Vehicle tint laws for civilians vs government vehicles

[GunRelated]

Did you take issue with any or all of what she said?

Well, I'm sure that we can agree that context is important. Maybe she is only referring to when her official duties permit her to exceed the speed limit and warrant her to demand control over the highway. I am therefore required to give the benefit of doubt, and to that end, I would not disagree with her statement.

But I must also factor in the attitude and presentation of her message. Taking this into account, she puts off an attitude or sentiment of - I'm privileged and if you don't do what I want, I will find a way to make you regret it -. Seemingly, this attitude is not a good fit for the 'to protect and serve' banner. If she is so confident as to say that she is sure that she speaks for most other officers, I can only take her word for it. Maybe, the other officers that agree with her attitude or statement were just simping, she is somewhat attractive. But, to this end, I disagree entirely with the whole thing.

 

[T-boy]

I think we can all agree that she talks extremely fast.

 

[thperez1972]

Well, I'm sure that we can agree that context is important. Maybe she is only referring to when her official duties permit her to exceed the speed limit and warrant her to demand control over the highway. I am therefore required to give the benefit of doubt, and to that end, I would not disagree with her statement.

But I must also factor in the attitude and presentation of her message. Taking this into account, she puts off an attitude or sentiment of - I'm privileged and if you don't do what I want, I will find a way to make you regret it -. Seemingly, this attitude is not a good fit for the 'to protect and serve' banner. If she is so confident as to say that she is sure that she speaks for most other officers, I can only take her word for it. Maybe, the other officers that agree with her attitude or statement were just simping, she is somewhat attractive. But, to this end, I disagree entirely with the whole thing.

So this is the second time you pointed out she said she speaks for all officers. I didn't think I needed to address that but it turns out I do. Person A can say they speak for person B. It may be true or it may not be true. Without the affirmation from B that A does, in fact, speak for B, believing that A must speak for B simply because A said it (their words, not yours) is a logical fallacy. That conclusion cannot be proven from the information provided. Based on your previous posts, you appear to mistrust cops. To now believe an unsubstantiated claim from a cop simply because they made the claim appears to be rather self serving.

If a car pulls up behind another car, it is usually because the car coming up from behind is driving faster than the car in front. The can in front could move out of the way or not. Maybe the front car will be turning left soon. Or maybe it doesn't move because "it's ma right!" BTW, in Louisiana, it's not one's right. A driver in the left lane shall not drive at a speed slower than any vehicle traveling to its right on the same roadway. They also shall not travel at the same speed as the vehicle in the right lane and impede the flow of traffic.

When the car in back is a police car, a number of people hit the brakes when they notice the cop to make sure they are not speeding. Or they think moving out of the way is some sign they are doing something wrong. Or "it's ma right!" (See above.) If they do move out of the way, the police car will not be behind a new car. That new car might hit the brakes. Or they may move over. Or they may not because "It's ma right!" (See above.) If they do move over, the police car will now be behind a new car. I hope you can see how this is going. They cars that stay in the way are increasing the cops' response times. Isn't that important?

What do you do when you notice you're in the way of a police car?

 

[GunRelated]

So this is the second time you pointed out she said she speaks for all officers. I didn't think I needed to address that but it turns out I do. Person A can say they speak for person B. It may be true or it may not be true. Without the affirmation from B that A does, in fact, speak for B, believing that A must speak for B simply because A said it (their words, not yours) is a logical fallacy. That conclusion cannot be proven from the information provided. Based on your previous posts, you appear to mistrust cops. To now believe an unsubstantiated claim from a cop simply because they made the claim appears to be rather self serving.

If a car pulls up behind another car, it is usually because the car coming up from behind is driving faster than the car in front. The can in front could move out of the way or not. Maybe the front car will be turning left soon. Or maybe it doesn't move because "it's ma right!" BTW, in Louisiana, it's not one's right. A driver in the left lane shall not drive at a speed slower than any vehicle traveling to its right on the same roadway. They also shall not travel at the same speed as the vehicle in the right lane and impede the flow of traffic.

When the car in back is a police car, a number of people hit the brakes when they notice the cop to make sure they are not speeding. Or they think moving out of the way is some sign they are doing something wrong. Or "it's ma right!" (See above.) If they do move out of the way, the police car will not be behind a new car. That new car might hit the brakes. Or they may move over. Or they may not because "It's ma right!" (See above.) If they do move over, the police car will now be behind a new car. I hope you can see how this is going. They cars that stay in the way are increasing the cops' response times. Isn't that important?

What do you do when you notice you're in the way of a police car?

First of all, the people who hit their brakes when they see a police officer will always be on my **** list. I would argue between them and the officers themselves, they cause many accidents that would have never happened without an officers presence.

As for me personally, I don't change anything if an officer is behind me, I typically have zero reason to. If I'm in the left lane and someone is coming up behind me, I merge when I am safely able, officer or not.

Years ago, I worked in Dow and carpooled with my Dad. I was driving on the way to work one morning while my dad was resting in the passenger seat. I was in the left lane, doing the speed limit, maybe 5 over at most, passing people slower traffic in the right lane. Next thing I know, I am getting pulled over. The guy literally pulled me over to tell me to get out of the left lane. My dad had started to fuss, thinking I was speeding or something. I honestly never even noticed the guy behind me very long, nor did I have the safe opportunity to merge before he hit his lights.
So, what is that lane for? Is it only for people who speed? Is it for law enforcement only? Is it only ok to drive in the left lane when an officer is not around?

Also, I addressed the first part of you response in my original post with the video. I said I have to give her benefit of doubt, at least to some degree, which would include the other officers she speaks for.

 

[thperez1972]

First of all, the people who hit their brakes when they see a police officer will always be on my **** list. I would argue between them and the officers themselves, they cause many accidents that would have never happened without an officers presence.

As for me personally, I don't change anything if an officer is behind me, I typically have zero reason to. If I'm in the left lane and someone is coming up behind me, I merge when I am safely able, officer or not.

Years ago, I worked in Dow and carpooled with my Dad. I was driving on the way to work one morning while my dad was resting in the passenger seat. I was in the left lane, doing the speed limit, maybe 5 over at most, passing people slower traffic in the right lane. Next thing I know, I am getting pulled over. The guy literally pulled me over to tell me to get out of the left lane. My dad had started to fuss, thinking I was speeding or something. I honestly never even noticed the guy behind me very long, nor did I have the safe opportunity to merge before he hit his lights.
So, what is that lane for? Is it only for people who speed? Is it for law enforcement only? Is it only ok to drive in the left lane when an officer is not around?

Also, I addressed the first part of you response in my original post with the video. I said I have to give her benefit of doubt, at least to some degree, which would include the other officers she speaks for.

The context in both mentions are pretty specific, her saying she speaks for all officers. "Remember, she speaks for most other officers. Her words, not mine." "If she is so confident as to say that she is sure that she speaks for most other officers, I can only take her word for it." I can't remember any other time you so blindly took the word of an officer in other circumstances. Rather, when someone mentions something positive about officers, you, and some others, are quick to pick apart that collective group by providing examples of officers the positive information does not apply to.

I obviously was not there when you got pulled over and the only information I have to go on is the limited information you provided. Perhaps you missed an opportunity or opportunities to move out of the passing lane, thus impeding other vehicles that were traveling in the same lane and behind your vehicle. Check out LA R.S. 32:71. The left lane is for anyone who is passing slower vehicles while not impeding traffic behind them.

 

[GunRelated]

The context in both mentions are pretty specific, her saying she speaks for all officers. "Remember, she speaks for most other officers. Her words, not mine." "If she is so confident as to say that she is sure that she speaks for most other officers, I can only take her word for it." I can't remember any other time you so blindly took the word of an officer in other circumstances. Rather, when someone mentions something positive about officers, you, and some others, are quick to pick apart that collective group by providing examples of officers the positive information does not apply to.

I obviously was not there when you got pulled over and the only information I have to go on is the limited information you provided. Perhaps you missed an opportunity or opportunities to move out of the passing lane, thus impeding other vehicles that were traveling in the same lane and behind your vehicle. Check out LA R.S. 32:71. The left lane is for anyone who is passing slower vehicles while not impeding traffic behind them.

I don't think I've ever picked apart any genuine, good story or actions from law enforcement. Maybe I have, but I can't recall doing so.

If someone is doing the speed limit, using the left lane to pass slower traffic, please explain to me how that person is required to yield to another vehicle that is, or wants to break the law by traveling over the speed limit? This is not something I do, at least not purposely, but it does beg the question.

 

[thperez1972]

I don't think I've ever picked apart any genuine, good story or actions from law enforcement. Maybe I have, but I can't recall doing so.

If someone is doing the speed limit, using the left lane to pass slower traffic, please explain to me how that person is required to yield to another vehicle that is, or wants to break the law by traveling over the speed limit? This is not something I do, at least not purposely, but it does beg the question.

The "get out of the way" law and the speed limit law are separate. It's possible to be in compliance with one while still violating the other.

 

[MOTOR51]

I don't think I've ever picked apart any genuine, good story or actions from law enforcement. Maybe I have, but I can't recall doing so.

If someone is doing the speed limit, using the left lane to pass slower traffic, please explain to me how that person is required to yield to another vehicle that is, or wants to break the law by traveling over the speed limit? This is not something I do, at least not purposely, but it does beg the question.

So from reading all of your posts for some time,It seems that you are an anti government, conspiracy theorists who wants to legalize drugs and more alarmingly, you hog the left lane on the interstate. I couldn’t make up a worse person


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[MOTOR51]

The "get out of the way" law and the speed limit law are separate. It's possible to be in compliance with one while still violating the other.

I wish people could understand this. I would guess at least 75% of road rage incidents start by people cruising in the left lane. Lord help if they are from Texas, they will not get over.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[GunRelated]

I wish people could understand this. I would guess at least 75% of road rage incidents start by people cruising in the left lane. Lord help if they are from Texas, they will not get over.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

There is no need, everyone in Texas drives 95mph

 

[GunRelated]

The "get out of the way" law and the speed limit law are separate. It's possible to be in compliance with one while still violating the other.

This makes no sense to me, although I understand the argument presented.

If there is traffic moving slower than the speed limit, in the right lanes, and someone is going the speed limit in the left lane, passing slower traffic, how is it that they are in non compliance, when they are following all traffic laws, by not confirming to the vehicle behind them that wants to break the law by driving over the speed limit.

Again, and I hate to burst motor's bubble here, but I actually don't do this. I think people not merging out of the left lane when possible is everyone's peeve.

But you can't have a posted speed limit, then cater to drivers that want to go faster than the law allows, by demanding that the person who is actually following the law move out of the way.

 

[thperez1972]

Lord help if they are from Texas, they will not get over.

People from Texas and white women in Suburbans or Tahoes.

 

[thperez1972]

This makes no sense to me, although I understand the argument presented.

If there is traffic moving slower than the speed limit, in the right lanes, and someone is going the speed limit in the left lane, passing slower traffic, how is it that they are in non compliance, when they are following all traffic laws, by not confirming to the vehicle behind them that wants to break the law by driving over the speed limit.

Again, and I hate to burst motor's bubble here, but I actually don't do this. I think people not merging out of the left lane when possible is everyone's peeve.

But you can't have a posted speed limit, then cater to drivers that want to go faster than the law allows, by demanding that the person who is actually following the law move out of the way.

When a car in the left lane is able to move to the right lane, the law says he must do so. According to the law, it doesn't matter what speed they are driving or what other cars are on the road.

 

[MOTOR51]

There is no need, everyone in Texas drives 95mph

Not when they come to Louisiana.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[GunRelated]

So from reading all of your posts for some time,It seems that you are an anti government, conspiracy theorists who wants to legalize drugs and more alarmingly, you hog the left lane on the interstate. I couldn’t make up a worse person


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I'm not actually anti government, I'm just pro 'everybody stay in their lane'

 

[thperez1972]

I'm not actually anti government, I'm just pro 'everybody stay in their lane'

You seem to want to change lanes to the one whose cars have their windows tinted.

 

[AustinBR]

Speaking of window tinting, I keep thinking about getting a 80% tint on my front windshield.

Ready, go!

 

[GunRelated]

Speaking of window tinting, I keep thinking about getting a 80% tint on my front windshield.

Ready, go!

I think you are pissing in the wind. Might as well go for 35% or 20%. If it ain't risky, it ain't worth having. If I can see you, it ain't worth having. If you can see out of it at night without 20k headlights, what's the point?

 

[AustinBR]

I think you are pissing in the wind. Might as well go for 35% or 20%. If it ain't risky, it ain't worth having. If I can see you, it ain't worth having. If you can see out of it at night without 20k headlights, what's the point?

I'm kind of just poking the bear.

But I'd get a ceramic tint that knocks down the amount of heat that comes in, but not much of the visible light.

 

[GunRelated]

I'm kind of just poking the bear.

But I'd get a ceramic tint that knocks down the amount of heat that comes in, but not much of the visible light.

I had that feeling, that's why you got that response