16 year old children.


----------

