Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 81664	2007-08-03 03:22:00	Bridge Disaster In US	SurferJoe46 (51)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
576096	2007-08-06 21:07:00	You tell him B.	Cicero (40)
576097	2007-08-06 21:21:00	I can remember when drinking driving was a sport and not a crime tedheath Ok, perhaps you are right, you confirm New Zealand must have been bastardly uncivilised before abolition of the death penalty in 1957. I wouldn't know, I wasn't here then. However in the UK, societal behaviour distinctly deteriorated in years following the abolition by trendy lefty do-gooders :)	Terry Porritt (14)
576098	2007-08-07 02:04:00	Amazing how bridge built by the Romans are still in use today but the modern world can't build anything that lasts. Oh...I remember dem guys too! Dose guys made all their pipes out of lead (Pb, check it out on the periodic table)..out of LEAD! <see footnote> The same people who tinted their poorer quality wines with lead oxide to make if red? (I didn't know about using lead as a sweetener though), The same highway engineers who made the bridges just a little too narrow for two carts to get by each other and had to make turn-outs for one to wait whilst the other passed first? Yup..GREAT engineers and BRILLIANT chemists too! Where's a Roman when you want to meet one today? Maybe we all them plumbers! Oh, yes..they are also stacked up like firewood in catacombs and lying in state in their above ground graveyards. Of COURSE their bridges are still standing...as of this date they are still underused. <footnote> Lead pipes that bear the insignia of Roman emperors are still in service and many Roman "pigs" (ingots) of lead figure in Derbyshire lead mining history and in the history of the industry in other English centres. Lead's symbol Pb is an abbreviation of its Latin name plumbum for soft metals; originally it was plumbum nigrum, where plumbum candidum was tin. The English word "plumbing" also derives from this Latin root. Lead is also very toxic, and lead poisoning was recognized even by the ancient Romans who used it extensively, although posthumously. The historical use of lead acetate (also known as sugar of lead) by the Roman Empire as a sweetener and colourant for wine is considered by some to be the cause of the dementia which affected many of the Roman Emperors. (and bridge and highway engineers?) At one point in time, some lead compounds, because of their sweetness, were used by candy makers. Although this has been banned in industrialized nations, there was a 2004 scandal involving lead-laced Imported Mexican candy being eaten by children in California.	SurferJoe46 (51)
576099	2007-08-07 02:08:00	"Deterrents" don't deter. They never have. Pickpockets in old London did good business at executions. False convictions followed by execution are irreversible.	Graham L (2)
576100	2007-08-07 05:47:00	Just think Mr A.A. Thomas would have got his neck stretched and he was later found to be innocent. The police planted the shell casings. I feel proud to be a New Zealander, we are a civilised like Scandanavia. Although I wouldnt get my tits in a tangle if Bush or any Republican got convicted and hung here.	tedheath (537)
576101	2007-08-07 06:02:00	"Deterrents" don't deter. They never have. Pickpockets in old London did good business at executions. False convictions followed by execution are irreversible. We can safely say deterrents do deter. I would like all the money in my bank,but I am deterred due to the consequence.	Cicero (40)
576102	2007-08-07 13:42:00	problem is there is a small percentage of us who think they can get away with it... actually a large percentage i bet if we consider piracy, speeding and other traffic/copyright offences and then there are the laws that simply make no sense and are also unenforcable, take our child smacking laws for example, and i heard on topgear that police (in the US or UK) don't have the right to measure children to determine if they are under the legal height requiring them to use booster seats. - and speaking of that and DUI, i see on those police shows from the states that cops never directly test driver drunkeness but simply look for drunk-like behaviour; aren't they allowed to do a breath test over there? asfaik on NZ roads you must comply with an officer's request (demand) that you perform a breath test, and if you fail badly enough (or refuse) they will arrest and take you for an evidential blood-alcohol test (and you can keep a sample yourself for independant analysis) and from there you may be charged. i don't see how that infringes your right to drive sober so what's the story in the states? as for killing crims, while it is a good idea, i simply don't trust the human justice system enough: hell it could be me on trial for a crime i didn't commit.	motorbyclist (188)
576103	2007-08-07 18:15:00	The US police have an implied right to test you for alcohol or drugs if you have a driver's license. Remember that it is a LICENSE to drive, not a RIGHT to drive that makes it enforceable to test a driver for impaired operation caused by recreational ingestion. When you sign your name for the license application, you waive your rights to certain liberties..and one of them is to be tested at the officer's discretion for drugs or alcohol. Now..the driver CAN insist that his attorney be present, but that just makes the eyes of the cops get a little squinted and they will really run you through the mill if you try that trick. You actually choose the type of test after the FSR..or field sobriety test...the walk on a line, touch your nose, lean back with your eyes closed etc..test. You can ask for a blood test at a medical facility or a breath-a-lizer either in the field (most cop cars have them in the trunk) or at the police station. So..yes..you can be tested by a cop for drugs/alcohol and they can impound your vehicle for 30 days and you will spend the night in the slammer. Refusal to take the test results in IMMEDIATE SUSPENSION OF YOUR LICENSE and impounding of your vehicle. Your insurance company is then notified that you have been arrested for DUI and they then drop you and from that point..getting insurance is gonna be real hard. There are ways to get insurance, they call it an SR-22, and it will cost you about 10 times more than your original rate for minimal insurance for a number of years. BTW: if you have an accident and you have any of the following conditions, you don't have the right to sue for damages, personal injury or losses (this is California law, but it is being implemented in other states now too): Seat belt not being worn/in use by driver and ALL passengers Missing safety devices (head rests, air bags, lights, wiper blades (if rain or snow) Bald tires No insurance Stolen vehicle Carrying a concealed weapon ANY weapon! Tinted (beyond factory approved, not-on-the-surface, applied) glass/windows During an act of civil rebellion or uprising Acts of war ...and pretty soon...while operating a cell phone. BTW: The child/height/weight thing is not a real problem. The cops write of a suspicion of the offense in the form of a traffic ticket, and then the judge decides if the ticket was warranted for the conditions at hand. If the offense is so obvious, the cop CAN impound the vehicle and arrest the driver...but they have to be sure. If the cop see small heads bouncing on the seats in a car..then I feel it's a given condition of a righteous ticket. Then it's up to the cop to ascertain if the driver is stupid, ignorant of just doesn't care. Either way, the ticket is given and then the driver gets to tell it to the judge.	SurferJoe46 (51)
576104	2007-08-08 05:25:00	You actually choose the type of test after the FSR . . or field sobriety test . . . the walk on a line, touch your nose, lean back with your eyes closed etc . . test . why not just jump straight to the breathalyzer?	motorbyclist (188)
576105	2007-08-08 05:53:00	why not just jump straight to the breathalyzer? Even with the implied consent for tests that the officer might want to perform, he needs a line of evidential suspicion to arrive at the premise that the perp is indeed drunk or impaired and needs to be tested further . . . . it's a Supreme Court ruling . The officer can cease the test at any time he feels the perp may injure himself or the onlookers/officer at the scene though .	SurferJoe46 (51)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7