Flashing motorist sues police.

[James48843]

Hmmm...

What do you think about this?

Fla. driver sues over ticket for signaling police speed traps


A Florida driver ticketed for flashing his headlights to warn of a police speed trap is fighting back with a class-action lawsuit charging a violation of motorists' free speech rights, the St. Petersburg Times reports.If the state loses, it could be forced to refund fines to 2,400 motorists cited for headlight-signaling from 2005 to 2010.


Although the state has not formally answered the lawsuit, the Times quotes Capt. Mark Welch, spokesman for the Florida Highway Patrol, as saying "flashing lights are prohibited on vehicles," except for turn signals.

More: http://content.usatoday.com/communi...t-for-flashing-lights-to-warn-of-speed-trap/1




What do you think?


Should a driver be given a ticket for "flashing his lights" to warn other motorists about a police stakeout ahead?

Or is using your headlight to flash and warn others- a constitutionally protected example of free speech?

http://www.devoncornwallxroc.com/XR2i.gif

 

[malyla]

I'm ok with flashing a warning. You are warning a fellow citizen that a danger (to your wallet) is ahead.

Ticketing a warning flasher is overly punitive and those who do not flash to warn people to slow down are condoning a police state, IMO.

Telling your neighbor to cool it is not being a bad citizen. I agree that a warning flashing ticket is a violation of free speech.

I grew up in the vast west with endless freeways of tedious driving. If you are aware enough to see the trap in the other direction and then warn people, then you are aware of your driving and should be rewarded not ticketed. Only police states station officers on the other side of a speed trap to penalize people who flash their lights (maybe they were just checking that their lights worked...)

 

[burrocrat]

Dang, from the thread title I thought this was going to be another art gallery tour.

As far as tickets go I'd rather get one for flashing my lights to warn another than for driving without insurance. I only flash my lights once in a while, but I would prefer not to have to buy insurance all the time. Have to go with the numbers there.

What about the constitutional right to choose not to participate in graft and sanctioned criminal enterprise?

Police state or Banker state? They both have 6 letters. Pick your poison.

Oh, and driving is a priveledge not a right.

 

[malyla]

Dang, from the thread title I thought this was going to be another art gallery tour.

As far as tickets go I'd rather get one for flashing my lights to warn another than for driving without insurance. I only flash my lights once in a while, but I would prefer not to have to buy insurance all the time. Have to go with the numbers there.

What about the constitutional right to choose not to participate in graft and sanctioned criminal enterprise?

Police state or Banker state? They both have 6 letters. Pick your poison.

Oh, and driving is a priveledge not a right.

You contradict yourself. If driving is a privilege then you should be fine with the requirement of car insurance.

Travel is not a privilege. Humans have traveled by many means for time immortal. Using the government highways may be a privilege and tolls will be the cost of that privilege but driving/pedaling a vehicle you purchased or walking/running is a freedom that humans have always had. Curtailing freedom of movement is the hallmark of a police state.

 

[burrocrat]

Thanks for noticing.

I'm not so sure about the right vs priveledge thing, but I know free individuals don't ask for permission.

I will flash lights and purchase insurance at my pleasure, if you please.

 

[James48843]

...Travel is not a privilege. Humans have traveled by many means for time immortal. Using the government highways may be a privilege and tolls will be the cost of that privilege but driving/pedaling a vehicle you purchased or walking/running is a freedom that humans have always had. Curtailing freedom of movement is the hallmark of a police state.

I always remember this quote, from the FAA Aviation Act of 1958.

This USED to be what the law said:



That language changed in 1994, when Congress repealed the Act of 1958, and made the language say this:



Quite a difference, wouldn't you say?

 

[alevin]

I always remember this quote, from the FAA Aviation Act of 1958.

This USED to be what the law said:

View attachment 15321

That language changed in 1994, when Congress repealed the Act of 1958, and made the language say this:

View attachment 15322

Quite a difference, wouldn't you say?

well, since the title of that section is "(1) sovereignty AND (2) public right of transit"-there must be another section that speaks to the AND "public right". the part you cited only addressed the first part of the title. that's not all there is to that section of the Act, surely. no? yes?

I've read that back in the day, there was no such thing as licences for driving-mule teams, cars, buggies-kind of implies not a "priviledge". freedom of movement within and between states=one of the reasons for the Bill of Rights. can't remember which number, but one of them is geared towards that very question.

 

[nnuut]

I Flash My lights and warn other drivers, so what? I know the local MONEY MAKERS don't like that but I don't like traps, and by the way I don't speed (over 5 mph).

 

[Vnc1701]

+10! for out of towers = ticket! (tax)!