Posted on 09/12/2012 5:09:40 PM PDT by matt04
ow often have you seen this?
You're driving locally amidst heavy rain and over a prolonged period the potential for local flooding in low-lying areas near rivers and such creates potentially dangerous flood conditions.
Local traffic enforcement, police and possibly folks from the department of public works or other emergency responders move quickly to divert traffic away from problem areas and set up necessary detours for motorists safety. In some places they may be positioning police to direct traffic or setting up signs directing traffic away from problem areas.
And yet, invariably, there's always some motorists who think the directives from local traffic enforcement do not apply to them; they choose to drive through the very area they're being directed to drive away from... And when they do they endanger themselves and others.
Where's the logic? Pennsylvania is asking the same question and the state has just implemented a law specifically for motorists who ignore traffic control signs.
Act 114, signed by Governor Tom Corbett, reinforces the critical need for all drivers to obey traffic control signs. The law aims to increase safety for motorists and emergency responders in areas where flooding or other hazardous conditions exist.
...
Under the law, motorists who drive around or through signs or traffic control devices closing a road or highway due to hazardous conditions will have two points added to their driving records and be fined up to $250.
If the violation results in a need for emergency responders to be called, the fine is increased to between $250 and $500. In addition, violators will be held liable for repaying the costs of staging the emergency response.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.gasbuddy.com ...
The new revenue will allow state employees to evacuate themselves to Tahiti during inclement weather for safety.
Hey .. it’s fer’yer own good .... now move along or go to jail.
So you would just pay the fine or any rescue costs?
No, it’s actually a case of you ignore the warning, you pay for your own rescue plus a fine. Sounds reasonable
There are a few here who never miss a chance to rip on law enforcement. They must be criminals themselves.
It appears they can still fine you if you ignore the warning and don’t need rescue. To me that is just ripe for abuse by governments in need of some quick cash during a emergency. Declare a road with a partially blocked lane “closed” and wait a people drive around a downed tree branch.
Or they just want to get home to save their children or elderly relatives. This poorly thought out law could end up costing far more in money and lives than any problem it hopes to fix.
There are a few here who never miss a chance to rip on anyone who criticizes law enforcement no matter how egregious the referenced injustice. They must think that they are somehow above the law and right thinking, just like they seem to think that law enforcement is somehow above the law and right thinking. They are dead wrong on both counts.
Only if you end up a burden, and no collusive fingering to your insurance company by the governments issuing of “points” to your license.
Because of lawyers and stupid people, they can’t refuse to rescue people who ignore warnings. Too bad they can’t, it would lessen the folks in the shallow end of the gene pool
Only “if” you heeded the warning in the first place, you wouldn’t be tying up emergency ops in the first place. Be careful, I think this law is aimed at you
Really? I haven't seen that here. Most realize that there are good and bad in law enforcement, just like every other profession, and the bad should be dealt with accordingly.
Really? I haven't seen that here. Most realize that there are good and bad in law enforcement, just like every other profession, and the bad should be dealt with accordingly.
No, it’s aimed at people who should be allowed to get themselves into potentially life threatening binds that end up weeding out the stupid. I know how to evaluate risk, and what I and my machines are capable of. Society is becoming a peon nation because the politicians are able to continuously regulate and issue edicts under the political premise that it is the groups obligation to bail out the individual. That’s not constitutionally founded in the slightest, and is supposed to be the forte of charities and charitably minded individuals.
The same arguement can be said of people climbing mountains, or undertaking other dangerous activities. The state assumes some “obligation” to save people, and then they get their panties in a wad over the cost, and then end up banning it, or regulating it so heavily that it isn’t a challenge, or is reserved for the extremely wealthy.
If a yeehaw drowns trying to ford a flooded road he couldn’t evaluate properly, it’s not a reason to pass laws and enact fines. Just put up signs that say something to the effect of “Conditions suck ahead, don’t cry to us if you get maimed or killed trying to proceed”...
Looky loos and looters are deeply saddened I’m sure
ARF! :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.