The problem is there are streets with bike lanes on both sides, so you cannot park on the street. At all. Insane.AggieOO said:
i'm ok with not parking in bike lanes. they are bike lanes, not parking spots.
the no tickets for no insurance however....
Martin Cash said:The problem is there are streets with bike lanes on both sides, so you cannot park on the street. At all. Insane.AggieOO said:
i'm ok with not parking in bike lanes. they are bike lanes, not parking spots.
the no tickets for no insurance however....
Can't find one either. Discussed on KLBJ AM all day today.Federale01 said:
Can you link an article about directing police not to ticket for lacking insurance? I can't find any news articles about it.
That's fine and well, but having insurance is a requirement of registering and operating a vehicle. Vehicles without insurance, registration, or DL's should be impounded.rather be fishing said:
I've heard/read quite a bit of discussion on the premise behind not ticketing for insurance.
The reasoning being that most people driving without insurance are doing so because they are trying to get other traffic violations cleared up with limited monetary funds, and continuously ticketing them for insurance means they can never get into good standing with DMV. Theory is to let them off so they can get to and from work, get the money to square up their existing tickets, and use the trust system and hope they get insured when they are stable.
Translation: They can't catch up with their repeated violations of the law, so let them continue to violate the law so they can get to work to make money to keep violating the law.rather be fishing said:
I've heard/read quite a bit of discussion on the premise behind not ticketing for insurance.
The reasoning being that most people driving without insurance are doing so because they are trying to get other traffic violations cleared up with limited monetary funds, and continuously ticketing them for insurance means they can never get into good standing with DMV. Theory is to let them off so they can get to and from work, get the money to square up their existing tickets, and use the trust system and hope they get insured when they are stable.
Martin Cash said:Translation: They can't catch up with their repeated violations of the law, so let them continue to violate the law so they can get to work to make money to keep violating the law.rather be fishing said:
I've heard/read quite a bit of discussion on the premise behind not ticketing for insurance.
The reasoning being that most people driving without insurance are doing so because they are trying to get other traffic violations cleared up with limited monetary funds, and continuously ticketing them for insurance means they can never get into good standing with DMV. Theory is to let them off so they can get to and from work, get the money to square up their existing tickets, and use the trust system and hope they get insured when they are stable.
BS. Most people driving without insurance have no intention of ever having insurance.
And neither does the city council who keeps passing this insanity.rather be fishing said:Martin Cash said:Translation: They can't catch up with their repeated violations of the law, so let them continue to violate the law so they can get to work to make money to keep violating the law.rather be fishing said:
I've heard/read quite a bit of discussion on the premise behind not ticketing for insurance.
The reasoning being that most people driving without insurance are doing so because they are trying to get other traffic violations cleared up with limited monetary funds, and continuously ticketing them for insurance means they can never get into good standing with DMV. Theory is to let them off so they can get to and from work, get the money to square up their existing tickets, and use the trust system and hope they get insured when they are stable.
BS. Most people driving without insurance have no intention of ever having insurance.
I'm definitely not saying that I agree with not ticketing for no insurance, but I'm also fairly certain you have no first hand knowledge of what the people this affects are thinking on the day-to-day.
I would say that choosing not to enforce anti-2A laws in a right wing county is a smart decision on behalf of the local Sheriff. It saves his deputies from potentially getting shot at and/or killed or escalating conflict and possibly killing civilians. LEO's are encouraged to deescalate situations, not escalate.wadd96 said:
Have you not been paying attention? Apparently we can ignore laws as we please today ... On both sides of the political spectrum... Think Sanctuary cities or Sheriff's that day they won't enforce anti 2A state/local laws...
Martin Cash said:The problem is there are streets with bike lanes on both sides, so you cannot park on the street. At all. Insane.AggieOO said:
i'm ok with not parking in bike lanes. they are bike lanes, not parking spots.
the no tickets for no insurance however....
Quote:
Or maybe go purchase a bicycle.
Champ Bailey said:
Why should I be ticketed for parking my car for a couple of hours in the wrong place when you are allowed to camp 5 feet away from where I parked with no penalty?
I am starting to think this is because you are an easy target as someone that owns a vehicle and 90% of the time, would pay that ticket. Handing a ticket to the homeless guy in a tent, is just adding to his/her toilet paper stash. This is all certain levels of madness, to me.Champ Bailey said:
Why should I be ticketed for parking my car for a couple of hours in the wrong place when you are allowed to camp 5 feet away from where I parked with no penalty?
