FOR THOSE WHO EVER WANTED TO DRIVE CROSS COUNTRY

     EVER THOUGHT ABOUT DRIVING CROSS COUNTRY?

road-trip

***GIVEN THE CURRENT GAS PRICES- CONSIDER MOVING YOUR PLANS TO MAKE THAT JOURNEY NOW!

IF YOU HAVE BEEN THINKING ABOUT THIS TRIP AND PLANNING THIS TRIP OVER THE YEARS, I’M SURE FUEL COSTS WERE CONSIDERED IN THE BUDGET PLANNING. THE SIGNIFICANT LOWER GAS  PRICES CURRENTLY COMPARED TO WHAT THEY HAVE BEEN FOR A GOOD AMOUNT OF TIME, I THINK AFTER A RECALCULATION YOU WILL SEE THE MAJOR DISCOUNT BEING OFFERED RIGHT NOW (MAYBY NOT MAJOR) LETS SEE-

AVERAGE 3K MILES COAST TO COAST + RETURN – 6KMILES EASILY

SAY YOU WERE DRIVING A SUV OR WHATEVER WITH AVERAGE (HIGHWAY/CITY) 25MMPG ****FAIR ENOUGH?

HOPE I DID THIS CORRECT LOL      —— 6K MILES @ 25MPG = 240 GALLONS @$4per gallon  =$960  —— $2.50per gallon $600 ( I think thats how to equate…. # MILES./.MPG x $gas)

WELL AFTER ALL THAT IT WASN’T AS MAJOR AS I THOUGHT THE SAVING WOULD BE. STILL ENDED UP WITH $300 – $400 SAVINGS I’M SURE YOU CAN FIGURE OUT SOMEWAY TO SPEND IT OVER THE LONG LONG DRIVE. HEY YOU MIGHT EVEN USE THAT TO PURCHASE AIRLINE TICKET TO AVOID THE DRIVE BACK IF YOU ARE IN THE POSITION PSYCHOLOGICALLY CAN’T HANDLE BEING IN A CAR ANYMORE. MAYBE YOU HAD A SIGNIFICANT OTHER ALONG ON THIS TRIP, AND YOU NEED PURCHASE AN AIRLINE TICKET TO SEPARATE BEFORE YOU KILL EACH OTHER LOL .. (YOU NEVER KNOW-FUNNY THINGS HAPPEN SPENDING THAT MUCH TIME IN A CAR…) BUT, OTHER THAN THAT IT LOOKS LIKE SOMETHING GREAT TO EXPERIENCE.

DO YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO DRIVE?

SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT.. OR NOT….BUT, JUST IN “CASE” HAHA

HERE IS AN EXAMPLE OF—-

WHAT THE POLICE POWER APPLIES TO- (DRIVING) – Since no notice is given to people applying for driver’s (or other) licenses that they have a perfect right to use the roads without any permission, and that they surrender valuable rights by taking on the regulation system of licensure,—- the state has committed a massive construction of fraud. When any person is told that they must have a license in order to use the public roads and highways, The license, being a legal contract under which the state is empowered with policing powers, and is only valid when the licensee takes on the burdens of the contract and bargains away his or her rights KNOWINGLY, INTENTIONALLY , AND VOLUNTARILY. Few know that the STATE DRIVERS LICENSE is a contract WITHOUT WHICH THE POLICE ARE POWERLESS TO REGULATE  the people’s actions or activities!!!!!!!!

Few (IF ANY) licensees intentionally surrender THESE RIGHTS. They are told that they must have the license. This is CLEARLY not the case. WOULD ANYONE voluntarily surrender complete liberty and accept any set regulations if given the option? (OUR RIGHT) “The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.” Edmund Burke, (1784) Each law relating to the use of police power must ask three questions: “Is there threatened danger? Does a regulation involve a Constitutional Right? Is this regulation reasonable?” People vs. Smith, 108 Am.St.Rep. 715; Bovier’s Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., under “Police Power” When applying these three questions to the statute in question, some very important issues emerge. First, “is there a threatened danger”? SO, IS the individual using his automobile on the public highways or roads, in the ordinary course of life and business a threat? The answer is No! There is nothing inherently dangerous in the use of an automobile when it is properly being operated. The speed, and noise are easily controlled , under a competent operator, so it is as harmless on the road as a horse and buggy. It is the manner of using the automobile, and that alone, which threatens the safety of the public. The ability to stop quickly and to respond quickly to guidance would seem to make the automobile one of the least dangerous conveyances. ACTUALLY, EVEN SAFER!! YOU CAN CONTROL A MACHINE WITH PRECISION, BUT, NOT A ANIMAL!(See Yale Law Journal, December, 1905.) “The automobile is not inherently dangerous.” Cohens vs. Meadow, 89 SE 876; Blair vs. Broadmore, 93 SE 532 To deprive any persons of the Right to use the road in the ordinary course of life and/or business, because one MIGHT, IN THE FUTURE, BECOME DANGEROUS, would be a deprivation not only of the Right to travel, but also the Right to due process. Next; does the regulation involve a Constitutional Right? This question has already been addressed and answered …… YES!!!!!! The third question is the most important in this case. “Is this regulation reasonable?” The answer is No! Although the Fourteenth Amendment does not interfere with state and police power they choose to enforce, that power must be exercised so as not to invade unreasonably the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution, it is established beyond question that every state power, including the police power, is limited by the Fourteenth Amendment (and others). Moreover, the ultimate test of the propriety of police power regulations must be found in the Fourteenth Amendment, since it operates to limit the field of the police power to the extent of preventing the enforcement of statutes in denial of Rights that the Amendment protects. (See Parks vs. State, 64 NE 682.) “With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority.” Connolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848; O’Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887 “The police power of the state must be exercised in subordination to the provisions of the U.S. Constitution.” Bacahanan vs. Wanley, 245 US 60; Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. vs. State Highway Commission, 294 US 613 “It is well settled that the Constitutional Rights protected from invasion by the police power, include Rights safeguarded both by express and implied prohibitions in the Constitutions.” Tiche vs. Osborne, 131 A. 60 “As a rule, fundamental limitations of regulations under the police power are found in the spirit of the Constitutions, not in the letter, although they are just as efficient as if expressed in the clearest language.” Mehlos vs. Milwaukee, 146 NW 882 As it applies in the instant case, the language of the Fifth Amendment is clear: “No person shall be … deprived of Life, Liberty, or Property without due process of law.” As has been shown, the courts at all levels have firmly established an absolute Right to travel. In the instant case, the state, by applying commercial statutes to all entities, natural and artificial persons alike, has deprived this free and natural person of the Right of Liberty, without cause and without due process of law. Thus the legislature does not have the power to abrogate the Citizen’s Right to travel upon the public roads, by passing legislation forcing the citizen to waive his Right and convert that Right into a privilege. Furthermore, we have previously established that this “privilege” has been defined as applying only to those who are “conducting business in the streets” or “operating for-hire vehicles.” The legislature has attempted (by legislative fiat) to deprive the Citizen of his Right to use the roads in the ordinary course of life and business, without affording the Citizen the safeguard of due process of law. This has been accomplished under supposed powers of regulation.

Are you intoxicated? It’s either a Rhetorical question or not so simple (analytical argument)

NO ONE SHOULD BE DRIVING IF THEY ARE INTOXICATED! I HAVE NO RIGHT TO STOP SOMEONE WHO CHOOSES TO HARM THEMSELVES(PLEASE, NOTE….THAT IS A SEPARATE TOPIC OF CONCERN THAT IS NOT ADDRESSED IN THIS POST) WHAT IS FOCUSED ON – IS THAT IT’S NOT ALRIGHT TO PUT OTHERS IN DANGER

With that being said, I’ll now go into something that needs clarification and revisions to prevent inaccurate or unnoticed applications

Let’s start with the general association of BAC -Blood Alcohol Content with Intoxication…. From my understanding, this is not a logical or proper association. BAC might we an indicator to suspect intoxication, but in not way does a scientific calculation of alcohol % in the blood correlate to defining a physiological condition. Intoxication refers to function of mental & motor skills being (intoxicated) (impaired) (influenced) or any other “change” to “normal” ability of function. *I’m almost positive that LAW defines it close to the way I have just explained…..

—Here is some of my concerns

1-Think of someone you know that is “tipsy” after a glass of wine. Now if they are around 160 pounds and had 1 glass of wine they would have a BAC much lower than .05….. I’m going to say likely .03 tops…… SO THAT MEANS THAT A “TIPSY” PERSON HAS BEEN LEGALLY OK TO DRIVE BY REFERENCE TO BAC.

2-WHY ISN’T A OVERTIRED DRIVER WHO IS FIGHTING SLEEP AND POSSIBLY FALLING ASLEEP WHILE DRIVING CHARGED WITH SIMILAR CRIMINAL CHARGES? THEY ARE JUST AS DANGEROUS IF NOT MORE

3- WELL—- 1 &  2 IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME—-

DANGEROUS AND FUNCTIONAL IMPAIRED DRIVERS SHOULD NOT BE DRIVING! WE SHOULD START TO INCLUDE OTHER “UNRECOGNIZED” BY LAW, YET EQUALLY IF NOT MORE DANGEROUS.

THERE IS WAY TOO MANY PEOPLE “LICENSED” TO DRIVE, THAT SHOULD NOT BE ! EVEN SOBER, THEY ARE A DANGER TO OTHERS, AND LACK THE ABILITY TO SAFLEY OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE.

“Yield at Green” This is what started it all!!!

It all came down to a road trip where I came to a main intersection which had traffic lights appropriate for a main road intersection including the turning lane having a light as well. Should be simple……. Than I notice a sign up on the traffic light saying “Yield at Green”. And this is not for the turning lane, this is for regular traffic passing through the intersection.

In case its not clear let me remind you that this is an intersection where lets say road(1) goes east/west intersects road(2) goes north/south with a 55mph speed limit. When east/west traffic has a green light the north/south traffic is red….. Not only is this common but has become common sense that when approaching an intersection that has a red/yellow/green traffic light that alternating traffic is guided by the same. It would make things very eventful if everyone had a green light… wouldn’t it?

Now that we covered basic traffic safety logic, I will go back to the sign “yield at green”

Where to begin?

Start with obvious- Green means go, Yellow means yield, and Red means stop unless they changed that without notifying anyone! If they now want you to “yield at green” what are my instructions for the yellow light?

Yield at green, initiate stop at yellow, and full stop at red? Why bother with the yellow light at all than? Save electricity and some lightbulbs and change the rules to slow down at green and stop when red. No wonder there are so many accidents… Half these people can’t drive to begin with and now your throwing this at them. Leaves these people alone and stop confusing them! They have a hard enough time putting their shoes on in the morning, the last thing they need is a new conflicting traffic instruction. Than again, I doubt these motor morons would even notice the sign so basically its there to torment observant people for a good laugh. Remember these are the same motorists that drive all the way to the end of an on ramp come to a complete stop and wonder why they aren’t able to merge onto the highway of cars traveling over 50mph from their dead stop position…….

I had to rationalize this for myself wether right or wrong. Just for peace of mind and to make my reason probably much more logical than why it was put in place. Here goes:

Given the massive increase of traffic cameras at intersections in my area issuing tickets, people have become unpredictable at intersections. Yellow used to mean speed up or even coast through (after all , opposing traffic has a delay after your light turns red before they get a green). Now the yellow light induces panic and confusion to the driver…. They had the habit of speeding up but now that camera fear causes a last minute slamming on the break…. Probably causing more accidents than someone running a red light!.

MY RATIONAL UNDERSTANDING is this state that didn’t have traffic cameras yet and was being proactive by training drivers to be ready and prepared to stop at the yellow, not the red, so when cameras do go up they have already been conditioned…..THAT’S HOW I HAVE RATIONALIZED IT LOL