Richard King posted this new story "The Charles Newman Story" with the following blurb:
This story is about my life. I'm Charles Newman, just a kid, 12 years old, who has a best friend named Brian. The story starts the day sixth grade was over, and the rest of our lives were ahead of us!
*******
My question is does this story violate the rules for posting new stories age wise on SOL.
My question is does this story violate the rules for posting new stories age wise on SOL.
It will depend on what happens in it. The rules are quite specific:
7. Age restrictions: Your work (stories, poems or blog entries) may not contain characters younger than 14 having sex or being in sexual situations (masturbation and nudism are not allowed). In other words, all characters that engage in any sexual activity must be 14 or older. (Stories posted before September 2011 are not subject to this rule, including new chapters to stories that were in-progress when this rule came into effect.)
Thus characters under 14 are allowed, you just can't have graphic sex scenes involving characters under 14 - the big clue is the section I marked in bold above. So 12 y/o Steve can say, "Had a great weekend and fucked Mary." But neither he nor the author can describe the weekend's event.
Often, stories like this start young with no sex, and that comes later when they're older.
I was just curious since it also had the tag: much sex.
I admit I didn't look any further into it since that theme didn't interest me at all. In fact with my history it could definitely recall a very bad memory.
I admit I didn't look any further into it since that theme didn't interest me at all. In fact with my history it could definitely recall a very bad memory.
I haven't opened it, either. Because I have to know and trust an author well before I'll start a story that's still being posted.
(masturbation and nudism are not allowed
It's interesting that nudism is not allowed. Is being nude considered sexual? If so, then nudists resorts are more fun that I realised!
It's more the language of laws. Almost all laws are written in somewhat vague ways and are often not very prescies. Laz had to go by the rules of law, not what average people would consider sexual or note.
And the laws in Canada, I seem to remember, were not overly specific on what it banned.
Problem is some people look for any excuse to enforce their own rules on others. If the law isn't very simple to understand and obey, it only gives those people another method to try and force their ways on other people.
At least I admit that kind of thing will probably force some real bad memories back to the surface. I still have nightmares about the cause of those memories almost 60 years later. So I tend to avoid certain stories and other things which might make them worse.
Laz had to go by the rules of law
Oh OK. Wow, I didn't realise that nudity for under 14's was proscribed in Canadian law. That must make nude beaches rather pointless, and no toddlers in the buff either. Very puritanical.
Well, I'm not sure how many nude beaches Canada had beforehand. I mean, the weather isn't really nude sunbathing weather most the year up north :)
Oh OK. Wow, I didn't realise that nudity for under 14's was proscribed in Canadian law. That must make nude beaches rather pointless, and no toddlers in the buff either. Very puritanical.
Elected rectums can pass some real weird laws.
In some areas of NSW nudity is legal at any age. on some beaches being topless is legal at any age. Wearing a see through top is legal at any age. Taking photos in public places is legal, taking photos private places with permission is legal. However, have a picture of female in a see through top who is 25 and the magistrate thinks she look 14 because she isn't well endowed is illegal. Having a family portrait taken at a nude beach which includes a kid under 16 is illegal - taking the photo is legal, having it is illegal - and that's some of the saner parts of the last changes.
All politicians world wide ought to be exiled to the planet between Saturn and Neptune.
All politicians world wide ought to be exiled to the planet between Saturn and Neptune.
isn't that where they go for training?
Well, they shouldn't be allowed to return.
and even a short time there results in them returning brain dead. We are ruled by Zombies.
and even a short time there results in them returning brain dead. We are ruled by Zombies.
Now, now. There is no need to get personal ... :-)
The problem is, they pass laws that, when they say them, seem obvious, but don't think through all the possibilities.
Like "It is illegal to produce or distribute pornographic or illicit material featuring a child". Seems simple, but...
How do you define "child"? Are teenagers children? Under the age of 18? What if consent laws are 16 or 17?
What is pornography? Nude, semi-nude, poses?
What does produce mean? Making it, paying for it to be made, loaning the equipment that it was made with?
Every word in that but the prepositions (and even some of those) can be read by different people to mean different things. And with each clarification, you are writing down more things that has to be further defined to make it clear, and then with that clarification, and on and on.
Every law written has unintended consequences, and despite what most people think, there is no such think as an easy law to write.
All politicians world wide ought to be exiled to the planet between Saturn and Neptune.
Didn't mean Uranus?
Oh OK. Wow, I didn't realise that nudity for under 14's was proscribed in Canadian law. That must make nude beaches rather pointless, and no toddlers in the buff either. Very puritanical.
I don't know about Canada but a woman here was prosecuted and found guilty of photographing her own baby in the bath. Of course the photos were seized and destroyed but I don't know what her sentence was. Without written permission in advance it is almost a criminal offence to photograph youngsters - even a goalie saving a goal during a soccer match
Wow, I didn't realise that nudity for under 14's was proscribed in Canadian law. That must make nude beaches rather pointless
So under 14's are the point of nude beaches? See, it's people like you that politicians like them are worried about, LOL
So under 14's are the point of nude beaches? See, it's people like you that politicians like them are worried about, LOL
Are you sexualising nudity?
A former work colleague of mine was a committed naturist. He regularly took his family on naturist holidays. He didn't force the kids to go nude, it was something they chose to do until they reached the age of body-change awareness.
As an aside, am I right in thinking that, under some countries' laws, if a woman has a recording made of herself giving birth, she is deemed in possession of child pornography because it shows an infant in a state of nudity?
AJ
am I right in thinking that, under some countries' laws ...
The law in Australia defines pornography in the broadest possible terms, but then allows for a defence that something would not be 'considered offensive by a reasonable person'.
The system relies on Public Prosecutors not pursuing prosecutions unless they assess the chances of success are high.
So for your example, yes in theory, but no in practice. Still, the possibility of 15 years in prison for misguessing what others might consider offensive is quite terrifying.
Still, the possibility of 15 years in prison for misguessing what others might consider offensive is quite terrifying.
Especially when it's the judgement call of the judge as if the person 'looks' under 16 or not - if the judge decides they look under 16, providing evidence they're 26 still gets you convicted.
Also, the changes to the laws since 2000 were not publicised by a media release from the state governments, which means the people don't know the law has changed unless they go looking for it.
To make matters worse, the Commonwealth Laws on child pornography are not in a section of law about crimes against the person or people, but are listed as a crime against the communications infrastructure - so they rate them the same as someone launching a DDOS attack or blowing up an exchange or blowing up a bridge. I suspect that was done to hide the law changes so no one would know they snuck them in.
When a judicial system basis its decisions on opinion rather than the law and facts, we have a Big problem.
Failure to know about changes to a law falls into the same category as holding a person responsible for knowing all of the laws governing their actions, which is virtually impossible to do.
You would have to explain the logic used to classify pornography as a crime against the communications infrastructure for I see no relationship between the two.
You would have to explain the logic used to classify pornography as a crime against the communications infrastructure for I see no relationship between the two.
Neither can I, but that's the section of law they stuck the c'wealth child porn laws in when they finally made some.
Failure to know about changes to a law falls into the same category as holding a person responsible for knowing all of the laws governing their actions, which is virtually impossible to do.
There's a thing in the law about not knowing not being a valid defence. However, when the law says one thing on 30 June one year and later that year it's change to make a lot of things immediately illegal that had been legal until then, but with no time of grace for dealing with the change nor is the change made public - you can't expect people who had checked the law to be constantly checking it for unannounced changes.
you can't expect people who had checked the law to be constantly checking it for unannounced changes.
You wouldn't, I wouldn't, and most people wouldn't. But that is not the way the judges and prosecutors look at it.
But that is not the way the judges and prosecutors look at it.
That may be, but the law only says you have to check it, not how frequently you have to check it. Failure to check at any time is an issue, but publicised changes after someone checks is another issue.
When a judicial system basis its decisions on opinion rather than the law and facts, we have a Big problem.
Failure to know about changes to a law falls into the same category as holding a person responsible for knowing all of the laws governing their actions, which is virtually impossible to do.
You would have to explain the logic used to classify pornography as a crime against the communications infrastructure for I see no relationship between the two.
So under 14's are the point of nude beaches?
No, that is your warped mind, not mine. Families are a part of nude beaches and nudist gatherings. And under 14's are a part of many families. I can see where the self-righteous legislators get there paranoia from. Mind out of the gutter please.
I can see where the self-righteous legislators get there paranoia from
Probably from their religious upbringing. The religious extremist sees no difference between nudity and sexuality. They seem to think the stimulus of a man seeing a nude woman will always lead the man to think sexual thoughts. True in many but not all cases.
To them the display of uncovered flesh is a crime. To them, a tiny bikini on a woman focuses a man's attention on the woman's breasts and vagina; probably true in most cases. With that attitude, you know where their mind is and what they are thinking. Since that is what they think, they conclude that everyone thinks that way.
The religious extremist believes that their opinions about nudity and sexuality are not appropriate and should be illegal. They want to force their opinions on everyone, and that is the cause of the problems we experience.
The religious extremist sees no difference between nudity and sexuality. They seem to think the stimulus of a man seeing a nude woman will always lead the man to think sexual thoughts. True in many but not all cases.
Not just religious extremists. There are many on the political left (in the US meaning of the term) that are equally opposed to anything they deem 'sexualizing' women. They also tend to have the same level of freak-out over teenage sex as the religious types, albeit for ostensibly different reasons.
In the end, it comes down to wanting to impose your values on others by force and threat of long-term incarceration in a gulag if you fail to follow the prescribed behavior.
The religious extremist sees no difference between nudity and sexuality.
Yep, that's exactly how the satanic teachings on nudity work. Sadly, most pushing such an agenda claim to be Christians, despite there being nothing in the Christian Bible against nudity.
most pushing such an agenda claim to be Christians
Most people who claim to be Christians, don't live their lives according to the tenants of the Christian Bible.
Most people who claim to be Christians, don't live their lives according to the tenants of the Christian Bible.
Exactly my point - especially so if they've been indoctrinated by a major church with the warped teachings put in place by past power hungry Popes.
The religious extremist believes that their opinions about nudity and sexuality are not appropriate and should be illegal. They want to force their opinions on everyone, and that is the cause of the problems we experience.
Not just nudity & sexuality...
Not just nudity & sexuality...
Not just religious extremists. Most of the push for legal proscriptions these days are coming from Progressives and Social Justice activists.
EVERY law is based on this.
I agree regarding laws that are related to morality.
However if you are saying that all laws are based on peoples' opinions, then I disagree. For example, there is a law that says you must stop at a stop sign. The reason/rationale behind the law is not opinion.
For example, there is a law that says you must stop at a stop sign. The reason/rationale behind the law is not opinion.
I hope you are not trying to argue that it is based on some kind of empirical fact, because the mere existence of stop signs reflects an arbitrary decision.
I hope you are not trying to argue that it is based on some kind of empirical fact,
Nope! Just saying that without a stop sign or other device to control the flow of traffic, drivers wouldn't stop before entering the intersection. Without stopping, they are likely to collide with the other idiots who enter the intersection from a different direction without stopping.
the mere existence of stop signs reflects an arbitrary decision
Knowledge of what has and will happen when a stop sign is not present is the reason for the decision to install a stop sign - that is not an arbitrary decision.
Nope! Just saying that without a stop sign or other device to control the flow of traffic, drivers wouldn't stop before entering the intersection.
Research shows that removing 'road furniture' actually makes drivers more cautious and considerate. Holland is experimenting in a big way, and I believe some UK trials are in progress too.
AJ
Research shows that removing 'road furniture' actually makes drivers more cautious and considerate.
The road couches and recliners are bad enough, but those roadside big-screen TVs are a definite hazard, since I keep wanting to look! 'D (Road-side bathrooms are another matter entirely.)
The road couches and recliners are bad enough, but those roadside big-screen TVs are a definite hazard, since I keep wanting to look!
I want roadside strippers. :)
I want roadside strippers. :)
Well, IIRC, Denmark had "Traffic Girls" for a little while where a topless young woman would stand around waving a speed limit sign near some speed limit decreases.
Well, IIRC, Denmark had "Traffic Girls" for a little while where a topless young woman would stand around waving a speed limit sign near some speed limit decreases.
That would definitely get male motorists to slow down! Though it might also increase roadway assaults (of the same male drivers/passengers).
That would definitely get male motorists to slow down!
I see a marked increase in rear end collisions.
Just saying that without a stop sign or other device to control the flow of traffic, drivers wouldn't stop before entering the intersection.
And what if the road rules they were taught require a full stop at all uncontrolled intersections?
Make it the law that a full stop is required at uncontrolled intersections and enforce it the way failure to stop at a stop sign is enforced.
Sorry, there is nothing magic about a stop sign that makes people stop.
Knowledge of what has and will happen when a stop sign is not present is the reason for the decision to install a stop sign - that is not an arbitrary decision.
Nope, go back to when the very first stop sign was installed, that was an arbitrary decision, no pre-existing knowledge of what happens with/without a stop sign.
And what if the road rules they were taught require a full stop at all uncontrolled intersections?
We are taught to come to a full stop at a stop sign. A few years back, I was walking my dog at night and watched a man blow through a stop sign doing about 40 mph and the speed limit was 25 mph. He went around the block and he blew through a second stop sign.
Stop signs and other control devices are installed where experience indicates they are need. The decisions are not arbitrary, and unfortunately, the devices do not compel drivers to obey them.
Nope, go back to when the very first stop sign was installed, that was an arbitrary decision, no pre-existing knowledge of what happens with/without a stop sign.
Go back a bit farther and you would find that it was probably installed because two drivers failed to stop at an intersection and collided.
To be more factual:
The first recorded fatality related to cars occurred in 1869. Mary Ward was thrown from her seat and fell in the vehicle's path. One of the wheels rolled over her and broke her neck, killing her instantly.
http://mentalfloss.com/article/31807/when-and-where-was-first-car-accident
The first stop sign appears to have been invented in 1915.
There have been numerous traffic related accidents documented between 1869 and 1915. That recorded history demonstrated the problem with driving on roads that had no control devices, which led to the invention of the stop sign and other traffic control devices.
Stop signs and other control devices are installed where experience indicates they are need. The decisions are not arbitrary,
That's a matter of opinion.
The UK's Road Research Laboratory (since privatised under a different name) conducted substantial amounts of research into road layouts and furniture, but for the most part the people responsible for the roads, the County Councils, totally ignored them in favour of their own 'experts'.
I'm pretty sure it's possible to tell which UK county you're in according to what road idiosyncracies the local experts favour. Where I live they're mini-roundabout happy, continuing to put them in wherever possible despite evidence that in some locations they actually cause accidents.
AJ
road layouts and furniture,
Road furniture? Is that like placing a chair in the street to save your parking space?
Road furniture? Is that like placing a chair in the street to save your parking space?
They do this in Chicago as well.
It startled me the first time I saw it, but after thinking about it, parking is scarce, you've just dug your car out of the snow so you can go to work, you really do want your space available when you get home.
No one ever raised any questions about it that I'm aware of, and I'm not aware of anyone not respecting the presence of a chair during the snow season; in the summer, you take your chances with everyone else.
I've also seen them used to reserve sidewalk seating days in advance of a parade, in Chicago and Portland. Again, everyone respected the chairs.
They do this in Chicago as well.
It startled me the first time I saw it, but after thinking about it, parking is scarce, you've just dug your car out of the snow so you can go to work, you really do want your space available when you get home.
In Manhattan, the snowplows will run right over anything in their way (chairs, boxes, car doors), so trying to 'save your space' isn't a viable option.
In Manhattan, the snowplows will run right over anything in their way (chairs, boxes, car doors), so trying to 'save your space' isn't a viable option.
Most cities in Wisconsin have alternate side parking rules during the winter. They won't just run over your car door, they will run over your car and you have basically no recourse.
, but for the most part the people responsible for the roads, the County Councils, totally ignored [research] in favour of their own 'experts'.
,
Very true. Near me there is a stretch of country road - no houses, straight, wide, safe but Essex County Council refused Police recommendations that the town speed limit (30mph) be removed. D**n stupid bureaucrats.
Where I live they're mini-roundabout happy, continuing to put them in wherever possible despite evidence that in some locations they actually cause accidents.
I was in Naples FL when the introduced a roundabout - the first anyone had ever seen or heard of. "Interesting"!
In my town they replaced traffic lights by mini roundabouts and traffic flow improved immeasurably. Perhaps 10 years later the council wanted to introduce changes to the roads and produced a map of all road accidents in the previous five years. Many many accidents but not a single one at a roundabout. A fair number at speed camera locations!
In my town they replaced traffic lights by mini roundabouts and traffic flow improved immeasurably.
The smae happened here in Australia when they introduced roundabouts. But the accident rate whent up when the local councils decided to use roundabouts to slow traffic down by growing them from about 6 feet across to about 36 feet across. A lot of accidents happen for two reasons - 1. the cars roll trying to go through the tight curve the big roundabouts create, 2. the size makes it harder to check the traffic entering the roundabout because you have to look a lot further down the road, thus many don't check properly.
One thing that works well here is stop signs on two sides and give way signs on the other two, with some roads having no signs and the other having a give way sign.
One thing that works well here is stop signs on two sides and give way signs on the other two, with some roads having no signs and the other having a give way sign.
In the UK where there are no lights one road will have no signs (and therefore right of way) whilst the other will have either a Stop or Give Way sign. The Stop and Give Way instructions are also shown by different types of lines across the road surface.
France is more complicated. Basically, unless there are signs then the vehicle coming from the right has right of way (at roundabouts there are Give Way signs).
On roads outside towns you sometimes see Yellow Diamond signs which mean that you have right of way until you see the same sign with a line across it. It negates the "give way to the right" rule. All roads joining that one should have a "give way" sign.
(In certain parts of France they do "give way" if they miss you by the odd centimetre as they go in front of you - scary at 110kph in heavy traffic)
But the accident rate whent up when the local councils decided to use roundabouts to slow traffic down by growing them from about 6 feet across to about 36 feet across.
We USED to have the big ones but now getting small ones as well. I don't know about vehicles rolling but we do get people occasionally going over the centre causing considerable damage to their vehicles - and even more if they succeed and hit the Armco on the outside of the opposite side. Come to think of it, some big roundabouts are over motorways (freeways) . There is a huge one I pass occasionally with a roundabout inside the overall roundabout allowing vehicles to cut across the centre. At least the entire caboodle is governed by traffic lights.
In my town they replaced traffic lights by mini roundabouts
A 2000 year old technology (Roman Empire), designed to allow columns of infantry marching in formation to pass in different directions without stopping or disrupting the formations.
Nope, go back to when the very first stop sign was installed, that was an arbitrary decision, no pre-existing knowledge of what happens with/without a stop sign.
Now that's just plain silly. What they did know, was that at that intersection, there were too many accidents. Simplest solution, ensure everyone stops long enough to observe traffic: result, less accidents. How is that arbitrary, especially if it works as proscribed? Now, what IS arbitrary is WHERE the stop sign is placed, how long you're required to stop, and the myriad other minutia involved in the decision.
How is that arbitrary, especially if it works as proscribed?
Because stop signs weren't the only choice they had for doing that, nor were they obviously at the time (or even today) the most effective way to do that. Yes, they need to do something, but the choice of stop signs being that something was largely arbitrary.
arbitrary means:
Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/arbitrary
Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle
And when the first stop sign was installed, there was no necessity, reason or principle that dictated "STOP" sign over the dozens of other options they had.
that dictated "STOP" sign over the dozens of other options they had.
What were the dozen options available to them?
There was a need, and they picked what appeared to be the best way to meet that need.
and they picked what appeared to be the best way to meet that need.
And the key word in that is appeared. There was know way they could have known empirically that it was the best way to meet that need.
And the key word in that is appeared. There was know way they could have known empirically that it was the best way to meet that need.
True, but it was not done arbitrarily, which is what you have been claiming up to this point.
True, but it was not done arbitrarily
If there are multiple options and there is no empirical information to say one option is superior to the others, then there is no possible rational, reasoned basis on which a decision can be made. You are left with gut instinct/intuition, and yes, I call that arbitrary.
If there are multiple options and there is no empirical information to say one option is superior to the others, then there is no possible rational, reasoned basis on which a decision can be made. You are left with gut instinct/intuition, and yes, I call that arbitrary.
I call that experience and training.
here is no empirical information to say one option is superior to the others
Your position assumes there is no empirical information that defines the strengths and weaknesses of each option.
We have experience and data for all options that have been used in the past. The decision is made by matching the historical results of each option to the needs of the situation to determine which option is the superior choice. Thus the process of making the decision is not arbitrary - regardless of how well the selected option met the needs of the situation.
Your position assumes there is no empirical information that defines the strengths and weaknesses of each option.
You are correct, modern decisions to install a stop sign (or other traffic control device) at an existing uncontrolled intersection is not arbitrary. It is not my position that they are.
My position is in regards to the invention / first installation of a stop sign back in the early days of the automobile. I am not referring to modern decisions to install stop signs.
At some point, it would have to be arbitrary because there would have been no historical results.
At some point, it would have to be arbitrary because there would have been no historical results.
Probably accidents.
Probably accidents.
Doen't tell you anything about what might or might not prevent them.
Probably accidents.
more likely a local politician wanted a faster run without side traffic slowing him down.
My position is in regards to the invention / first installation of a stop sign back in the early days of the automobile. I am not referring to modern decisions to install stop signs.
At some point, it would have to be arbitrary because there would have been no historical results.
What you are forgetting is my prior comment about the first traffic accident (1869) and the invention and installation of the first stop sign (1915):
There have been numerous traffic related accidents documented between 1869 and 1915. That recorded history demonstrated the problem with driving on roads that had no control devices, which led to the invention of the stop sign and other traffic control devices.
So there was 46 years of evidence collected and available before the first traffic control device was ever installed.
So there was 46 years of evidence collected and available before the first traffic control device was ever installed.
Evidence about accidents true, but that's not relevant to my point.
There would have been no evidence about the relative effectiveness of various proposed traffic control devices.
Either "STOP" sign was the first idea anyone had and they ran with it before anyone could come up with a different idea, which is arbitrary, or they had several different proposals for different kinds of traffic control devices of which "STOP" sign was only one, and they had to pick one over the others with no information about which would be the best option.
I'm not saying that the choice to establish some(any) form of traffic control at a given location was arbitrary.
However, the decision that the form of traffic control would be a sign that says "STOP" could not have been anything other than arbitrary.
Actually, the stop sign was invented by bandits. They would jump out in front of a stagecoach, fire their revolver in the air, and yell "Stop!"
Actually, the stop sign was invented by bandits. They would jump out in front of a stagecoach, fire their revolver in the air, and yell "Stop!"
1. A person yelling stop is not a sign in any universe.
2. The bandits probably yelled "Halt", or just blocked the road forcing the coach to stop.
The bandits probably yelled "Halt"
Based on some stories on SOL, they shouted "Stand and deliver!"
Actually, the stop sign was invented by bandits.
They did that by dropping trees across the road to stop the wagons. And it goes back to the middle ages, as it was a common tactic in forested areas then.
Evidence about accidents true, but that's not relevant to my point.
That is because your point is inconsistent.
Evidence showing X traffic accidents at the same intersection indicates a traffic control device is needed. You change your focus with each post and your argument goes in circles.
Evidence showing X traffic accidents at the same intersection indicates a traffic control device is needed. You change your focus with each post and your argument goes in circles.
No, my argument has not been the least bit inconsistent nor have I at any point changed my focus.
My argument has always been that it was the choice of the FORM of traffic control, the choice of a "STOP" sign against some other form of traffic control that was arbitrary, At no point did I ever argue that the decision that a given intersection needed traffic control was arbitrary.
The appearance of inconsistency is entirely in your head because you have insisted from the beginning on conflating the decision that traffic control is needed with the choice of the form of traffic control.
the choice of a "STOP" sign against some other form of traffic control that was arbitrary,
Perhaps you should go back and read what you wrote.
This is the first time you ever said that.
What I have objected to is not the type of control device or whether one was needed, but your insistency that the decision to have one at a given place was arbitrary.
Perhaps you should go back and read what you wrote.
This is the first time you ever said that.
You are the one who needs to go back and re-read things.
Here is my very first comment on the issue.
I hope you are not trying to argue that it is based on some kind of empirical fact, because the mere existence of stop signs reflects an arbitrary decision.
I was referring not to the existence of a particular stop sign at a particular location, but the existence of stop signs in general as a form of traffic control.
Any other interpretation you may have had is purely a construct of your own imagination.
My argument has always been that it was the choice of the FORM of traffic control, the choice of a "STOP" sign against some other form of traffic control that was arbitrary,
I was referring not to the existence of a particular stop sign at a particular location, but the existence of stop signs in general as a form of traffic control.
In 2 consecutive posts, you prove my point. I could list others, but 2 is enough. In the first post you are saying your position was, a choice of a STOP sign verses a different form of control device that was arbitrary. In the second you are saying your position was, about the existence of stop signs in general as a form of traffic control.
Since you either can't see the difference in what you are saying or just refuse to acknowledge your inconsistencies, continuing this conversation is useless. Regardless of what I say, you will come back with something different and claim that it is what you always said or meant by what you actually said.
Evidence showing X traffic accidents at the same intersection indicates a traffic control device is needed. You change your focus with each post and your argument goes in circles.
It should be noted that signage on public roadways in the U.S. is a tangled mess. If it is a federally funded roadway, the state highway departments control the signage. As an extension of that, any state funded roadway will likewise be controlled by the state more often than not.
So Podunkville cannot erect a stop sign on a U.S. Highway simply because they want to. They're going to need to justify that placement with the state.
But if the intersection of Elm and 10th Street isn't either a federal or state highway(or county in some areas), the local city council can do whatever they want, presuming they can find the funds to do so.
Generally speaking, state transportation/highway departments will make funding decisions based on crash statistics. But politics can always present itself there as well.
Evidence showing X traffic accidents at the same intersection indicates a traffic control device is needed.
Not necessarily, if the best traffic control device at the intersection would result in X + n traffic accidents.
Studies show that the average driver can cope with four items of road furniture at once. If a traffic control device would make that five items, it would likely result in more accidents (something that cash-cow speed camera addicts ignore).
AJ
Not necessarily, if the best traffic control device at the intersection would result in X + n traffic accidents.
Studies show that the average driver can cope with four items of road furniture at once. If a traffic control device would make that five items, it would likely result in more accidents (something that cash-cow speed camera addicts ignore).
That would be when they conclude the answer is a redesign/rebuild of the intersection to reduce the required furniture. Failing that, identifying ways to reduce traffic volumes at that location by diverting some of it elsewhere.
Not necessarily, if the best traffic control device at the intersection would result in X + n traffic accidents.
If the best traffic control device increases the number of accidents, then it is NOT the best traffic control device for that location.
Placing multiple device (e.g. a stop and a yield sign at the same location has to do with the stupidity of the people in charge, rather that whether one is needed. It is also stupid to place multiple non-conflicting signs at the same place. They should be spaced appropriately.
If the best traffic control device increases the number of accidents, then it is NOT the best traffic control device for that location.
It would be the best if it caused the smallest increase in accident numbers of all possible devices.
With the current state of automotive technology, accidents do and will continue to happen. Sometimes you have to accept that you can't eliminate them without banning traffic altogether.
AJ
With the current state of automotive technology, accidents do and will continue to happen. Sometimes you have to accept that you can't eliminate them without banning traffic altogether.
Maybe if they quit building cars that exceed the limits of what the AVERAGE driver is capable of controlling.
Maybe if they quit building cars that exceed the limits of what the AVERAGE driver is capable of controlling.
Then drivers would complain about being passed by a child on a tricycle. :)
Then drivers would complain about being passed by a child on a tricycle. :)
If the shoe fits... That would be a reason to increase the availability of public transportation.
At some point, it would have to be arbitrary because there would have been no historical results.
Even then, it's not difficult making obvious observations. Stop before entering the intersection, the person on the right always has the right of way (even in America), you make a complete stop (so you don't simply pause slightly before charging through).
Just because there's no 'historical evidence statistics' doesn't mean it was arbitrary. You're showing statistical bias (i.e. only mathematicians are capable of making sensible decisions).
top before entering the intersection, the person on the right always has the right of way (even in America), you make a complete stop (so you don't simply pause slightly before charging through).
You are quite correct, however, none of that requires the posting of a sign baring the word "STOP" at the intersection.
Just because a decision is sensible, doesn't mean it's not arbitrary and vice versa.
It is a fundamental aspect of the human condition that we must frequently make decisions with out enough information to make a rational choice.
There is nothing wrong with or bad about making an arbitrary decision when a situation calls for one.
It is a fundamental aspect of the human condition that we must frequently make decisions with out enough information to make a rational choice.
Whoa nelly! Let's see your definition of "rational choice" before we go any further in this discussion, since I would argue that so long as you have any information to work with, and you analyze that information and act upon that analysis, it is a rational choice; it could well be that with a larger pool of information you would determine a different choice, but that doesn't make the choice made based upon limited information non-rational.
I voted in yesterday's election.
There was one case where I knew nothing about either candidate for a position; they hadn't sent out any mailings, and no website making recommendations had any to make for that position, and there really wasn't anything published about them.
I had no basis for a reasoned choice, so I didn't vote for either of the two.
In all other cases I knew something about their background and views, and how different groups percieved them, and so could make a reasoned choice.
Ah. Do you percieve a major difference between a rational choice and a reasoned choice?
I would argue that so long as you have any information to work with, and you analyze that information and act upon that analysis, it is a rational choice
I don't quite agree with that.
1. The information you do have must be relevant to the decision being made.
2. There is a minimum set of information to make a reasoned choice, although the size of that minimum set will very from one decision to another.
Choose door #1, door #2, or door #3.
Having the information "Firetrucks are read" does not magically transform that choice into a reasoned and/or rational choice.
I had no basis for a reasoned choice, so I didn't vote for either of the two.
Which in one sense is itself a choice. However, there are situations where choosing not to choose is not an option.
Ah. Do you percieve a major difference between a rational choice and a reasoned choice?
Define major. :)
There is a good deal of overlap, but they are not the same thing. A choice based on delusional information may be reasoned but not rational.
A large part of the problem with the stop sign case, is that a lot of people are conflating two separate decisions that to be reasoned must be based in separate information.
The first decision is does intersection X need traffic control.
The second decision is what traffic control to install?
Sure, accident history at the intersection would be relevant to the first decision, but what makes it relevant to the second?
Way back when when traffic controls were first being invented, the information set for the second decision was empty or near empty.
Valid, completely valid.
And part of this I came to realize myself after posting last night, but going to bed had a higher priority than getting back on the computer.
The decision as to what information to include in your data set for analysis may not, in itself, be rational, but instead influenced by prejudices and worldview [which is a mealy-mouthed way of saying prejudices]. The results of that analysis may be reasoned, but if the initial criteria for inclusion in the data set is not rational, neither are the results of the analysis.
And, while the decision that traffic control was required was rational, the precise format of the signage may not have a basis derived from previous experience, and would thus be arbitrary; reasoned, but still arbitrary in the end.
While since the institution of traffic signage of any kind back in the early mists of time the rationale has been to have similer information in similer signs, and different information in different signs, the decision as to what gets an octohedron, a triangle, a square, a rectangle, has been an arbitrary decision, with some guidance provided by the limitations on information that it is possible to include within a given shape in a given size; large rectangles for text has some rationale behind it, but the shape chosen for the modern stop sign has nothing that makes it intrinsically better than any of the other shapes available at the time.
Thus, the selection of an octohedron as the shape for a stop sign, and the color red as its background, were arbitrary. [Unless red was already being used to indicate cessation of activity in some common field of activity.]
Since red was used for stop signs, red for stoplights was not arbitrary, but was consistent with previous practice.
Is this a correct understanding from your perspective?
but instead influenced by prejudices and worldview [which is a mealy-mouthed way of saying prejudices].
in data analysis we refer to them as biases
Since red was used for stop signs, red for stoplights was not arbitrary, but was consistent with previous practice.
But the early Stop signs in the US were yellow! (until 1961)
The traffic lights however were red for stop.
HM.
But the early Stop signs in the US were yellow! (until 1961)
Ah. I was born in 1960. I had no idea they had ever been any other color, so saw no need to research that matter. By now, I should know better.
I had no basis for a reasoned choice, so I didn't vote for either of the two.
In all other cases I knew something about their background and views, and how different groups percieved them, and so could make a reasoned choice.
I do the same. In fact, I skipped the election yesterday because the only candidate I knew was the incumbent district magistrate (traffic & small claims)
You are quite correct, however, none of that requires the posting of a sign baring the word "STOP" at the intersection.
The other option is a Give Way sign.
Generally here in Australia, at an intersection through traffic has the right of way, turning traffic has to give way. Through traffic on a minor road that crosses a major road has to give way to traffic on the major road.
Stop signs are used where visibility is limited, so if you don't stop before checking the traffic- even if you slow a relative crawl, there's a good chance you'll end up being hit by it. Or because of the speed limit on the road being crossed/entered the visibility isn't sufficient for crossing merging traffic to determine if it's safe to enter/cross.
(Dominions Son)
You are quite correct, however, none of that requires the posting of a sign baring the word "STOP" at the intersection.
(Grant)
The other option is a Give Way sign.
Yes and no.
On the one hand there is the functionality (to bring the traffic to an halt), on the other hand there is the sign (it's shape and color and which word on it โ if one at all). The second was quite arbitrary. And it needed an international conference to agree on two different stop signs!
Actual Stop signs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_sign#Stop_signs_around_the_world
Really interesting for this discussion are the historical Stop signs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_sign#Old_stop_signs
HM.
(Dominions Son)
You are quite correct, however, none of that requires the posting of a sign baring the word "STOP" at the intersection.
(Grant)
The other option is a Give Way sign.
And many, maybe even a majority, of the drivers in the US ignore the STOP sign and only obey it if there is other traffic. Sometimes not even then.
The other option is a Give Way sign.
I vote we replace all the "STOP" signs with "GIVE HEAD" signs. Either that, or "GET BUZZED" in all the states legalizing pot.
It is a fundamental aspect of the human condition that we must frequently make decisions with out enough information to make a rational choice.
There is nothing wrong with or bad about making an arbitrary decision when a situation calls for one.
A decision made without exhaustive research and testing isn't necessarily arbitrary, and the fact a decision doesn't work as planned isn't evidence the decision was baseless either. Things change, we learn and adapt. We learn what works, what doesn't and make adjustments. What IS arbitrary is the INABILITY of laws to change with the times. Once a law is passed, it stays in effect until a new law is passed replacing it, which doesn't happen very often, if at all. THAT is arbitrary, allowing old laws from the 18th and 19th century to continue just because lawmakers are unable to vote on a new law.
At least in the cases you mention, someone actually TRIED something. Nowadays, no one wants to try anything, because if they don't get billions in financial contribution, it isn't worth their time.
A decision made without exhaustive research and testing isn't necessarily arbitrary, and the fact a decision doesn't work as planned isn't evidence the decision was baseless either.
I'm not talking about exhaustive research, but there is a minimum amount of information you have to have to make a non-arbitrary decision.
If you have so little information that you can't make a decision that is more likely to be correct than a random selection, the decision is arbitrary.
At least in the cases you mention, someone actually TRIED something.
A least some of which was based on false reasoning.
Something must be done.
This is something.
Therefore this must be done.
Something must be done.
This is something.
Therefore this must be done.
That pretty much describes the whole of politics.
AJ
Even then, it's not difficult making obvious observations. Stop before entering the intersection, the person on the right always has the right of way (even in America), you make a complete stop (so you don't simply pause slightly before charging through).
Shit, no one comes to a complete stop if there's no one else at the intersection.
Left turns are lowest priority, unless you're the first person in line at a light then you floor it to beat the person in front of you going straight.
the decision is not arbitrary
Which explains why some countries drive on the right side of the road and others on the left.
If people would learn to actually drive their vehicles in a safe manner instead of depending on the technological advancements to save their asses, there would probably be a lot less accidents. Drivers should be responsible for the safe operation of the vehicle, not the vehicle saving the careless driver.
If people would learn to actually drive their vehicles in a safe manner instead of depending on the technological advancements to save their asses, there would probably be a lot less accidents. Drivers should be responsible for the safe operation of the vehicle, not the vehicle saving the careless driver.
That's why they're called accidents, not purposedents...
I grew up in Indiana driving on snow and ice. So when we have our five - ten minutes worth of winter down here in Oklahoma, I have no issues driving. Unfortunately, just because the weather goes to crap doesn't mean the world stops, which means all those poor bastards that grew up down here that have never had to drive for months at a time on nasty roads simply have to make do ... and they do, quite poorly.
Also, keep in mind that you're going to get older, and as you do so, the inevitability of your reflexes getting worse and your reaction times increasing WILL happen. So having a car that can help keep you in your lane, or can maintain a safe distance between you and the car ahead of you on its own, can help you drive safer than without it.
I'll just take the system I'm familiar with - Subaru's Eyesight system with lane keep assist. Here in OKC, there are a LOT of limited access highways, simply because the town is so darned big. (It's slightly larger than the Brisbane metro area with about two-thirds the population.) So if I want to go to the Outlet Mall - I drive on surface streets down to I-240 (about 6 minutes). Then I hop on I-240, turn the Adaptive Cruise Control on for 70 mph, turn lane keep on, and then I've got 16 miles of I-240 and I-40. Since we have a major construction zone at I-35 and I-240, I just let the car keep distance. When the lanes make a bit of a zig, the car keeps me in my lane. I'm able to spend more time watching the OTHER drivers, checking out my blind spot system to watch for idiots zooming up behind me), and pay more attention to what's going on around me than simply on keeping my car in the lane as it's zigging and zagging left and right. And when traffic slows itself down to 30, the car slows itself down as well, without me having to do anything.
I've made those 1,200 mile road trips before, when I was younger. After having had this system for a while, I wouldn't have a problem hopping in the car and making one of those trips again - because I know the car is going to do what it can to help keep me safe. (And, of course, it's a Subaru. It's not sexy or exciting, just reliable and safe.)
All you are saying is that you are just a passenger for most of your trip
.
What I was saying is if people had to depend on their own senses instead of all the bells and whistles you mentioned, they would drive safer.
'Oh, my car lets me know if someone is coming up beside me' - So do your eyes - and usually a lot sooner.
'It keeps me in my lane' - so does paying attention to your driving.
'If I crash, the air-bag will save me.' - If you had been paying more attention to your surroundings, you might not have gotten in an accident in the first place.
Sure, they are all great safety features, but they shouldn't take the place of driver attentiveness and skill.
In 40 years of driving, EVERY accident I have been in was the fault of the other driver.
What I was saying is if people had to depend on their own senses instead of all the bells and whistles you mentioned, they would drive safer.
Yep.
The safer cars & roads are, the less safely people tend to drive.
Which explains why some countries drive on the right side of the road and others on the left.
Then there are those countries that have a law that states one or the other but in parts of the country the roads are little more than one "lane" trails or even a series of potholes :).
Going back to stop signs, the original shape of the various traffic signs were chosen in a somewhat arbitrary fashion.
Going back to stop signs, the original shape of the various traffic signs were chosen in a somewhat arbitrary fashion.
I originally voted for an ameba shape for stop signs. It forces you to stop and say "WTF?"
The evidence that drivers are safer when their dominant hand stays on the steering wheel is overwhelming, so accident rates in countries where drivers in right-hand-drive cars driving on the left hand side of the road are lower than equivalent countries where drivers in left-hand-drive cars drive on the right hand side of the road.
For example, accident rates on UK roads are the lowest in Europe, but higher for left-handed drivers than right-handed.
AJ
The evidence that drivers are safer when their dominant hand stays on the steering wheel is overwhelming,
Perhaps that is why more countries drive on the left than on the right.
BTW AJ; there is one street in London where the traffic drives on the right!!! Confusing but it is all about the chauffeur getting out to open the passenger's door
@AJ
The evidence that drivers are safer when their dominant hand stays on the steering wheel is overwhelming
@sejintenej
Perhaps that is why more countries drive on the left than on the right.
My guess is the first arbitrary choice was 'give way to the right' after which the logical choice is to drive on the left-hand side of the road.
Where they drive on the right-hand side instead, drivers can look right, determine they are not required to give way, move into an intersection, and be killed before getting half-way across by someone who should have given way to them.
Where they drive on the left-hand side, drivers can look right, determine they are not required to give way, move into an intersection, and still have time to check left for traffic that should be giving way to them before entering their, far-side lane of traffic.
Perhaps that is why more countries drive on the left than on the right.
Actually, the reason go back to the old horse and cart days. Wagon drivers used to sit on the right hand side of the wagon seat to drive so they could swing a club in their right hand down at people trying to climb up beside them, while they also had a good shot at anyone trying to climb across the seat from the other side. This resulted in them driving on the left of the road to make it easier for them to see they didn't hit other wagons going the other way. This was very universal in Europe and European colonies for centuries. Traffic issues were either non-existent in rural areas or crawl only in the cities.
This was also true in the USA for many years after they became independent. Then, for some reason I once read and forgot, the drivers of wagons where they walked beside the wagon instead of riding on a seat were walking on the left side of the wagon, so it made sense for them to be on the right side of the road to make sure they had room to pass oncoming traffic. That spread to being on the left of the wagon seat as well.
The spread of left-hand drive in Europe is mostly due to the influence of US vehicles left in Europe after the two world wars and the US occupation following WW2.
Actually, the reason go back to the old horse and cart days.
I suspect a confluence of reasons rather than one single. I've also encountered the theory that knights rode on the left-hand side so they would wield their lance/sword in their dominant hand.
AJ
Then, for some reason I once read and forgot, the drivers of wagons where they walked beside the wagon instead of riding on a seat were walking on the left side of the wagon, so it made sense for them to be on the right side of the road to make sure they had room to pass oncoming traffic.
I recall reading similar, except that people sometimes stood on step outside the coach doors, then stagecoaches started passing on the right so they wouldn't collide. It all started simply because the first manufacturer of stagecoaches in America just happened to build the doors on the right side of the coach.
Perhaps that is why more countries drive on the left than on the right.
Far more countries drive on the right side, see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-_and_right-hand_traffic#/media/File:Countries_driving_on_the_left_or_right.svg
Even more interesting may be the history of driving left vs. right. The following link isn't in the english wikipedia but in the german:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Links-_und_Rechtsverkehr#/media/File:Driving_standards_historic.svg
HM.
edited to add:
In some of the above posts it's not clear if the author means LHT/RHT or LHD/RHD.
The first is the position of the car on the road, the second is the position of the driver in the car.
The usual combinations are LHT+RHD and RHT+LHD.
Far more countries drive on the right side, see: [Wikipedia]
Interesting apparent error there about the UK. It is a requirement that any road junction in the UK shall be designed so that every junction can change function to RHD with only changes in painted lines and signs. We also have the anachronism that road signs for the public are in mph but major road / motorways also have far smaller markers in kilometres, sometimes in fractions of a kilometre
We also have the anachronism that road signs for the public are in mph but major road / motorways also have far smaller markers in kilometres, sometimes in fractions of a kilometre
I din't have a problem converting speed limits from kph to mph as they were either labeled of had extreme values (I knew 100 couldn't be mph), but it threw me on distance. I knew how many miles it took to get to Toronto that day, but when the sign said "Toronto 100" I added 100 miles to the distance traveled and for awhile thought I had miscalculated the distance and then increased my expected arrival time by an hour.
and they picked what appeared to be the best way to meet that need.
And the key word in that is appeared. There was know way they could have known empirically that it was the best way to meet that need.
And when the first stop sign was installed, there was no necessity, reason or principle that dictated "STOP" sign over the dozens of other options they had.
I've always preferred the "Cease and Desist" sign. Or, if that's too many letter, then the simple "Quit it!"
I hope you are not trying to argue that it is based on some kind of empirical fact, because the mere existence of stop signs reflects an arbitrary decision.
and it's my opinion that we should stop in the middle of the intersection instead. 'D
They want to force their opinions on everyone
I believe that EVERY law is based on this.
First, do no evil.
Or, if that's not enough, "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you". (The only problem, in this case, they don't mind if someone did what they already believe to them.)
First, do no evil.
Great. Now define "evil" for the class. ;)
Or, if that's not enough, "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you". (The only problem, in this case, they don't mind if someone did what they already believe to them.)
That one is generally proforma, most self-professed Christians tend to be more fixated on "going Old Testament" on themselves and others to bother with that New Testament stuff. And generally speaking, they tend to do poorly on adherence to the Old Testament as well.
Didn't mean to offend, but that's how it read and I was looking for a reply that could clear it up. You hadn't mentioned the family aspect
It's interesting that nudism is not allowed. Is being nude considered sexual? If so, then nudists resorts are more fun that I realised!
In some countries even the "intent to use it as sexual gratification" gets you into big problems.
Say, you have pictures of clothed children on your device. If the judge comes to the conclusion those were there with the "intent to use it as sexual gratification", you are fucked.
If they are your own children, you are probably fine. If they are not, it could get hot. If they are in the same folder than your porn-stash you are รผber-fucked, regardless if they are your own children or not, regardless if there are no nude children pictures otherwise.
This was a UK law, I think, could even also be in Germany.
Germany also has a law about children in sexual poses. So if there is a picture of a child, fully clothed, that is laying on the floor, bottom outstretched and looking at you, that's considered child porn in Germany.
Teenagers in Germany are also considered pedophiles if they have nude pictures of their same-age girl- or boyfriend.
Edit: AND the sender of the picture can be charged with distribution of child porn.
Teenagers in Germany are also considered pedophiles if they have nude pictures of their same-age girl- or boyfriend.
Edit: AND the sender of the picture can be charged with distribution of child porn.
Also the case under laws in the US, both state and Federal laws, given there is a federal restriction on sexual(pornographic) pictures of the under-18 crowd.
IIRC, there have been a few cases where "sexting" has already placed teens on a sex offenders registry. Plenty of other news stories of teens getting caught, but normally the prosecutors go for some lesser charge, if anything. Typically enrolling them in classes relevant to what they were doing with the aim of discouraging it.
It's been a losing battle though, just a question of when lawmakers decide to take it off the books or otherwise rework the law so teens can't get in trouble with a picture of their own self. Last number I saw the under-18 sexting rate was estimated to be near the 90% range now. (edit: as in 90% of those polled report having done so before the age of 18)
It's interesting that nudism is not allowed. Is being nude considered sexual? If so, then nudists resorts are more fun that I realised!
Lordshipmayem would beg to differ with that concept, and succeeds with very funny stories about nudists with no sex.
OTOH nudity may rpt may lead to other things, and we are all grateful for that when it happens.
bb
It's interesting that nudism is not allowed. Is being nude considered sexual? If so, then nudists resorts are more fun that I realized!
Good question, as families who attend nudist resorts often take young kids all the time (though maybe not in Canada).
I took my own kids when they were older, but still younger than 14!
In my as yet umpublished story . . .
As background info, MC's single mom and two daughters were nude around their house. The daughters were nude at home from the time they were potty trained. Said to be okay by Lazeez provided nothing sexual is described. I.e. fact of nudity is okay. Details of activities often performed while nude are not okay for preschool kids.
Details of activities often performed while nude are not okay for preschool kids.
You mean things like eating, watching TV, sunbathing, washing the vegetables and talking?
Not all things done while nude are sexual. Nude is human's natural state.
You mean things like eating, watching TV, sunbathing, washing the vegetables and talking?
In the case of the vegetables, if the author started to describe in detail how the vegetables were being washed by the children, that would probably be a red flag. But simply saying "they washed the vegetables" would likely be fine.
Likewise attempts to be "overly descriptive" about their appearance beyond "they were naked" is likely to raise red flags I'd imagine.
Gotta love this modern age of "dog whistles" and other various and sundry hazards you can unknowingly stumble into.
Gotta love this modern age of "dog whistles"
I actually bought a "silent" dog whistle once. I was very disappointed to discover that I could hear it.
I actually bought a "silent" dog whistle once. I was very disappointed to discover that I could hear it.
A number of years ago I read an article about a ringtone used for text messaging by teens that had a higher frequency than most adults could hear.
You might have heard that "silent" dog whistle at the time, but it's possible that might not always be the case even if you still have good hearing in range used by most human voices.
You might have heard that "silent" dog whistle at the time, but it's possible that might not always be the case even if you still have good hearing in range used by most human voices.
I'm 48 and it was only a few years ago.
I used to be able to hear bats. Sadly no longer :(
Researchers have experimented with high-pitched sound that adults can't hear to deter gangs of youths from loitering outside vulnerable properties (eg stores selling alcohol). I haven't heard about it recently so perhaps it was ruled against their human rights.
AJ
I actually bought a "silent" dog whistle once. I was very disappointed to discover that I could hear it.
Ha-ha, that wasn't the whistle you heard, it was your slobber vibrating inside. 'D But AmigaClone's explanation is the best explanation. Kid's typically can hear higher frequencies than those olderโthough I was never able to hear dog whistlesโregardless of my age.
Kid's typically can hear higher frequencies than those olderโthough I was never able to hear dog whistlesโregardless of my age.
I was in my mid 40's when I bought the dog whistle. Nice try, but no cigar.
In the case of the vegetables, if the author started to describe in detail how the vegetables were being washed by the children, that would probably be a red flag. But simply saying "they washed the vegetables" would likely be fine.
Unless they 'washed' the vegetables by shoving them up their vaginas, I can't picture how washing vegetables is sexual in any way (unless it's a lame-ass tease, but that's unlikely because there are SO many easier ways to tease (like EATING the carrot)).
You can describe how one sibling notices their siblings, but you can't describe it sexually (i.e. with the intent to make it overtly sexual, or in other words, providing jerk-off material). However, a brother merely being 'disturbed' by seeing his sister's erect nipples would be fine, as long as he doesn't act on it (aside from leaving the room to do 'something else').
If you apply common sense, and keep in mind the 'smell test' (if it smells like shit, you've stepped in it!), you can cover most of what you need for non-sexual content. If you can't, it probably because you're attempting to write a sex story, not a 'naked kids playing' story. I've skirted similar lines multiple lines, and it wasn't so difficult as long as you watch your step, knowing where you're stepping before you get too far into the story.
In my previously mentioned case (the one with the kids listening in to the adults having sex), the kids teasing about it is fine. The kids jerking off, isn't, as is they're jumping on the bed (witnessing the sexual act itself)). You CAN describe situations, you just can't have the kids engaging in actions most wouldn't normally engage in (mostly because they're too shy, or simply 'not ready for that stuff yet').
Unless they 'washed' the vegetables by shoving them up their vaginas, I can't picture how washing vegetables is sexual in any way (unless it's a lame-ass tease, but that's unlikely because there are SO many easier ways to tease (like EATING the carrot)).
Forgetting your first clause (11 words) the trouble is holy rollers can manufacture the cleaning of a carrot, peeling a cucumber, stringing a bean into a sexual event.
I KNOW that it is not common sense - when have they used what WE think of as common sense? They can get the hundreds outside your house and have you arrested - until it is thrown out by the courts a year later when you are bankrupt
the trouble is holy rollers can manufacture the cleaning of a carrot, peeling a cucumber, stringing a bean into a sexual event.
I have to agree with CW here. I recall a case from a decade or two ago where on of the juice companies had to deal with an issue where certain groups were claiming that the image of an apple cut in half on a bottle of apple juice was intentionally a subliminal image of someone's ass.
the trouble is holy rollers can manufacture the cleaning of a carrot, peeling a cucumber, stringing a bean into a sexual event.
I KNOW that it is not common sense - when have they used what WE think of as common sense? They can get the hundreds outside your house and have you arrested - until it is thrown out by the courts a year later when you are bankrupt
That was one of the reasons I said what I did. Because many "alleged dog whistles" are exactly that--alleged but not actual.
But there still exists another realm where "foodplay" by children without regard to attire still would fall into the category as "potentially sexual in nature" even if the photographer simply thought it was cute and/or funny.
Hopefully someone else will start the story and see if it complies with the rules and the author is doing the right thing to advise readers of what to expect later. If you ever come across a story that doesn't comply, use the Webmaster link to tell Lazeez about - there's even a dropdown box category for such.
A text search of the posted chapters reveals he's still 12 years old by Chapter 3 and may not get to 13 even by the end of the posted chapters. On the other hand, a search for terms that might suggest sexual activity returns nothing.
Why not ask the author directly if it's a concern? Given that King's posted something over one hundred stories I think it's unlikely he'll run afoul of such an obvious rule, but who knows?
bb
I've read a small number of Richard King's stories. In my experience, he obeys the rules meticulously both to the letter and in spirit.
In any case the 'Charles Newman' story isn't new to the site. It's a revised version of an existing story that was recently deleted, as mentioned in his blog. And, following his convention, because the title isn't in all capitals, the story is complete.
AJ
Whether it's the US Leftists or the religious extremists obstensibly on the Right, I think the attitude comes from the same root belief that men are irredeemable pigs who can't control themselves.
I have been reading some earlier stories here on SOL with SF components. The one I am currently reading was posted in 2003, which is well before the first post cut-off year for sub-14-year-old erotica. In has lots of erotic and sexual interaction with children who are much younger than 14. The twist is that the children are aliens who are not human, even though they look like us for the most part and have the required working bits. The current proscription for SOL clearly refers to 'all characters', which would include said alien children, even though they could be pubescent at very early ages. Given there are not statutory prohibitions written around aliens, I wonder if the SOL proscription would be technically enforced, or if this story would be allowed today.
I wonder if the SOL proscription would be technically enforced, or if this story would be allowed today.
The question has been asked like that, and if submitted today it would be rejected, because ti would be seen as an attempt to skirt the rule.
seen as an attempt to skirt the rule
Interesting.
So it is enough for a work to be rejected because the author just might be trying to skirt a rule, maybe. Best to think the worst of them I suppose. No wonder our real laws are so anal and broad. Better to reject the innocent in case there is a guilty one in there somewhere.
I am amazed that a story that was posted when there was no rule, and therefore could not have been trying to circumvent it, would be rejected because the author may have been trying to break a rule that didn't exist.
Roll out the nannies โฆ
I am amazed that a story that was posted when there was no rule, and therefore could not have been trying to circumvent it, would be rejected because the author may have been trying to break a rule that didn't exist.
Lazeez has said that stories that were posted or started posting before the rule will stay, and the incomplete ones can be incomplete. Soon after the rule was put in place someone asked about making some of the characters aliens who looked like under age humans - in short, they said how they wanted to skirt the rule, so a decision was made about them then. It's not that hard to abide by the rules.
The nannies got rolled out by the voters when they elected a bunch of fools who listen to minority groups with lots of money or a loud voice.
It's not that hard to abide by the rules.
Especially if we are all individuals :-) Pigs in charge!!
As a near aside, the filter is not perfect. A story posted on SOL last year, which is still up, has a six-year-old girl masturbating herself on the seven-inch cock of a twenty-eight-year-old. I would have thought that would have been rejected.
A story posted on SOL last year, which is still up, has a six-year-old girl masturbating herself on the seven-inch cock of a twenty-eight-year-old. I would have thought that would have been rejected.
There is no 'filter'.
Nobody has bothered to report the story to me so that I can deal with it. Which story is that?
There is no 'filter'.
Sorry. I thought submissions were moderated. Thinking about it now, you would do nothing else, so it has to be cursory.
Dobbing is culturally difficult for me. I know, it's a antediluvian attitude, be we are who we are, and I am an old model. More thought required.
It just means we the users have to help him spot the stories which violate posted policies/rules. Program filters of text in a story would be to problematic to use. Its our responsibility both as readers and writers to help out by letting him know when something might violate those rules. I have done it in the past by just sending a message to the webmaster about a story asking if it violated the rules. He always responded to the question after checking the story. Done right no harm will be done to a writer when a doubt is raised. My mistake here was I asked in a public forum instead of via the webmaster link. For that mistake I apologize to everyone and especially the author.
The thing is we have to police the site ourselves not rely on some program to do that for us. We can and probably will make mistakes as well. But this lets him and any site administrators he trusts check out those questionable stories when they are pointed out for a decision on policy.
Its up to us the users to help him stay clear of the legal hassles.
As a near aside, the filter is not perfect. A story posted on SOL last year, which is still up, has a six-year-old girl masturbating herself on the seven-inch cock of a twenty-eight-year-old. I would have thought that would have been rejected.
send a link to the story on the webmaster link on the home page, and it will get looked at. I know Lazeez has a script he runs, but it may not be perfect, and anything that gets through can easily be handled once it's reported to him.
edit to add: I really should start reading all the replies before writing something.
edit to add: I really should start reading all the replies before writing something.
I think everyone falls into that trap sooner or later. I know I have fallen into it more than I should.
I think everyone falls into that trap sooner or later. I know I have fallen into it more than I should.
it's easy when there's enough replies a few are hidden off the end of the visible page until you scroll down having read the ones near the top.
I really should start reading all the replies before writing something.
I agree. CW was chastising me the other day about addressing things that had already been addressed.
Of course with a long string of unread posts, it is sometime difficult to go back and find the post you wanted to respond to.
Those posts made since you last updated the page are a slightly different problem.
Of course with a long string of unread posts, it is sometime difficult to go back and find the post you wanted to respond to.
Which is why I tend to respond to a post when i read it, instead of going on and coming back to it.
Me too. There is no one way to do this that works for me. If there are 30 unread posts to go through, I will undoubtedly forget half the posts I wanted to comment on by the time I get through reading all of them.
Of course, I suppose I could refresh the page and then edit or delete posts as necessary.
Which is why I tend to respond to a post when i read it, instead of going on and coming back to it.
Despite often responding for a dozen posts at one time, that's the way I handle each, so someone can click the link and see exactly what I was responding to, rather than trying to guess what I was trying to say.
No one expects you to read each post as it's posted, but if they aren't tied back to an earlier post, it's assumed they're current, whether they actually are or not. :(
Those posts made since you last updated the page are a slightly different problem.
You can always go back and delete your postsโas long as no one has replied to them since you posted them, that is.
Lazeez has said that stories that were posted or started posting before the rule will stay, and the incomplete ones can be incomplete.
I'm wondering whether Richard King didn't restart his old story simply because he could legally continue his original under-14 story? I guess time will tell, although it will be entertaining to see how it turns of if he does.
So it is enough for a work to be rejected because the author just might be trying to skirt a rule, maybe. Best to think the worst of them I suppose. No wonder our real laws are so anal and broad. Better to reject the innocent in case there is a guilty one in there somewhere.
No, it's a question of protecting the site. Just after the law was passed and SOL posted the changes to the site, I too undertook to write a protest piece. However, I read the restrictions first. Instead of trying to 'sneak' a pre-teen figure into the story, I instead wrote multiple scenes where several pre-teens listened in on the adults having sex and mercilessly teased the adults about it. But at no stage in the process did the kids see, engage in or participate in the sex acts themselves, they just wanted the adults to recognize that they thought (given what had happened to them) that they were now adults too (that story was based on transcripts from many of the adult 'child solders' in various African wars, which I thought deserved recognition.
It's not a matter of writing legitimate fiction, those attempts to 'skirt the rules' are simply attempts to have SOL stripped of it's ability to post stories across the board!
The current proscription for SOL clearly refers to 'all characters', which would include said alien children, even though they could be pubescent at very early ages.
I wonder how they would have ruled on the character 'Kes' from Star Trek - Voyager having sex. She was only 2. ;)
I wonder how they would have ruled on the character 'Kes' from Star Trek - Voyager having sex. She was only 2. ;)
On the basis of what EB says, it seems even Star Trek is a little too rude for SOL as well.
On the basis of what EB says, it seems even Star Trek is a little too rude for SOL as well.
A lot would be how they presented it, but a 2 year old Kes would be against the rules. However, if the character were an adult, looked like an adult, and it was pointed out a year on their home planet was the equivalent of say 180 months on Earth, I think they could get away with it due to the relative age compared to earth humans. To be sure you'd have to present it to Lazeez and see what he has to say.
One of my stories I thought was OK for FS got bounced by Lazeez. It's his posterior on the line if there's an issue, so I simply accepted his decision and went on. The only issue is I now have to remember not to post any revisions of that story on FS. Always ask, and he'll answer.
typo edit
bounced by Lazeez. It's his posterior on the line
Fully accept that. Lazeez is only doing what he feels he needs to do to allow SOL to survive. I was surprised (pleasantly) that he allows pre-cut-off subject stories to stay. Any general subject criticism I express is aimed at those faceless puritans.
Fully accept that. Lazeez is only doing what he feels he needs to do to allow SOL to survive. I was surprised (pleasantly) that he allows pre-cut-off subject stories to stay
Those are probably grandfathered in as far as the law is concerned. They were written and posted before the law was written and enacted. I might be wrong but I don't think so. Its a matter of timing before the law was enacted and after the law was enacted.
I wonder how they would have ruled on the character 'Kes' from Star Trek - Voyager having sex. She was only 2. ;)
It doesn't matter the 'age' in the story, if the description sounds like someone who's legally underaged, than it won't be allowed. End of story! (in most ways than one.)
Possibly breaking the rules? Here is a quote from a Story by John Wales on this site.
"Proeliator
by John Wales
Copyrightยฉ 2006 by John Wales
๏ปฟ
Reposting and archiving of this and all of my stories is permitted, except where a fee of any sort is required or earned for access, provided this disclaimer and note remain attached to the story. All other rights, specifically rights of commercial use, are reserved. Commercial use here is defined to include posting on membership web sites, banner-funded web sites, and those protected by fee-based age validation methods."
Once this story gets aged out so only premier members can read it, are the rights conferred by the author violated? He didn't want the story on any site where readers had to pay to read his story.
Possibly breaking the rules? Here is a quote from a Story by John Wales on this site.
Once this story gets aged out so only premier members can read it, are the rights conferred by the author violated? He didn't want the story on any site where readers had to pay to read his story.
Best ask Lazeez how he interprets such a request (i.e. does he honor it or does he just process everything without paying attention to specifics?).
Best ask Lazeez how he interprets such a request (i.e. does he honor it or does he just process everything without paying attention to specifics?).
I don't distinguish between stories or whatever rules authors have set in their cover pages. The system is automated. John Wales is still active on the site and is aware of the archiving thing as far as I know. He hasn't made any complaints about the subject.
Reposting and archiving of this and all of my stories is permitted, except where a fee of any sort is required or earned for access, provided this disclaimer and note remain attached to the story. All other rights, specifically rights of commercial use, are reserved. Commercial use here is defined to include posting on membership web sites, banner-funded web sites, and those protected by fee-based age validation methods."
Except SOL would have fallen under the above definition of commercial use (it's a members only site) even when the story was first posted.
If he posted it here himself, I would be highly skeptical that this statement can be read as limiting the rights granted to SOL under the author agreement by the act of posting here.
If he posted it here himself, I would be highly skeptical that this statement can be read as limiting the rights granted to SOL under the author agreement by the act of posting here.
Correct. By posting on SOL voluntarily, the author agreed to the site's terms and he's bound by these terms.
Any disclaimer text or conditions that he may place inside his text don't affect the contract that he agreed to by posting on the site.
Once this story gets aged out so only premier members can read it, are the rights conferred by the author violated?
No. Because it isn't a repost from SoL, nor is it being archived, just having its SoL location changed.
Back to topic - someone up above mentioned about it sometimes being illegal to have nudes of girls who look like they are under 18, even if they're not.
I can understand wanting to prevent abuse and exploitation of those under age, most of them not yet mature enough to handle adult situations. However, this starts getting into thought crimes. It's so bad today that one can't even comment that a person under 18 is attractive without being called a pedophile. There are girls at 14, 15 and 16 that look like they are in their 20's, but it's a crime to be attracted to them, even if there's absolutely no intention or probability of following through on it.
I don't care about tit size. I'm attracted by a nice face, round ass and thick thighs. If the girl is of age, but has small tits and a young face suddenly some think I'm a pervert for being attracted. Honestly, 15 or 45, if they fit the description I might be looking.
I believe some people on this forum would argue over when is the proper time of day to take a shit, how long it should last, and whether to wipe their ass front to back, or back to front, or some combination of the two.
I believe some people on this forum would argue over when is the proper time of day to take a shit
Don't be ridiculous. We'd argue over taking a piss not taking a shit.
Don't be ridiculous. We'd argue over taking a piss not taking a shit.
I figured the answer on when to take a dump was when it is likely to cause someone else hemorrhoids.
I believe some people on this forum would argue over when is the proper time of day to take a shit, how long it should last, and whether to wipe their ass front to back, or back to front, or some combination of the two.
Just to protect my ass, I prefer doing both (wiping both directions). Not the best choice, healthwise, but it's taking the 'middle-of-the-road approach'.
I believe some people on this forum would argue over when is the proper time of day to take a shit, how long it should last, and whether to wipe their ass front to back, or back to front, or some combination of the two.
In WWI British troops were issued with three sheets of loo paper with the orders "one forward, one backwards and one to polish".
It was common in the trenches but I don't know how they dealt with the screaming ab-dabs. Corks from the officers' wine bottles perhaps?
As to front to back or vice versa any sensible female must wipe front to back and never back to front.
As to front to back or vice versa any sensible female must wipe front to back and never back to front.
Even for a male, you don't want to contaminate the good bits.
Always bottom to top. Fold over and wipe again until clean. Preferably with a wet wipe to get the job done adequately.
Always bottom to top. Fold over and wipe again until clean. Preferably with a wet wipe to get the job done adequately.
The American Indians (in the Western deserts) used to use sand (to scrub the shit off with).
Too lazy to go back to the post that said Stop signs are not needed, but I just drove to the bank passing two 4-way stop signs. Without the signs, you either need a traffic light or risk intersection collisions.
Without the signs, you either need a traffic light or risk intersection collisions.
In Virginia & Maryland they're putting in some circles instead of stop signs or lights. They seem strange but also appear to help the traffic flow.
Circles are great as long as they are easy to enter and exit.
I have a vague recollection of a circle I had to negotiate in Germany. I don't recall if it had two or three lanes. I seem to recall that the person entering the circle had the right of way. It seemed like a disaster in progress.
Circles are great as long as they are easy to enter and exit.
You mean like this circle?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAgX6qlJEMc
I seem to recall that the person entering the circle had the right of way in a roundabout.
In the U.S., the person in the circle has the right of way.
I seem to recall that the person entering the circle had the right of way in a roundabout.
In the U.S., the person in the circle has the right of way.
The same in the UK, France, Portugal, Brazil and Italy
In the U.S., the person in the circle has the right of way.
I remember being told the secret in Paris, you always look to the right (outside only), never left. Those on the outside always have the right of way, and if anyone runs into you when you're not looking are automatically at fault. It made navigating much easier.
I remember being told the secret in Paris, you always look to the right (outside only), never left.
I assume the US would be opposite.
There's one circle I travel through to get to work, going straight down the road. As you approach the circle you slow down to look left and yield to anyone already in the circle. Once in I always give a glance right at each intersection to make sure there are no idiots not looking for me, then turn right to make my exit and continue on ym way.
I assume the US would be opposite.
In the U.S., you're required to look in ALL directions, and anyone who run into, it's YOUR fault. The 'only look to the outside' makes navigating those large, busy roundabouts much more reasonable to manage.
I have a vague recollection of a circle I had to negotiate in Germany. I don't recall if it had two or three lanes. I seem to recall that the person entering the circle had the right of way. It seemed like a disaster in progress.
Hmmm, could this have been in the 50s? The circles in question existed since before WWII with no problems due to scarce traffic.
In Germany, without any signs the rule is "right before left". In a circle the traffic goes counterclockwise so automatically the incoming traffic would have the right of way. It needed quite some accidents for local councils to understand that in heavy traffic the traffic already in the circle had to have right of way. So they had to install 2 traffic signs at any entry.
I remember when they came up with the roundabout-traffic-sign it did not reverse the right of way from "right before left" to "in circle traffic first", they still needed the other 2 signs at any entry. After some years they finally got it right: only one sign at any entry โ the roundabout sign โ gives right of way to the traffic in the circle.
The superfluous traffic signs were removed but didn't stay in depot long, they quickly found places where traffic signs were "indispensable".
Traffic lights disturb traffic flow more than roundabouts. There is one situation where traffic lights are better: one of the streets of the intersection has heavy through traffic. The traffic from the crossing street will then find no gap to enter the circle.
HM.
The problem I experienced was in Frankfurt in the early 80's.
I suspect it was caused by the traffic density increasing faster than the development of roads to handle the additional traffic. In an established community with established roads, it is difficult to widen or add roads. In many European cities, road width was based on the use of horse drawn vehicles and multiple traffic lanes in each direction weren't needed. Now that they are needed, the buildings are in the way.
Traffic lights disturb traffic flow more than roundabouts.
Each has its own role to play. As you pointed out, access to a busy roundabout from a minor road can be problematic.
In my area, some of the multi-laned roundabouts have been so overwhelmed by traffic volumes that they've had to have traffic lights added at each entry point.
AJ
Traffic lights disturb traffic flow more than roundabouts. There is one situation where traffic lights are better: one of the streets of the intersection has heavy through traffic. The traffic from the crossing street will then find no gap to enter the circle.
Yes, but ...
Roundabouts are generally better for the flow of traffic, but lights become more efficient when the traffic becomes heavy enough so that there is almost always a queue to enter the roundabout. Also, three-lane roundabouts are too chaotic and dangerous.
Roundabouts are generally better for the flow of traffic, but lights become more efficient when the traffic becomes heavy enough so that there is almost always a queue to enter the roundabout.
In the 80's and 90's in the UK this was solved with part-time traffic lights added to the roundabouts. (Don't know if they still have them, no visit to the UK in the last 15 years).
HM.
I think they still have them but they're very rare in my experience. I don't know of any locally.
AJ
In the 80's and 90's in the UK this was solved with part-time traffic lights added to the roundabouts. (Don't know if they still have them, no visit to the UK in the last 15 years).
Yes, we still do. Quite a lot near where I live.
In addition close to me at two roundabouts there are vehicle bridges over the roundabout for vehicles using the busiest route. One of them has a tidal flow allowing vehicles only in the busiest direction and changing when the flow changes (typically people going to work or going home)
Too lazy to go back to the post that said Stop signs are not needed, but I just drove to the bank passing two 4-way stop signs. Without the signs, you either need a traffic light or risk intersection collisions.
And yet people used to be friendly enough they didn't need signs or lights for hundreds of years before cars were invented, and then also for many decades after they were invented there were no signs or lights.
they didn't need signs or lights for hundreds of years before cars were invented
Before cars, we had horses. Unlike us humans, the horses were smart enough to not run into each other. :)
And yet people used to be friendly enough they didn't need signs or lights for hundreds of years before cars were invented, and then also for many decades after they were invented there were no signs or lights.
That's cause the horses, asses and oxes are more sensible than the human drivers. They'll stop rather than run straight into something.
Here in the US, the current problems with drivers include, but are not limited to:
1. Not paying attention to what is happening on the road. They are more interested in texting or talking on their phones. Hands-free systems are not the answer for the still require the driver to split their attention between two or more things. If you are focusing on a conversation, you lose focus on what the drivers around you are doing.
2. Being in a rush to get to your destination. The speed limit is 40 mph, but other drivers are doing 50+ mph because they believe they can go faster safely. They are lying to themselves for they end up driving beyond their ability to handle their vehicle, but they don't recognize that fact. They also fail to take into account that other drivers might do something stupid that will result in them having to take an emergency evasive action, which is what often causes accidents.
3. An attitude that the laws don't apply to them and how they handle their vehicles. This is often displayed by drivers exceeding the posted speed limits due to a viewpoint of I'm more capable than other drivers so I don't have to comply with the law that was written for the poor drivers.
4. Failure to be considerate of the needs of others. Such as, decreasing your following distance so the other guy can't get in front of you. Of course, the other guy was probably being inconsiderate also by waiting until the last minute to change lanes so he can exit the highway or turn at the next intersection. This attitude is also easy to see in parking lots. Instead of stopping and waiting for the car backing out of a parking lot, the driver tries to squeeze through the decreasing lane width caused by the car backing up.
These and other things could be avoided if people allowed common sense to govern their actions, but there are very few people around that have any common sense.
Did you know that, while it is illegal in many places for the average driver to use a cellphone (not hands-free) while operating a vehicle, those same places allow police officers to use their 'Database Information Retrieval System' (aka a laptop) mounted in the vehicle while driving down the road?
1. Not paying attention to what is happening on the road. They are more interested in texting or talking on their phones.
An offence here and you could lose your licence with the points. If you cause a crash even the Good Lord couldn't help you
2. Being in a rush to get to your destination. The speed limit is 40 mph, but other drivers are doing 50+ mph because they believe they can go faster safely.
Some police forces turn a blind eye to 10% over the posted speed limit but some don't. There was one case where a police car with advanced equipment was able to bring a prosecution for a speed less than a single mile per hour over the limit. Cameras often work on the exact speed.
My local police force acknowledges that car speedometers are usually wrong - up to 8mph wrong. When I asked a US manufacturer's agent to run a dynometer test on my new car they didn't have the equipment available!
3. An attitude that the laws don't apply to them and how they handle their vehicles.
.
When police speed guns first arrived I was standing beside one when the officer radioed their colleagues around the corner. The officer was then warned he would be on the foot beat because they had stopped a (since deceased) member of the Royal Family! (I don't know if it was a protection officer driving)
4. Failure to be considerate of the needs of others. Such as, decreasing your following distance so the other guy can't get in front of you.
We call that tailgating; they have not publicised it but traffic cameras are also set up to catch and film people tailgating.
Again it is points on you licence and too many points and you lose your licence; on many insurance policies they are negated if you do not report points or prosecutions.
These and other things could be avoided if people allowed common sense to govern their actions, but there are very few people around that have any common sense.
Last clause: Very True
The majority of what I listed are violations of our motor vehicle code also.
But, that doesn't stop the idiots in the far left lane of the highway from doing 95 mph with a speed limit of 70 mph from cutting across 3 traffic lanes, almost hitting you as they pull in front of you, and then slamming their brakes on to keep from hitting the car in front of you.
And worst of all, they think they are good drivers because there was no accident.
But, that doesn't stop the idiots in the far left lane of the highway from doing 95 mph with a speed limit of 70 mph from cutting across 3 traffic lanes
This summer I drove in Canada for the first time. The speed limit on the freeway was 100 kph, but the fine for 40 kph over the limit was $3000
but the fine for 40 kph over the limit was $3000
I suspect you also saw a number of idiots going far faster than 100 kph.
Most of these idiots don't believe that they will be caught and have to face the consequences of their actions. Unfortunately, they talk their way out of being cited, or manipulate the legal system such that they don't have to pay the maximum fine.
One of my granddaughters friends was recently cited for reckless driving. She was doing 85 mph in a 55 mph zone. Her father told her to not worry for he hired a lawyer who was familiar with the habits of the police office who cited her. The lawyer's strategy is to obtain delays in the case until the officer fails to appear, and then have the case thrown out of court because the prosecution is not ready to proceed with the case.
This puts me in mind of a story I remember from clear back in Fidonet days. A guy on that particular echo related that he'd been driving up 401 when he came across a truck that was all over the road, the driver obviously drunk. This was before common cell phones, but he had a car phone and called the Ontario Provincial Police to report the hazard. The dispatcher replied to do his best to get away from the guy since due to budget cuts they didn't have anyone that could intercept the drunk until after passing Kitchner.
The poster ended the story by saying, "It was shortly after that I found out my Audi really would go 250 kilometers an hour."
A guy on that particular echo related that he'd been driving up 401 when he came across a truck that was all over the road, the driver obviously drunk.
Unless he could see the driver I'm not certain that is so obvious.
I read a story a few years back about a semi driver who used his truck to stop an out of control car. He got in front of it, slowed down until the car made contact with the back of his rig and used his breaks to stop the car. The driver of the car was dead or unconscious as a result of either a stroke or a heart attack.
Another more recent story, a case where cops were called about a drunk driver stopped in the middle of an intersection. The driver wasn't drunk, he was a diabetic unconscious to insulin shock. Of course the cops didn't figure that out until after they physically dragged him out of his car because he wasn't responding to orders and six officers piled on him and were beating him for "resisting arrest".
Unless he could see the driver I'm not certain that is so obvious.
Could also simply be tired/fatigued, parking an 18 wheeler isn't something you can just do anywhere, unless you're ready to spend somewhere in the $1,000 range for a tow truck to pull you out several hours later, plus any applicable fines. (Difference between a "ground pressure" of roughly 30 psi for a car, vs 100 to 120 psi for an 18 wheeler. The car or light truck can drive across or even park, no problem. While a standard road configured 18 wheeler will simply sink.)
Which isn't to mention all those "no truck parking" areas.
A guy on that particular echo related that he'd been driving up 401 when he came across a truck that was all over the road, the driver obviously drunk.
Unless he could see the driver I'm not certain that is so obvious.
I read a story a few years back about a semi driver who used his truck to stop an out of control car. He got in front of it, slowed down until the car made contact with the back of his rig and used his breaks to stop the car. The driver of the car was dead or unconscious as a result of either a stroke or a heart attack.
Another more recent story, a case where cops were called about a drunk driver stopped in the middle of an intersection. The driver wasn't drunk, he was a diabetic unconscious to insulin shock. Of course the cops didn't figure that out until after they physically dragged him out of his car because he wasn't responding to orders and six officers piled on him and were beating him for "resisting arrest".
a truck that was all over the road, the driver obviously drunk. This was before common cell phones, but he had a car phone and called the Ontario Provincial Police to report the hazard
One Christmas a few years ago I was taking the family up to my mom's house for dinner. Just outside of town, in falling snow, a guy was all over the road. My daughter had her cell and called 911. We followed the guy for 15 miles on a two lane road, through two towns, and the cops never showed. At one point he was going down the main street of a small town in the wrong lane.
The lawyer's strategy is to obtain delays in the case until the officer fails to appear, and then have the case thrown out of court because the prosecution is not ready to proceed with the case.
I've successfully done this.
In Virginia the officers have at least a day a month pre-scheduled to be in court, so they can write the court date on your ticket as they give it to you. You don't have to pay anything until you plead guilty or are convicted.
In Pennsylvania, however, you have to contact the magistrate's office to schedule a hearing or plead guilty and pay the fine within 10 days of the ticket or they'll issue an arrest warrant. Even if you plead guilty you have to pre-pay the fine, or at least a reasonable portion that you can negotiate with the secretary.
I got stopped in Pa at a sobriety check point and it took about 5 seconds to determine I was sober. However, the officers looked all around the vehicle and asked me to pull over and then gave me a ticket for expired inspection.
I was cooperative but even though I was guilty thought it was BS because sobriety shack points are only allowed (stopping with no probably cause) if they are not used for fishing expeditions. I figured that because I was sober I should have been free to go. I didn't share this theory with the officer and asked for a hearing on Monday as I work out of town from Tuesday to Friday. They were able to oblige, but then I was notified that the officer asked to reschedule my date. The new date wasn't on a Monday, so I put on my pouty face and asked them if they could give a third date, back on a Monday.
They obliged again, and I was in court, but after 5 minutes when the officer didn't show the magistrate dismissed the case.
Also - check points take a lot of man power and they drew officers from all over the county. My guy could have been from up to 40 miles away, making it less likely that he'd show.
In Virginia the officers have at least a day a month pre-scheduled to be in court, so they can write the court date on your ticket as they give it to you. You don't have to pay anything until you plead guilty or are convicted.
Here in Australia a fine is a fine. You either pay it by the due date, or go to court. If you lose in court, then you pay the fine & any court costs added to it.
If the police don't show, it isn't dismissed, just as if you don't show it isn't automatically awarded against you. A new court date will be set.
Here in Australia a fine is a fine. You either pay it by the due date, or go to court. If you lose in court, then you pay the fine & any court costs added to it.
For a traffic ticket in Pa, you have 10 days to pay, guilty or innocent. After you've paid, you can scheduled a hearing with the magistrate to get refunded.
If the police don't show, it isn't dismissed, just as if you don't show it isn't automatically awarded against you. A new court date will be set.
At the magistrate level, where traffic court is held, there is typically no lawyer. You can have a defense attorney if you want, but I've never seen a prosecutor. The police officer would be the only person there to make the prosecution's argument. If he doesn't show, there's no prosecutor.
The police officer would be the only person there to make the prosecution's argument.
Traffic court is more of a hearing than a trial and the 'accused' is considered guilty until he can convince the judge that there was a valid reason for him doing what the officer said he did or that the officer was mistaken in what he observed.
Traffic court is more of a hearing than a trial and the 'accused' is considered guilty until he can convince the judge that there was a valid reason for him doing what the officer said he did or that the officer was mistaken in what he observed.
That sounds about right.
In Pa the district courts, lower than the county level, are for traffic citations and small claims. Decisions can be appealed to the county court.
I don't think there is an official term for the position, as campaign signs have used "District Judge", "District Justice" and "(District) Magistrate". It's basically a Justice of the Peace - an elected position that does not require a law degree.
The new date wasn't on a Monday, so I put on my pouty face and asked them if they could give a third date, back on a Monday.
They obliged again, and I was in court, but after 5 minutes when the officer didn't show the magistrate dismissed the case.
I was involved in a case where my company was suing a customer for repayment and alternatively a court order giving us the right to sell his pledged apartment.
I was abroad (for several months) on business when the first hearing occurred. Because I had led several of the negotiating meetings the defendant asked for a postponement so that I could be questioned. (A reasonable case in my opinion).
I turned up to the postponed hearing and the defendant and his counsel did not.
I was questioned by the judge and produced reports indicating that the defendant's claims were incorrect and that I did not have the authority he had claimed that I did so the judge simply found in our favour.
