• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NYC mayor's SUV caught breaking traffic laws

Wiseone said:
The point I'm trying to make is that its difficult to complain that he's doing something that other people can't do or that he's getting away with something when its something just about everyone does and frequently get away with.
Click to expand...

Generally speaking, I'd say you have a point. However, DeBlasio recently kicked off a campaign to improve pedestrian safety in NYC. As a result, not only have drivers been getting tickets for things like speeding, but pedestrians have also been getting tickets for jaywalking (which in NYC, is almost a lifestyle) and that's gotten a decent amount of media attention locally.

It's just bad PR to be promoting pedestrian safety while being a danger to pedestrians. He's not going to lose his job over this, but it just does not look good. It's the kind of thing that, if repeated, can create a truly damaging perception of a candidate.
 
specklebang said:
Apparently I'm not the only ASS who disapproved. I am a cautious driver. I've never driven back East. Honestly Wiseone, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. That's pretty much all I said. So, thanks for the moral support:)
Click to expand...

I never claimed you was in anyway unique... ;)

I have driven back east, I can tell you it is a whole 'nother mindset.

But at least admit you have to ASS-u-me the Mayor knew the traffic rules were being broken in order to tut-tut him on this.
 
notquiteright said:
I never claimed you was in anyway unique... ;)

I have driven back east, I can tell you it is a whole 'nother mindset.

But at least admit you have to ASS-u-me the Mayor knew the traffic rules were being broken in order to tut-tut him on this.
Click to expand...

That doesn't fly with me.

If you're in a SUV driving through a residential area where there are plenty of stop signs and the SUV never actually stops moving, it doesn't take a burst of genius to realize that you must be blowing through stop signs.

And then there's the "Chris Christie factor" - even if he didn't know about it, he's the guy who's held responsible.
 
opendebate said:
Yeah and you know what it's say? It's saying "nobody gives a ****"
Click to expand...

yet you should. if you were caught doing this you would have a suspended license, thousands in fines and probably some jail time as well.
yet because it is the mayor or part of the mayor's party nothing happens.

whoever was driving violated the law and is subject to the same laws as everyone else. being mayor or the mayor's driver doesn't give you special privilege to do what you want.

whether he was knew or didn't know is irrelevant. the person driving did know and should be held accountable. driving like that puts the public at risk.
 
sangha said:
That doesn't fly with me. If you're in a SUV driving through a residential area where there are plenty of stop signs and the SUV never actually stops moving, it doesn't take a burst of genius to realize that you must be blowing through stop signs. And then there's the "Chris Christie factor" - even if he didn't know about it, he's the guy who's held responsible.
Click to expand...

Hmmm so the news crews says 2 stop signs and you say many and 'blowing through'. Either they stopped for many of your many or there were not that many... Did the news crew say the SUV never stopped or did a rolling stop or just 'blew through'?

Now if you are a tourista gawking out the window of your first limo ride I can see you noting stop signs and such, but if you have position papers to read, communications to make, agendas to check... you might not be gawking out the window all that much... ;)

WAAAAAAY too much ASS-u-ming going on here.

Held responsible- now that covers a lot of nothing much... just what should he or for that matter Christie do?
 
notquiteright said:
Hmmm so the news crews says 2 stop signs and you say many and 'blowing through'. Either they stopped for many of your many or there were not that many... Did the news crew say the SUV never stopped or did a rolling stop or just 'blew through'?

Now if you are a tourista gawking out the window of your first limo ride I can see you noting stop signs and such, but if you have position papers to read, communications to make, agendas to check... you might not be gawking out the window all that much... ;)

WAAAAAAY too much ASS-u-ming going on here.

Held responsible- now that covers a lot of nothing much... just what should he or for that matter Christie do?
Click to expand...

it doesn't matter if it was 1 stop sign running a stop sign is against the law. speeding 45 in a 30 is enough to have to appear before a judge. the person driving should be held accountable.
 
ludin said:
it doesn't matter if it was 1 stop sign running a stop sign is against the law. speeding 45 in a 30 is enough to have to appear before a judge. the person driving should be held accountable.
Click to expand...

First, I was just trying to get the 'story' straight, some posters tend to ahhh create facts, just want a bit of accuracy.

So let's start on your post... it isn't 'a law'. It is a civil code, a traffic violation. Many don't notice the difference but there is one. Break a law and you get cuffs and a look inside the local jail. Violate a civil code and it's a citation- fail to pay and appear on the date listed- NOW you break the law.

Next the 'doesn't matter the number' reminds me of 'if it saves one child'... it does matter.

Ummm 15 over doesn't require an appearance, it is a violation. You can pay the fine without ever appearing before a judge. Most cops will write down a ticket to under 10- much smaller fine, ask me how I know... ;)

On the last part I agree, unless someone has proof the Mayor ordered the driver to ignore speed limits, stop signs and spit on the sidewalk- it is on the driver. I have long said cops need to obey ALL traffic codes, speeding is one of the most common violations cops do.
 
ludin said:
...........
Click to expand...

yet you should.
Click to expand...
only because you assign it a meaning it most likely doesn't even have. How do we know he even realized what they were doing? He wasn't behind the wheel of the car I don't see how it was his fault.

Even if he was driving the car I wouldn't make any huge leaps to character judgment that people here are so eager to do. I just think it's ridiculous and it has nothing to do with his party affiliation.

When Clinton and that ML scandal came up, I couldn't have cared less about that either.

Making a deal out of this is a predatory behavior on the part of the public as far as I'm concerned.
 
notquiteright said:
I never claimed you was in anyway unique... ;)

I have driven back east, I can tell you it is a whole 'nother mindset.

But at least admit you have to ASS-u-me the Mayor knew the traffic rules were being broken in order to tut-tut him on this.
Click to expand...

The man was sitting in the front passenger seat. How can you say he didn't know the driver was blowing through stop signs?
 
Mason66 said:
You think the Mayor has no say on what his driver does expecially when he is sitting in the front passenger seat.
Click to expand...

What I think is that the officer was driving exactly as he was taught to drive when working the Mayor's security detail, and that the Mayor was letting the officer do his job. I think that if I'm wrong about the first part, then the officer's behavior should be addressed by the police department.

What I think is that it is a ridiculous waste of time to follow the mayor around and tape his movements until you find something that you can turn into a scandal and/or a story.

I also think that if a news crew followed around people like you and I without our knowledge, they'd eventually catch us doing things we'd rather not see on the nightly news.
 
Mason66 said:
The man was sitting in the front passenger seat. How can you say he didn't know the driver was blowing through stop signs?
Click to expand...

Ummm there isn't any proof the Mayor was in the front seat, the reporter claims he was (we suddenly love the lying lame stream media???) but offers no proof, none of him leaving the speech, none arriving at the office, just a rather quick 'out take' of video. The reporter was rolling her eyes over this, it appears she had an agenda- which is fine but i'd like to see some proof beyond a claim he was in the front seat.

Now past having a good head shake over this, just what should be done?
 
specklebang said:
I never blow through a stop sign even if there is no visible traffic. Within reason, the whole system functions on "contract". That is why nothing but a painted line keeps you from a head on collision. It seems to me that if you are promoting "contract", you should be observing it.
Click to expand...

Without arguing whether or not the mayor of New York City needs an official security detail (because I have no idea if he does or if he doesn't and I have no interest in a discussion of the subject), if he is to have an official security detail then it's probably going to break some of the conventions of safe driving in order to do its job.

specklebang said:
Let me put it this way. This guy is publicly arguing for traffic safety. Now, since he obviously doesn't believe in it, how much influence will his impassioned pleas result in? Mission Unaccomplished.
Click to expand...

I don't think this means the mayor doesn't believe in public safety any more than I think that having an armed security detail would would mean that he doesn't believe in gun control.

For that matter, saying the mayor doesn't believe in public safety is like saying the cops don't believe in public safety because they speed and blow traffic control devices when they're on an emergency call.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
What I think is that the officer was driving exactly as he was taught to drive when working the Mayor's security detail, and that the Mayor was letting the officer do his job. I think that if I'm wrong about the first part, then the officer's behavior should be addressed by the police department.

What I think is that it is a ridiculous waste of time to follow the mayor around and tape his movements until you find something that you can turn into a scandal and/or a story.

I also think that if a news crew followed around people like you and I without our knowledge, they'd eventually catch us doing things we'd rather not see on the nightly news.
Click to expand...

I don't think we would have even heard about this if the Mayor hadn't just started his push to ticket the common people for traffic violations and pedestrians for jay walking.
 
Mason66 said:
I don't think we would have even heard about this if the Mayor hadn't just started his push to ticket the common people for traffic violations and pedestrians for jay walking.
Click to expand...

Whether or not he's pushing the police department to ticket people has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not his security detail is driving appropriately. The two have nothing to do with each other. Any attempt to compare them is a false equivalence.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Whether or not he's pushing the police department to ticket people has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not his security detail is driving appropriately. The two have nothing to do with each other. Any attempt to compare them is a false equivalence.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. You are equating his detail to a police officer driving to a code 3 call. A police officer is not allowed to break traffic laws unless he is on his way to a call. The Mayors detail have no reason to break any traffic laws unless his vehicle was being followed and the Mayor was in danger.

There was no danger in this instance so excusing their behavior is out of line.
 
Mason66 said:
No it isn't.
Click to expand...

Yes, it absolutely is. Duly appointed government officials are authorized in specific circumstances to do to specific things that are specifically forbidden to the rest of us under color of law. That they do these things doesn't mean that they are in any way privileged or that their actions mean that they don't care about the law or that the law doesn't matter.

Mason66 said:
There was no danger in this instance so excusing their behavior is out of line.
Click to expand...

Getting a protectee out of a dangerous situation is only part of the responsibility of a security detail -- the rest of that responsibility involves reducing the likelihood of such a situation in the first place.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Yes, it absolutely is. Duly appointed government officials are authorized in specific circumstances to do to specific things that are specifically forbidden to the rest of us under color of law. That they do these things doesn't mean that they are in any way privileged or that their actions mean that they don't care about the law or that the law doesn't matter.



Getting a protectee out of a dangerous situation is only part of the responsibility of a security detail -- the rest of that responsibility involves reducing the likelihood of such a situation in the first place.
Click to expand...

there was no such threat identified. his driver broke the law should be issued the appropriate tickets and or citations and the matter settled. mayor or not his driver must comply with the road laws just like everyone else.

anyone else would have their licenses suspended.
 
ludin said:
there was no such threat identified.
Click to expand...

I guess you missed this part:

TacticalEvilDan said:
Getting a protectee out of a dangerous situation is only part of the responsibility of a security detail -- the rest of that responsibility involves reducing the likelihood of such a situation in the first place.
Click to expand...

ludin said:
his driver broke the law should be issued the appropriate tickets and or citations and the matter settled. mayor or not his driver must comply with the road laws just like everyone else.
Click to expand...

Please show the portion of the law which prohibits the mayor's protection detail from doing what it has been observed doing. Not the portion of the law that anyone else would've been cited for violating -- the portion of the law which says his protection detail can't do that.

ludin said:
anyone else would have their licenses suspended.
Click to expand...

I didn't count the violations or the points that would've resulted, but that's entirely possible -- and not the point.
 
Wiseone said:
The point I'm trying to make is that its difficult to complain that he's doing something that other people can't do or that he's getting away with something when its something just about everyone does and frequently get away with.
Click to expand...

Following your rationale, he could use illegal drugs like crack, weed, heroin etc. which just about everyone does and gets away with. Why were Barry and Ford so criticized for smoking crack, a kind of nebbish drug?

When you want to be a leader, you are supposed to set a good example.

That is my opinion©. Maybe I'm being unfair?
 
notquiteright said:
I never claimed you was in anyway unique... ;)

I have driven back east, I can tell you it is a whole 'nother mindset.

But at least admit you have to ASS-u-me the Mayor knew the traffic rules were being broken in order to tut-tut him on this.
Click to expand...

Yes, there are many ASSpects and I could have been very unfair to him. But I do hold him to a higher standard and it has to do with his position, not his politics. ;)
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
believe in public safety any more than I think that having an armed security detail would would mean that he doesn't believe in gun control.

For that matter, saying the mayor doesn't believe in public safety is like saying the cops don't believe in public safety because they speed and blow traffic control devices when they're on an emergency call.
Click to expand...

I don't know what his beliefs are. It just seems like poor leadership. Cops break laws even when they are not on an emergency call, I was once just about run over by one. I long ago gave up considering cops as "good examples".
 
specklebang said:
Yes, there are many ASSpects and I could have been very unfair to him. But I do hold him to a higher standard and it has to do with his position, not his politics. ;)
Click to expand...

Then don't ASS-u-me so much about what did and didn't happen, holding someone to a higher standard requires YOU have a higher standard to follow in accusing...

oh wait, no you don't- we are online.... my bad.... ;)
 
specklebang said:
I don't know what his beliefs are. It just seems like poor leadership. Cops break laws even when they are not on an emergency call, I was once just about run over by one. I long ago gave up considering cops as "good examples".
Click to expand...

Oh me too, don't get me wrong. I'm not holding police officers up as paragons of virtue, I'm just pointing out that there are specific circumstances where they are permitted to do things others are not, and that when they do so they are not flouting or showing disdain for the law.

There are a veritable smorgasbord of examples of police officers who do in fact flout or showing disdain for the law. I'm just saying I don't think this is necessarily one of them.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
I guess you missed this part:





Please show the portion of the law which prohibits the mayor's protection detail from doing what it has been observed doing. Not the portion of the law that anyone else would've been cited for violating -- the portion of the law which says his protection detail can't do that.



I didn't count the violations or the points that would've resulted, but that's entirely possible -- and not the point.
Click to expand...

i didn't miss anything. no you show me the law where they don't have to obey the law first. ol yea there isn't one. in fact their job is to uphold the law as it is written that includes traffic laws.

unless you believe that we have 2 types of laws in this land one for the politicians and one for just us simple common folk. in case you were wondering we don't. the law applies to everyone equally or it is suppose to.

which means unless his driver had justification (which he didn't) he has to obey all traffic laws just like everyone else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom