|
Post by cheapshotartist on Jan 4, 2009 10:11:06 GMT -4
I was just curious that's all. I know that on two different occassions we had to wait on the bridge until the bridge police got there, this was in the morning. I can't figure out why they are miles away from the bridge during times like these.
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Jan 4, 2009 10:18:22 GMT -4
Could you post the links to the material you referenced? Or were they pretty easy to find? Not trying to challenge you at all, just think those links would be a useful resource.
And I agree, why pay for MDTA Bridge Police if they aren't at the bridge?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2009 13:17:01 GMT -4
A certified police officer has powers through out the state. Any given police departments policies will dictate when and where they can use it, whether on duty or off.
As for Maryland Transportation Authority, they can patrol up to 3 miles from the bay bridge. As for seeing one at the 50/301 split. That's probably where they caught up to a speeder to stop them.
QA Sheriffs aren't supposed to patrol state roads (radar traps), that's the MSP role. Obviously they travel states road to get to their assigned area. Hoffman may have changed this policy.
|
|
|
Post by cheapshotartist on Jan 5, 2009 16:00:14 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Jan 5, 2009 19:07:21 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by cheapshotartist on Jan 5, 2009 20:22:49 GMT -4
Your very welcome!
|
|
|
Post by dej on Jan 6, 2009 1:44:06 GMT -4
[QA Sheriffs aren't supposed to patrol state roads (radar traps), that's the MSP role. Obviously they travel states road to get to their assigned area. Hoffman may have changed this policy.]
If that was the policy, it never did seem to apply to MD 8.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2009 8:16:08 GMT -4
[QA Sheriffs aren't supposed to patrol state roads (radar traps), that's the MSP role. Obviously they travel states road to get to their assigned area. Hoffman may have changed this policy.] If that was the policy, it never did seem to apply to MD 8. Rural state roads within communities like Rt. 8 and Rt. 18 do get speed enforcement. I know there was a time that there was an issue of Deputies not spending enough time patrolling the neighborhoods.
|
|
|
Post by realtorplus on Jan 6, 2009 9:30:02 GMT -4
my daughter lives on the eastern shore.. when i visit i am baffled by the high speeds especially truckers.. On several occassions i was pinned in by truckers going high speeds.. i always manage, luckily, to pull over. unless you keep up speeds in excess of 70-80 miles an hour, your crushed between them.. where are troopers.. i had one cop tell me they don't want to put a mark on their drivers records because they have to make a living.. this is bull.. go get em and keep our families safe..
|
|
|
Post by dude on Jan 6, 2009 9:40:32 GMT -4
Eh..let everyone drive 75+ MPH....if properly trained and the cell phone ban passes....otherwise, more FIREY, SAUCY, CHARRED BODIES on the roadways....YUM!!
The BS that passes for driver's ed and everyone thinking they can drive down the road on cell phones yakking and text messaging don't cut it anymore. If folks paid attention we'd all be able to drive like troopers!! HEHE!
Otherwise.....we'll be stackin' deep and sellin' em cheap!!!
Get a grip....don't like the laws...then try to get em changed. Can't we all just get along??!!
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Jan 6, 2009 20:43:09 GMT -4
I tell ya, I have to be one of the luckiest people around! I read about all these traffic problems, the convoy of trucks travelling 70-80+ mph, the truckers swarming around cars and blocking people in, the dozens of trucks every morning driving in the left hand lane over the bridge but I HAVE NEVER SEEN ANY OF THIS!
I'm certainly not foolish enough to say it never happens. Heck, I'm not out on the roads 24 hrs/day. But if there is REALLY that much lawlessness and carnage on the highway and I'm missing it then maybe I should get my eyes checked!
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Jan 6, 2009 20:50:27 GMT -4
my daughter lives on the eastern shore.. when i visit i am baffled by the high speeds especially truckers.. On several occassions i was pinned in by truckers going high speeds.. i always manage, luckily, to pull over. unless you keep up speeds in excess of 70-80 miles an hour, your crushed between them.. where are troopers.. i had one cop tell me they don't want to put a mark on their drivers records because they have to make a living.. this is bull.. go get em and keep our families safe.. I'm confused. You luckily manage to pull over? If you're the slower car, why weren't you on the right hand side to begin with? Define "crushed". If you set your cruise at 55 in the right lane, you shouldn't have a problem. Mind your own speed and let people move around you. I don't see truckers going 80mph. I see them going 65 regularly, and 75 rarely.
|
|
|
Post by pete1 on Jan 10, 2009 10:33:17 GMT -4
robmoore....The speed limit is the same no matter what lane your in unless posted otherwise..........The trooper that killed the man in Easton was exonerated. The paper had him doing 88 in a 35 responding to an accident call with lights and siren. = He killed an old man, and never made it to the accident call.
|
|
|
Post by mcbeth on Jan 10, 2009 10:41:22 GMT -4
robmoore....The speed limit is the same no matter what lane your in unless posted otherwise..........The trooper that killed the man in Easton was exonerated. The paper had him doing 88 in a 35 responding to an accident call with lights and siren. = He killed an old man, and never made it to the accident call. Online news said that he was travelling 57 in a 35 with lights and siren (the gentleman who died was 88). Sorry Pete, not trying to step on your contribution.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2009 10:43:54 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by pete1 on Jan 10, 2009 11:33:27 GMT -4
mcbeth......Your correct........What was the severity of the accident call the trooper was responding to? Fatal, personal injury, fender bender?
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Jan 10, 2009 11:37:10 GMT -4
"slower traffic keep right" and the "posted speed limit" are not mutually exclusive.
I don't care if you're going 80,000mph in the fast lane. If someone comes up behind you going 80,010.....move over for them. Traffic gets pretty bad when do-gooders decide to play speed-police and hog the left lane going the posted limit. We all know the limits aren't set at the maximum safe speed. They are set below the speed people actually drive at so the state can collect an extra "tax" that they call a fine.
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Jan 10, 2009 11:56:38 GMT -4
There should be a law or three against lane sheriffs.
|
|
|
Post by pete1 on Jan 10, 2009 12:04:19 GMT -4
robmoore.........What traffic law are you violating by driving the speed limit in the left lane?
|
|
|
Post by mcbeth on Jan 10, 2009 16:42:00 GMT -4
mcbeth......Your correct........What was the severity of the accident call the trooper was responding to? Fatal, personal injury, fender bender? Dunno, but I always thought that first responders were "supposed" to follow the same laws the "rest" of us are held to. I wasn't trying to give you a hard time, Pete. Just noticed that the numbers weren't the same as what I'd read. Not saying that 57 in a 35 isn't dangerous. It could have been in response to a request for assistance to another officer, as another option. I have to say that I understand why police respond even faster if it is in response to an officer calling for back-up or assistance or whatever. If I were in their shoes nowadays, I'd want to know that my fellow officers had my back as much as I had theirs. BUT, that being said, as I was driving up to Owings Mills this a.m., watching the two troopers pass me (and yes, I was slowing down and staying to the right because I don't need the speeding ticket, haha), once they got past me and I resumed my "natural" speed (which was about 15 over the limit on 795, yes I am leaden-footed) the troopers were quickly pulling away from me. So, I understand the concern about safety, especially in the case cited here with the two octogenarians. Another thought; they may not have charged the trooper because the older gentleman pulled out into traffic and the trooper couldn't stop in time (no matter what his speed?). Not saying that makes doing almost twice the limit right, just wondering if that's why no charges?
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Jan 10, 2009 19:39:24 GMT -4
You're a grown man pete. I shoudn't have to explain the difference between "right and wrong" and "legal and illegal". There isn't anything wrong with going 65 in a 55. Illegal, yes.
If you want to hide rudeness behind MD stipulated traffic code when you could be polite and just move over, enjoy my high beams, horn, and getting cut off in return. You won't keep me behind you forever. Do it long enough and you might earn yourself a brake-check once I'm past. I'm a very courteous driver unless someone has proven they don't deserve it. Then I'm a world-class @sshole.
There is enough room on the highway for everyone. You going 55, and the rest of us going an average of 10 over that, but if you play one-man road hog, you start frustrating an increasing number of people behind you. We have enough people in this State dealing with each other without making 50-100 of them pissed off in close quarters. You may be exercising your temporary feeling of power on what you percieve is a negligent driver behind you, but think about the guy 30 cars back who has no idea what is going on, just that he is having to shift between 25 mph and 45 on the highway in evening rush hour because of the slinky effect. We've all been there, and most of the time it could have been prevented.
|
|
|
Post by pete1 on Jan 10, 2009 23:07:34 GMT -4
robmoore.............When there is more than one lane on your side of the road you can use any lane to pass. As for your brake test I suggest you do it to the M.S.P. tailgaters, I do, and I have video to prove it. When someone is on your bumper he is jeopardizing your safety, it's wrong, and against the law. The highway belongs to everyone, and the traffic laws are for everyones safety.
|
|
|
Post by pete1 on Jan 10, 2009 23:33:18 GMT -4
mcbeth..........You mention the Policeman responding to a request by a another Policeman for assistance. I am wringing another story for the Bay Times that deals with that exact issue. Today the call is a Signal 13. In the old days it was called an Assist An Officer. The last thing a footman wanted to do was to call an Assist on himself. If he did he better be bleeding when troops arrived. When the Assist went out over the air the pedal hit the metal and stayed there. Ever thing stopped until the Cop was rescued out of harms way. When your down on the ground, out numbered, and out of breath there is nothing sweeter than the sound of the siren.
|
|
|
Post by mcbeth on Jan 10, 2009 23:55:10 GMT -4
mcbeth..........You mention the Policeman responding to a request by a another Policeman for assistance. I am wringing another story for the Bay Times that deals with that exact issue. Today the call is a Signal 13. In the old days it was called an Assist An Officer. The last thing a footman wanted to do was to call an Assist on himself. If he did he better be bleeding when troops arrived. When the Assist went out over the air the pedal hit the metal and stayed there. Ever thing stopped until the Cop was rescued out of harms way. When your down on the ground, out numbered, and out of breath there is nothing sweeter than the sound of the siren. And exactly the sort of situation I was envisioning, Pete, as I don't imagine calls for back-up or assist are made lightly, and certainly expect they are responded to very seriously. Again, I have no idea what the trooper in this case was responding to, but I'd hope it wasn't something minor. All in all, a sad situation. The only thing I can think is that the reason he wasn't charged may be in part that the determination was that he wasn't found to be solely at fault. The very sad thing is that, as we age, our reflexes slow, so it's possible that the 88 year old pulled out into traffic, not realizing that another car was coming at him, or how quickly. It's one reason I worry about my dad, who's pushing 77. (Fortunately he lives up in the sticks, but close enough to civilization for me to worry).
|
|
|
Post by cheapshotartist on Jan 11, 2009 23:41:31 GMT -4
I know I was taught to drive in the lane next to the shoulder on a dual lane highway for a couple of reasons. First, if a policeman or ambulance is approaching from the rear you are suppose to pull to the edge of the road until the police car or ambulance passes. It just seems to me that if I was driving the ambulance or police car, I would not want to jump from the left lane all the way over to the right lane since the cars I was approaching is suppose to pull over to the side. That's dangerous!
The other reason I was taught to drive to the right was that if I am driving on a dual lane road line 50 or 301 and it is foggy out and someone was confused and driving the wrong way, I would have a less chance of them hitting me head on.
I guess my question is why would you drive in the left lane all the time if you know the majority of people go above the speed limit and 2, you are suppose to pull to the edge of the roadway when a ambulance or police cars approaches from behind?
Common courtesy and sense seems to be a thing of the past on the roads nowadays!
|
|