Driving cross country with expired tags - how to avoid police?

Andrew Tompkins wrote:
Steve wrote:

Alohacyberian wrote:

"Steve" wrote in message
...


Alohacyberian wrote:


"Steve" wrote in message
...


Name a state where that distinction is drawn.

LOL! If you don't want to believe it, then don't. I'm not your
lackey and suggest you do your own homework. Got Google? KM

You're the one making the assertion. You clearly have no proof.



This is the Usenet, I'm not interested in "proof".

OK then, you're wrong. In no state is there a distinction drawn. I
assert that.


Steve, you're usually not this ugly. What's going on? BTW, your
assertion would be incorrect.

I know it's incorrect. I was waiting for Mr. "I don't need proof" to
actually realize that it's dumb to assert things without some level of
proof or explanation.

Oregon:

811.135 Careless driving; penalty. (1) A person commits the
offense of careless driving if the person drives any vehicle upon a
highway or other premises described in this section in a manner that
endangers or would be likely to endanger any person or property.

811.140 Reckless driving; penalty. (1) A person commits the
offense of reckless driving if the person recklessly drives a vehicle
upon a highway or other premises described in this section in a manner
that endangers the safety of persons or property.

So careless driving endangers a person or property, and reckless driving
endangers the SAFETY of same. I don't see how you draw a distinction
between the two in practice based on these definitions (and why is
"recklessly" in the definition of "reckless"?).

--
Steve Alpert
MIT - B.S. (Eng.) '05, M.S. (Transp.) '06
http://web.mit.edu/smalpert/www/roads

"Steve" wrote in message
...

So careless driving endangers a person or property, and reckless driving
endangers the SAFETY of same. I don't see how you draw a distinction
between the two in practice based on these definitions (and why is
"recklessly" in the definition of "reckless"?).


In states that make a distinction between reckless and careless driving, the
penalties are not the same. KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3600 live cameras or
visit NASA, the Vatican, the Smithsonian, the Louvre, CIA, FBI or
CNN, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards & 150 foreign languages
Visit Hawaii, Israel and mo http://keith.martin.home.att.net/

Steve wrote:
Andrew Tompkins wrote:


Oregon:

811.135 Careless driving; penalty. (1) A person commits the
offense of careless driving if the person drives any vehicle upon a
highway or other premises described in this section in a manner
that endangers or would be likely to endanger any person or
property.

811.140 Reckless driving; penalty. (1) A person commits the
offense of reckless driving if the person recklessly drives a
vehicle upon a highway or other premises described in this section
in a manner that endangers the safety of persons or property.

So careless driving endangers a person or property, and reckless
driving endangers the SAFETY of same. I don't see how you draw a
distinction between the two in practice based on these definitions
(and why is "recklessly" in the definition of "reckless"?).


I don't much see the distinction myself either, except that they are
governed by two separate statutes and have different penalties. As
for the 'recklessly' in the definition for 'reckless', 'recklessly' is
a statute-defined term with the defining statute specified in 811.140
(which you removed). Careless driving is probably a catch-all. If
you're pulling a dumb**** move which doesn't fall under the definition
of reckless driving, they can ding you for careless driving (which
isn't all that well defined).

--
--Andy
--------------------------------------------------
Andrew G. Tompkins
Software Engineer
Beaverton, OR
http://home.comcast.net/~andytom/Highways
--------------------------------------------------

On 2006-07-27 12:47:15 -0400, Don Kirkman said:

I reckon that about covers it. BTW, "wreckless" has been around for
many years, dictionaries or no.

Huh? Give an example, please.

Andrew Tompkins wrote:
Steve wrote:

Andrew Tompkins wrote:


Oregon:

811.135 Careless driving; penalty. (1) A person commits the
offense of careless driving if the person drives any vehicle upon a
highway or other premises described in this section in a manner
that endangers or would be likely to endanger any person or
property.

811.140 Reckless driving; penalty. (1) A person commits the
offense of reckless driving if the person recklessly drives a
vehicle upon a highway or other premises described in this section
in a manner that endangers the safety of persons or property.

So careless driving endangers a person or property, and reckless
driving endangers the SAFETY of same. I don't see how you draw a
distinction between the two in practice based on these definitions
(and why is "recklessly" in the definition of "reckless"?).



I don't much see the distinction myself either, except that they are
governed by two separate statutes and have different penalties. As
for the 'recklessly' in the definition for 'reckless', 'recklessly' is
a statute-defined term with the defining statute specified in 811.140
(which you removed). Careless driving is probably a catch-all. If
you're pulling a dumb**** move which doesn't fall under the definition
of reckless driving, they can ding you for careless driving (which
isn't all that well defined).

Are you then pretty much automatically charged with careless driving if
you drive recklessly, or is one exclusive of the other? I also see that
reckless driving is a misdemeanor instead of a traffic violation. And
what is ORS 161.085's definition of recklessly?

--
Steve Alpert
MIT - B.S. (Eng.) '05, M.S. (Transp.) '06
http://web.mit.edu/smalpert/www/roads

"sechumlib" wrote in message
news:2006073015292816807-sechumlib@liberalnet...
On 2006-07-27 12:47:15 -0400, Don Kirkman said:

I reckon that about covers it. BTW, "wreckless" has been around for
many years, dictionaries or no.

Huh? Give an example, please.

Also misspellings have been around for years, dictionaries or no. KM
--
(-:alohacyberian:-) At my website there are 3600 live cameras or
visit NASA, the Vatican, the Smithsonian, the Louvre, CIA, FBI or
CNN, NBA, the White House, Academy Awards & 150 foreign languages
Visit Hawaii, Israel and mo http://keith.martin.home.att.net/

Steve wrote:
Andrew Tompkins wrote:
Steve wrote:

Andrew Tompkins wrote:


Oregon:

811.135 Careless driving; penalty. (1) A person commits the
offense of careless driving if the person drives any vehicle
upon a highway or other premises described in this section in a
manner that endangers or would be likely to endanger any person
or property.

811.140 Reckless driving; penalty. (1) A person commits the
offense of reckless driving if the person recklessly drives a
vehicle upon a highway or other premises described in this
section in a manner that endangers the safety of persons or
property.

So careless driving endangers a person or property, and reckless
driving endangers the SAFETY of same. I don't see how you draw a
distinction between the two in practice based on these definitions
(and why is "recklessly" in the definition of "reckless"?).



I don't much see the distinction myself either, except that they
are governed by two separate statutes and have different
penalties. As for the 'recklessly' in the definition for
'reckless', 'recklessly' is a statute-defined term with the
defining statute specified in 811.140 (which you removed).
Careless driving is probably a catch-all. If you're pulling a
dumb**** move which doesn't fall under the definition of reckless
driving, they can ding you for careless driving (which isn't all
that well defined).

Are you then pretty much automatically charged with careless
driving if you drive recklessly, or is one exclusive of the other?


Don't know as I've never had the opportunity to be charged with
either. But my general knowledge says that they are probably
exclusive.


I also see that reckless driving is a misdemeanor instead of a
traffic violation. And what is ORS 161.085's definition of
recklessly?


CRIMINAL LIABILITY

161.085 Definitions with respect to culpability. As used in
chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971, and ORS 166.635, unless the context
requires otherwise:

...

(9) "Recklessly," when used with respect to a result or to a
circumstance described by a statute defining an offense, means that a
person is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and
unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance
exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that disregard
thereof constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a
reasonable person would observe in the situation.

...

--
--Andy
--------------------------------------------------
Andrew G. Tompkins
Software Engineer
Beaverton, OR
http://home.comcast.net/~andytom/Highways
--------------------------------------------------

On 2006-07-30 15:29:30 -0400, sechumlib said:

On 2006-07-27 12:47:15 -0400, Don Kirkman said:

I reckon that about covers it. BTW, "wreckless" has been around for
many years, dictionaries or no.

Huh? Give an example, please.

I'll second that. The dodos who have been defending "wreckless" are
ignorant. It is not now, and never has been, a legitimate word or one
that is commonly used. Moreover, their meaning of it, if indeed it were
a legitimate word, is directly opposite to the meaning it would
logically have.

These people want to claim the right to be ignorant and illiterate, and
have everyone else excuse and understand them anyway. Doesn't work that
way.

On 2006-07-30 15:29:30 -0400, sechumlib said:

On 2006-07-27 12:47:15 -0400, Don Kirkman said:

I reckon that about covers it. BTW, "wreckless" has been around for
many years, dictionaries or no.

Huh? Give an example, please.

Oops! I've been out of town, and after coming back I seconded my own
comment. Dumb! But not as dumb as the people trying to defend
"wreckless".

I further note that they haven't given any examples, as I requested.

On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 23:54:48 GMT, sechumlib
wrote:

On 2006-07-30 15:29:30 -0400, sechumlib said:

On 2006-07-27 12:47:15 -0400, Don Kirkman said:

I reckon that about covers it. BTW, "wreckless" has been around for
many years, dictionaries or no.

Huh? Give an example, please.

I'll second that. The dodos who have been defending "wreckless" are
ignorant. It is not now, and never has been, a legitimate word or one
that is commonly used. Moreover, their meaning of it, if indeed it were
a legitimate word, is directly opposite to the meaning it would
logically have.

These people want to claim the right to be ignorant and illiterate, and
have everyone else excuse and understand them anyway. Doesn't work that
way.

In English you can always create new words by using standard
prefixes and suffixes. Putting "-less" at the end of a root word
is quite legitimate, and certainly easily understood by anyone
listening so long as the "w" is evident. In any case "wreckless"
is meant to be in the manner of a pun or a bit of wordplay.

Incidentally, the word "wreckless" does appear in the second
edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, so will you please shut
up about it, already.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *