No one around? No turn signal needed!

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: I Saw OJ
People with only one eye can drive? Hows depth perception work in their case?

They learn to pick up other cues from perspective, etc. It's not as efficient as binocular vision, but it works just fine for driving. The bigger drawback would be the loss of peripheral vision on the side with the false eye.

I do believe that people with only one eye are required to be re-tested on a certain interval as opposed to the automatic renewals that the rest of us can get.

ZV

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: I Saw OJ
People with only one eye can drive? Hows depth perception work in their case?

Now imagine having only 1 eye and being drunk.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: I Saw OJ
People with only one eye can drive? Hows depth perception work in their case?

Now imagine having only 1 eye and being drunk.

So when you see double its like you are normal?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: I Saw OJ
People with only one eye can drive? Hows depth perception work in their case?

Now imagine having only 1 eye and being drunk.

So when you see double its like you are normal?

I don't think a one eyed person is capable of seeing Double. Could be wrong though.

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: I Saw OJ
People with only one eye can drive? Hows depth perception work in their case?

I'd rather be in the car with a one-eyed person driving than with an old person driving. At least the one-eyed person has their visual acuity tested occasionally.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: Mackie2k
I never said that the officer was abusing power, but it's rediculous that they pulled him over without any cause.

It's not a big FU to anyone hit by a drunk driver, it's following the law the way it was intended. Police will use any excuse under the sun to harass and pull you over to make money. Period.

If you don't have a good reason to pull someone over, don't do it.

 

[bozack]

Sounds like a good ruling to me.

The guy in question wasn't speeding or weaving, he made one rather common mistake and they happeneded to bag him on a dui because of it.

cops already have enough they can abuse their power on to try and generate revinue at least in this state they have one less thing they can cite someone for.

 

[Possessed Freak]

I can see a host of laws being questioned and I dislike it.

Nobody around, why stop at a stop sign?
Nobody around, why wait for a green light?
Nobody around, why have working taillights?
etc.

People are supposed to be alert and aware while driving. That means when I make a right turn I use my right blinker. If I am not alert and aware enough to do it, then pull me the heck over!

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: bozack
Sounds like a good ruling to me.

The guy in question wasn't speeding or weaving, he made one rather common mistake and they happeneded to bag him on a dui because of it.

cops already have enough they can abuse their power on to try and generate revinue at least in this state they have one less thing they can cite someone for.

Agreed. Personally, I feel that "generating revenue" by police should not be allowed. If a state's statute requires fines (for example), then said statute should stipulate that said fines should 100% go towards the state road maintenance budget (or something similar), vs. going towards the budget of the locality in which said ticket was written. The police's job is "to serve and protect" not to "generate revenue".

It should also be disallowed for police to use "undercover" tactics and "unmarked" cars to investigate anything but felonies. There is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON the police need unmarked cars for traffic enforcement, or for misdemeanors.

The goal of this would be to get police out of the business of being traffic nazis. Obviously if someone is driving like a complete ass clown, to the point where the police receive a call about it, they should do something about it. However, the police spending a large amount of their time pulling people over for doing 10-20 over the speed limit is ridiculous.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: I Saw OJ
People with only one eye can drive? Hows depth perception work in their case?

Yep. My bro is legally blind in one eye and he said his depth perception is fine. He's had bad eyesight in that eye since birth so I'm not sure what he's comparing it against.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Possessed Freak
I can see a host of laws being questioned and I dislike it.

Nobody around, why stop at a stop sign?
Nobody around, why wait for a green light?
Nobody around, why have working taillights?
etc.

People are supposed to be alert and aware while driving. That means when I make a right turn I use my right blinker. If I am not alert and aware enough to do it, then pull me the heck over!

I sincerely doubt that those other laws could be successfully challenged. The only reason the court ruled the signaling law to only apply when there was other traffic (which would include pedestrian traffic) was because the law itself explicitly provided an exemption in cases where there was no other traffic. The ruling of the court is consistent with the written law. If this is a problem then the law needs to be revised as I suggested in my first post in this thread. It's a bill that would get no press and should pass easily in the legislature.

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: ebaycj
The goal of this would be to get police out of the business of being traffic nazis. Obviously if someone is driving like a complete ass clown, to the point where the police receive a call about it, they should do something about it. However, the police spending a large amount of their time pulling people over for doing 10-20 over the speed limit is ridiculous.

20 mph above the speed limit absolutely needs to be something that police stop people for. 10 over on the freeway is questionable, but 10 over in a residential zone needs to be stopped. By the time police receive a call about a bad driver, it is often far too late to do anything about it as the offending driver has moved on and the police have no idea where that driver is.

It sounds to me like you've been pulled over by an unmarked car for going 20 mph over the limit and are now sore about it. Grow up a little and you'll get over it.

ZV

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: I Saw OJ
People with only one eye can drive? Hows depth perception work in their case?

I'd rather be in the car with a one-eyed person driving than with an old person driving. At least the one-eyed person has their visual acuity tested occasionally.

:thumbsup: I don't mean to dump on the elderly but at some point they need to hang up the keys.

<== lives in FL

 

[runzwithsizorz]

Must have been a rookie cop, for he violated standard protocol when he WROTE down that a turn signal was the reason for the late night revenue stop. Any cop worth their salt knows that the correct reason, for the record, for pulling someone over when driving past curfew is they were weaving, for there is no defense. He'll not make that mistake again.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: bozack

The goal of this would be to get police out of the business of being traffic nazis. Obviously if someone is driving like a complete ass clown, to the point where the police receive a call about it, they should do something about it. However, the police spending a large amount of their time pulling people over for doing 10-20 over the speed limit is ridiculous.

How dense are you? You're comfortable with people doing 50 mph through residential zones? 20+ over the speed limit is a serious danger everywhere except on a freeway (where it's only moderately dangerous).

 

[QuantumPion]

In the course of the stop, however, Kessel noticed that Clower's eyes were "glassy" and he immediately suspected the man had been driving under the influence of alcohol.

Clower, in fact, has a glass eye.

ROFLMAO.

 

[NaughtyGeek]

If you don't use your turn signal, you should be pulled over. Period. The law provided an exception to this and a friggen drunk exploited it. That's a shame. Speeding on the freeway is a whole different can of worms.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Robor
Stupid move. How does one really know 'no one is around'?

Anyway, drivers who actually use turn signals do it without thinking. It's like checking your mirrors before you change lanes or paying attention to who is beside/behind you. Chances are if you 'think' about using signals you aren't using them very well (IMHO).

Take a drive in the country sometime and you will figure it out.

If that's how people in 'the country' drive they should be banned from the city.

If that's the way people from the city think they should be banned from the country.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: OCguy
Yay, drinking and driving is cool! :roll:

Grow up. The anti-authority thing should leave you at about 21. (This is coming from someone who did time for DUI)

There's nothing wrong with being anti-authority, and people who drive while intoxicated shouldn't get to drive anymore.