Never Have to Stop For a Red Light Again! [Archive]

Brian Polidoro

11-05-2003, 01:31 PM

flynnk@rockymountainnews.com (Kevin Flynn) wrote in message news:<71e3923f.0311051143.7da13837@posting.google.com>... "Cop Killer" <cop_killer649@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1o6dnTLTyo2-6DWiRVn-vw@comcast.com... Thank you. A radio station in Philadelphia though (Q102) just had one of their DJ's, in a stunt tonight, go out on the street in various locations to change lights from red to green. They announced that these were not illegal, since they use infrared, not strobe or radar, technology. Apparently, they researched this, and announced no state currently has a law against these. Hundreds of people called in to find out the website so they could order these. The radio station said that there is no way for police to detect these. Just hide them in your glove box. I think they'd better check closer. The illegality would not reside in the mode of technology -- infrared versus radar, which only invokes FCC regs -- but rather in the act of tampering with an official traffic control device. If you have a state statute in your state making it illegal to tamper, then you are violating that law by using the MIRT. It's the same law that would prohibit you from going up to the control box, opening it and reprogramming it to your liking.

Correct. Here's an article from the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60005-2003Nov3.html

"Hicks, the Maryland official, said that using the devices is already
illegal in most states under statutes that prohibit interfering with
traffic flow."

"Locally, that leaves Maryland the most vulnerable to interference.
The state has an infrared control system on about 1,000 of 3,000
intersections maintained by the state, said Tom Hicks, director of
traffic and safety for the Maryland State Highway Administration.

About 100 of those stoplights have been equipped with secure sensors
so the lights can't be changed by anyone without the proper code, but
the rest are unprotected, Hicks said. In nearly 15 years of use,
though, there is no evidence that any outsider has ever flipped a
light illegally, he said.

The District has no infrared sensors on its lights, a traffic
department spokesman said. In Northern Virginia, there are infrared
changers on about 100 state-maintained intersections, but those lights
are set to respond to specific frequencies from emergency vehicles, so
outside devices would work only if they happened to stumble onto the
right frequency -- a millions-to-one shot, said Mark Hagan, a traffic
signal systems manager for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
"

Brian Polidoro

Alex Rodriguez

11-05-2003, 02:32 PM

In article <zsednXykLotw7TWiRVn-jA@comcast.com>, cop_killer649@hotmail.com
says...http://www.kenneke.com/ir.htmlHas anyone tried one of these? Is there any place wher I can find thischeaper?

I hope you don't drive expecting all lights to change for you if you have
this device. There are many places where the lights don't have devices to
let vehicles change the light as they approach. So if you drive expecting
the light to change and it doesn't, you could be in big trouble.
--------------
Alex

Scott in Aztlán

11-05-2003, 08:33 PM

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 16:00:10 GMT, George Grapmam <sfgeorge@pacbelll.net> wrote:
Barnum was right.

Barnum never said what you think he said.

--
When I die, I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my Grandfather did -
not screaming like the passengers in his car.

AZGuy

11-05-2003, 08:47 PM

On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 22:40:36 -0500, "Cop Killer"
<cop_killer649@hotmail.com> wrote:
http://www.kenneke.com/ir.htmlHas anyone tried one of these? Is there any place wher I can find thischeaper?

Most likely it doesn't work except for a few older systems. It is
also likely it's range sucks. I've used portable genuine emitters
with about a 500' range and quite honestly, aside from the novelty of
having the light turn green "on command" it's more trouble then it's
worth -- you don't know for sure if a particular light is set up to
use it, you still have to slow down while you wait for the light to
cycle -- remember, it's not going to instantly change the light to
green for you until it's provided the normal yellow interval for cross
and oncoming traffic -- so you always have a minimum of a three second
delay. Given the expected range of one of those cheap devices, which
is probably less then 300', at 60 mph you will travel in 3 seconds
about 250 feet. Do you want to be 50 feet from the intersection going
60 mph hoping the light is actually going to change for you? Save
your money.

Earthlink

11-05-2003, 09:32 PM

russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote in
news:MfadneLagbX2wTSiRTvUqA@speakeasy.net:
It's REALLY OBVIOUS in PA when there are used. The signals have a visible strobe which flashes when the pre-emption system is activated. So if there's a cop around, he'll _know_ you're screwing with it. And whether or not there's a law about it, he'll come up with something to charge you with.

I asked a friend in law enforcement about this and he said it would be easy
to change the frequency or reprogram the receiver so the publicly sold ones
no longer work. So, don't get your shorts wound up over this.

Scott in Aztlán

11-06-2003, 06:03 AM

On 6 Nov 2003 06:32:26 GMT, donutbandit <none@none.com> wrote:
It's REALLY OBVIOUS in PA when there are used. The signals have a visible strobe which flashes when the pre-emption system is activated. So if there's a cop around, he'll _know_ you're screwing with it. And whether or not there's a law about it, he'll come up with something to charge you with.I asked a friend in law enforcement about this and he said it would be easyto change the frequency or reprogram the receiver so the publicly sold onesno longer work.

At least until the Internet ones are reprogrammed with the new
frequency/timing...

--
When I die, I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my Grandfather did -
not screaming like the passengers in his car.

zoomer

11-06-2003, 08:53 AM

that depends on how the statues and courts define "tamper"

"interfere" would be different as well.

"Kevin Flynn" <flynnk@rockymountainnews.com> wrote in message
news:71e3923f.0311051143.7da13837@posting.google.c om... "Cop Killer" <cop_killer649@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1o6dnTLTyo2-6DWiRVn-vw@comcast.com... Thank you. A radio station in Philadelphia though (Q102) just had one
of their DJ's, in a stunt tonight, go out on the street in various
locations to change lights from red to green. They announced that these were not illegal, since they use infrared, not strobe or radar, technology. Apparently,
they researched this, and announced no state currently has a law against
these. Hundreds of people called in to find out the website so they could
order these. The radio station said that there is no way for police to
detect these. Just hide them in your glove box. I think they'd better check closer. The illegality would not reside in the mode of technology -- infrared versus radar, which only invokes FCC regs -- but rather in the act of tampering with an official traffic control device. If you have a state statute in your state making it illegal to tamper, then you are violating that law by using the MIRT. It's the same law that would prohibit you from going up to the control box, opening it and reprogramming it to your liking.

Kevin Flynn

11-06-2003, 10:33 PM

"zoomer" <zoomer@zoom.net> wrote in message news:<vql2eah3b1af46@corp.supernews.com>... that depends on how the statues and courts define "tamper" "interfere" would be different as well.
Most certainly, any construal of "tamper" or "interfere" regarding an
official traffic control device would encompass the notion of a
citizen with his/her own device altering the signal cycle at his/her
whim.

Illegal as all get-out.

Joseph Brown

11-07-2003, 12:42 AM

> So if you drive expecting the light to change and it doesn't, you could be
in big trouble.

LOL. Worst comes to worst, he'll blow it. If he'll get into an [unexpected]
collision, he'll just try to explain that he anticipated a green, which
never came.

This device if put in the wrong hands, can cause major headaches. Just
imagine somebody on the rush hour from his apartment window controlling
traffic lights. With the Green on the side with less traffic. Can somebody
imagine the traffic jam that this can cause?

Yes, it sounds fun, but just think a moment what can be done if put in the
wrong hands.

Joseph Brown

11-07-2003, 01:00 AM

> http://www.kenneke.com/ir.html Has anyone tried one of these?

looking for a written confession of violation? Geez.
Is there any place wher I can find this cheaper?

yes, here: http://www.kenneke.com/ir.html
you can send a detective there.

For even cheaper, I suggest your work place; there you get them for free.
So first thing this morning, just ask.

Besides this, I found this:

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/sun/2003/oct/16/515746458.html

http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/archives/000464.html

http://www.ci.apple-valley.mn.us/Resident_Info/Parking_and_Traffic/Traffic/articles/emergency%20vehicle%20opticom.htm

Matthew Russotto

11-07-2003, 06:27 AM

In article <71e3923f.0311062333.290a0ee1@posting.google.com>,
Kevin Flynn <flynnk@rockymountainnews.com> wrote:"zoomer" <zoomer@zoom.net> wrote in message news:<vql2eah3b1af46@corp.supernews.com>... that depends on how the statues and courts define "tamper" "interfere" would be different as well.Most certainly, any construal of "tamper" or "interfere" regarding anofficial traffic control device would encompass the notion of acitizen with his/her own device altering the signal cycle at his/herwhim.

Tamper? Using a standard feature of a signal isn't "tampering" with
it. "Interfere" is a different matter, though.

--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

Kevin Flynn

11-07-2003, 10:37 AM

russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message news:<cNydnSiEt4l3JDaiRTvUqQ@speakeasy.net>... In article <71e3923f.0311062333.290a0ee1@posting.google.com>, Kevin Flynn <flynnk@rockymountainnews.com> wrote:"zoomer" <zoomer@zoom.net> wrote in message news:<vql2eah3b1af46@corp.supernews.com>... that depends on how the statues and courts define "tamper" "interfere" would be different as well.Most certainly, any construal of "tamper" or "interfere" regarding anofficial traffic control device would encompass the notion of acitizen with his/her own device altering the signal cycle at his/herwhim. Tamper? Using a standard feature of a signal isn't "tampering" with it. "Interfere" is a different matter, though.

I think you have an extremely limited view of "tampering," which means
"to interfere so as to weaken or change for the worse." It is not a
standard feature of the signal to permit every citizen to carry a
remote control for it.

To use such a device with no authority to do so -- which would only be
granted by the streets department whose signal installation is at
issue -- is indeed tampering. To use this device to alter the signal
timing is tampering, and most likely would be prosecuted this way if
the person is caught.

My point is that existing laws ought to be sufficient to address the
problem.

George Grapmam

11-07-2003, 11:31 AM

In the town that I grew up in we had an exit ramp off of a local
highway leading to a stop light. The light was timed in favor of local
traffic but would change for the exit ramp every two minutes or after 3
cars passed over a metal plate on the end of the ramp. You could speed
up the process by crossing the plate, backing up over it and going
forward again.

--
To reply via e-mail please delete one l from pacbelll

Mike Reaser

11-07-2003, 02:14 PM

"Joseph Brown" <joebrown@wdontspam.edu> wrote:
So if you drive expecting the light to change and it doesn't, you could bein big trouble.LOL. Worst comes to worst, he'll blow it. If he'll get into an [unexpected]collision, he'll just try to explain that he anticipated a green, whichnever came.This device if put in the wrong hands, can cause major headaches. Justimagine somebody on the rush hour from his apartment window controllingtraffic lights. With the Green on the side with less traffic. Can somebodyimagine the traffic jam that this can cause?Yes, it sounds fun, but just think a moment what can be done if put in thewrong hands.

I just keep thinking about what will happen when two of these bozoes
hit an intersection at right angles to one another.

--
Mike Reaser, Atlanta, GA, USA B1vf+w+d+(cv)g+kvs++l+
ICQ 36141307 If it's there, remove the YOUKNOW to, well, you know

Always remember to pillage *before* you burn!

Dave C.

11-07-2003, 03:59 PM

> I just keep thinking about what will happen when two of these bozoes hit an intersection at right angles to one another.

It would be an intersection with red lights in all directions, I imagine
(programming won't allow all green) Now won't that be ironic when they try
to cheat the system and create gridlock instead? -Dave

John F. Carr

11-08-2003, 01:42 PM

In article <71e3923f.0311071137.315314c0@posting.google.com>,
Kevin Flynn <flynnk@rockymountainnews.com> wrote:russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote in messagenews:<cNydnSiEt4l3JDaiRTvUqQ@speakeasy.net>...Most certainly, any construal of "tamper" or "interfere" regarding anofficial traffic control device would encompass the notion of acitizen with his/her own device altering the signal cycle at his/herwhim. Tamper? Using a standard feature of a signal isn't "tampering" with it. "Interfere" is a different matter, though.I think you have an extremely limited view of "tampering," which means"to interfere so as to weaken or change for the worse." It is not astandard feature of the signal to permit every citizen to carry aremote control for it.

It's a standard feature of the signal to change when a pulsed light
beam hits it, just like it's a standard feature to change when a car
approaches and trips the pavement sensors or cameras. If I drive an
unregistered or illegal vehicle over a loop sensor, I'm not tampering
with the signal even though I'm not allowed to be on the road.

Courts might side with "preemption is tampering" but they could also
go the other way.

AZGuy

11-08-2003, 04:23 PM

On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 22:42:38 +0000 (UTC), John F. Carr <jfc@carrsw.com>
wrote:
In article <71e3923f.0311071137.315314c0@posting.google.com>,Kevin Flynn <flynnk@rockymountainnews.com> wrote:russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote in messagenews:<cNydnSiEt4l3JDaiRTvUqQ@speakeasy.net>... >Most certainly, any construal of "tamper" or "interfere" regarding an >official traffic control device would encompass the notion of a >citizen with his/her own device altering the signal cycle at his/her >whim. Tamper? Using a standard feature of a signal isn't "tampering" with it. "Interfere" is a different matter, though.I think you have an extremely limited view of "tampering," which means"to interfere so as to weaken or change for the worse." It is not astandard feature of the signal to permit every citizen to carry aremote control for it.It's a standard feature of the signal to change when a pulsed lightbeam hits it, just like it's a standard feature to change when a carapproaches and trips the pavement sensors or cameras. If I drive anunregistered or illegal vehicle over a loop sensor, I'm not tamperingwith the signal even though I'm not allowed to be on the road.Courts might side with "preemption is tampering" but they could alsogo the other way.

Your unregistered car example isn't really applicable. No one would
ever cite you for a MOVING violation simply because your car was
unregistered.

For these MIRTs, In the absence of a specific law outlawing
unauthorized use of them, if it was me writing the ticket I would
write it up as "Failure to obey a traffic control device" or "Avoiding
a traffic control device" since the act of making it change was an act
NOT contemplated for you to do under the law that spells out your
requirements to obey all traffic control devices. It might not hold
up in court but there's only one way to find out. I think there is a
good chance it would hold up in court though, esp in the lower,
Kangaroo Traffic courts.

Rockman

11-08-2003, 05:24 PM

$109 isn't bad. I heard they went for $500.

"Cop Killer" <cop_killer649@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:zsednXykLotw7TWiRVn-jA@comcast.com... http://www.kenneke.com/ir.html Has anyone tried one of these? Is there any place wher I can find this cheaper?

Kevin Flynn

11-09-2003, 06:43 PM

John F. Carr <jfc@carrsw.com> wrote in message news:<bojrgu$q29$1@pcls4.std.com>... In article <71e3923f.0311071137.315314c0@posting.google.com>, Kevin Flynn <flynnk@rockymountainnews.com> wrote:russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote in messagenews:<cNydnSiEt4l3JDaiRTvUqQ@speakeasy.net>... >Most certainly, any construal of "tamper" or "interfere" regarding an >official traffic control device would encompass the notion of a >citizen with his/her own device altering the signal cycle at his/her >whim. Tamper? Using a standard feature of a signal isn't "tampering" with it. "Interfere" is a different matter, though.I think you have an extremely limited view of "tampering," which means"to interfere so as to weaken or change for the worse." It is not astandard feature of the signal to permit every citizen to carry aremote control for it. It's a standard feature of the signal to change when a pulsed light beam hits it, just like it's a standard feature to change when a car approaches and trips the pavement sensors or cameras.

Yes, but the sensor, camera or embedded plate is put there for *your*
car and the rest of us. The signal pre-emption system is *not*
installed there for you.

Your analogy falls down on this point. Tripping an embedded sensor to
activate the public signal feature is the very point of the device and
is authorized for the public traffic. The pre-emption is for
authorized users, and unless you are designated as such, that doesn't
mean you.
If I drive an unregistered or illegal vehicle over a loop sensor, I'm not tampering with the signal even though I'm not allowed to be on the road.

Whether your car is registered has nothing to do with the features of
the device. What you pose isn't tampering precisely because your
situation describes exactly why it's there. That is the authorized
use.
Courts might side with "preemption is tampering" but they could also go the other way.

Doubtful. If you are not an authorized user of a pre-emption device,
that would be tampering.

Matthew Russotto

11-10-2003, 06:13 AM

In article <71e3923f.0311071137.315314c0@posting.google.com>,
Kevin Flynn <flynnk@rockymountainnews.com> wrote:russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message news:<cNydnSiEt4l3JDaiRTvUqQ@speakeasy.net>... In article <71e3923f.0311062333.290a0ee1@posting.google.com>, Kevin Flynn <flynnk@rockymountainnews.com> wrote:"zoomer" <zoomer@zoom.net> wrote in message news:<vql2eah3b1af46@corp.supernews.com>...> that depends on how the statues and courts define "tamper">> "interfere" would be different as well.>Most certainly, any construal of "tamper" or "interfere" regarding anofficial traffic control device would encompass the notion of acitizen with his/her own device altering the signal cycle at his/herwhim. Tamper? Using a standard feature of a signal isn't "tampering" with it. "Interfere" is a different matter, though.I think you have an extremely limited view of "tampering," which means"to interfere so as to weaken or change for the worse." It is not astandard feature of the signal to permit every citizen to carry aremote control for it.

You're trying to stretch "tampering" so thin it breaks.

--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

Matthew Russotto

11-10-2003, 06:16 AM

In article <3FAC0160.C500CE3E@pacbelll.net>,
George Grapman <sfgeorge@pacbelll.net> wrote: In the town that I grew up in we had an exit ramp off of a localhighway leading to a stop light. The light was timed in favor of localtraffic but would change for the exit ramp every two minutes or after 3cars passed over a metal plate on the end of the ramp. You could speedup the process by crossing the plate, backing up over it and goingforward again.

But that's TAMPERING!!!!! (not)

There's some lights like that in PA that have no cycle. If you're the
only car for a while, you either run the light or sit and wait for
more people.

--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

Matthew Russotto

11-10-2003, 06:41 AM

In article <hf5rqvs87t3m925rfes379ldk438tauq59@4ax.com>,
AZGuy <jimnazSPAMOUT@cox.net> wrote: Your unregistered car example isn't really applicable. No one wouldever cite you for a MOVING violation simply because your car wasunregistered.

Of course they would; driving an unregistered vehicle is a moving violation.
For these MIRTs, In the absence of a specific law outlawingunauthorized use of them, if it was me writing the ticket I wouldwrite it up as "Failure to obey a traffic control device"

Sorry, the traffic device was obeyed.
or "Avoiding a traffic control device"

Generally specifically applies to the act of driving through private
property to avoid a signal. Not applicable.
since the act of making it change was an actNOT contemplated for you to do under the law that spells out yourrequirements to obey all traffic control devices.

That which is not explictly forbidden is permitted.
up in court but there's only one way to find out. I think there is agood chance it would hold up in court though, esp in the lower,Kangaroo Traffic courts.

Of course. But that only shows how broken the system is.

--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

G R Jenks

11-10-2003, 07:20 AM

.... but using the strobe light activates the emergency cycle of the light
which makes this Tampering. The traps in the street are designed for the
purpose of letting the system know a car is waiting. Grant

"John F. Carr" <jfc@carrsw.com> wrote in message
news:bojrgu$q29$1@pcls4.std.com... In article <71e3923f.0311071137.315314c0@posting.google.com>, Kevin Flynn <flynnk@rockymountainnews.com> wrote:russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote in messagenews:<cNydnSiEt4l3JDaiRTvUqQ@speakeasy.net>... >Most certainly, any construal of "tamper" or "interfere" regarding an >official traffic control device would encompass the notion of a >citizen with his/her own device altering the signal cycle at his/her >whim. Tamper? Using a standard feature of a signal isn't "tampering" with it. "Interfere" is a different matter, though.I think you have an extremely limited view of "tampering," which means"to interfere so as to weaken or change for the worse." It is not astandard feature of the signal to permit every citizen to carry aremote control for it. It's a standard feature of the signal to change when a pulsed light beam hits it, just like it's a standard feature to change when a car approaches and trips the pavement sensors or cameras. If I drive an unregistered or illegal vehicle over a loop sensor, I'm not tampering with the signal even though I'm not allowed to be on the road. Courts might side with "preemption is tampering" but they could also go the other way.

Kevin Flynn

11-10-2003, 11:07 AM

russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message news:<D6Sdnb5Kh5a5NjKiRTvUqA@speakeasy.net>... In article <71e3923f.0311071137.315314c0@posting.google.com>, Kevin Flynn <flynnk@rockymountainnews.com> wrote:russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message news:<cNydnSiEt4l3JDaiRTvUqQ@speakeasy.net>... In article <71e3923f.0311062333.290a0ee1@posting.google.com>, Kevin Flynn <flynnk@rockymountainnews.com> wrote: >"zoomer" <zoomer@zoom.net> wrote in message news:<vql2eah3b1af46@corp.supernews.com>... >> that depends on how the statues and courts define "tamper" >> >> "interfere" would be different as well. >> >Most certainly, any construal of "tamper" or "interfere" regarding an >official traffic control device would encompass the notion of a >citizen with his/her own device altering the signal cycle at his/her >whim. Tamper? Using a standard feature of a signal isn't "tampering" with it. "Interfere" is a different matter, though.I think you have an extremely limited view of "tampering," which means"to interfere so as to weaken or change for the worse." It is not astandard feature of the signal to permit every citizen to carry aremote control for it. You're trying to stretch "tampering" so thin it breaks.

???
The example of someone triggering a change in the signal with a MIRT
when he/she is not authorized to do so is the very *essence* of
tampering. I don't know why you're avoiding this. By your example, it
would be legal for me to have a friend posted at every curbside
control box and open it, then manually give me the green whenever I
approach it. The MIRT is tampering in the same way.

Kevin Flynn

11-10-2003, 11:40 AM

russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message news:<IN-dnfakCew_LDKiRTvUqA@speakeasy.net>... In article <hf5rqvs87t3m925rfes379ldk438tauq59@4ax.com>, AZGuy <jimnazSPAMOUT@cox.net> wrote: Your unregistered car example isn't really applicable. No one wouldever cite you for a MOVING violation simply because your car wasunregistered. Of course they would; driving an unregistered vehicle is a moving violation.

In what state is it a moving violation to drive an unregistered
vehicle? It is not a moving violation here in CO, and certainly isn't
in the class that is considered "moving" violations. It's a class B
misdemeanor here and carries no points against your license. Like not
having a front license plate. If it's a moving violation in your
state, I'd like to know which state you're in and what the cite is.

Besides, that wasn't where your analogy failed; it failed because your
example didn't cite a legal dilemma. Road sensors or cameras are meant
to actuate the signal whenever vehicle presence thresholds are
detected, no matter whether your 2003 license tab is current or not.
It is not an unauthorized use; it's the intended use of the system as
anticipated under traffic codes and regulations. However, use of a
MIRT by someone not authorized to use it is tampering. It's the same
language that would prohibit me from stationing acquaintances at each
curbside controller and having them open them up and manually give me
the green as I approach. Would you suggest this is legal?

In what way are you suggesting that any and all citizens are
authorized to interfere with signal phasing? Merely because they "can"
if they get this device doesn't mean they are authorized under any
statute or related regulation. I "can" buy a police radio, but I
cannot respond to calls I hear with the authority of a sworn officer.
For these MIRTs, In the absence of a specific law outlawingunauthorized use of them, if it was me writing the ticket I wouldwrite it up as "Failure to obey a traffic control device" Sorry, the traffic device was obeyed.

But not the regulations limiting the use of them to authorized persons
only.
since the act of making it change was an actNOT contemplated for you to do under the law that spells out yourrequirements to obey all traffic control devices. That which is not explictly forbidden is permitted.

There is no law that explicitly says I cannot throw you off a cliff;
however, that is certainly outlawed by the more general language of
most assault or attempted murder statutes.

Likewise, in most places, the introduction of such signal pre-emption
systems is accompanied by regulations as provided by statute that
specify types or classes of authorized users. If you are not one of
them, using it under such an allowed circumstance, then you are in
violation.

It's really that simple.

John wardle

11-10-2003, 12:12 PM

"Kevin Flynn" <flynnk@rockymountainnews.com> wrote in message
news:71e3923f.0311101240.693901ac@posting.google.c om... russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message
news:<IN-dnfakCew_LDKiRTvUqA@speakeasy.net>... In article <hf5rqvs87t3m925rfes379ldk438tauq59@4ax.com>, AZGuy <jimnazSPAMOUT@cox.net> wrote:

<<SNIPPED>>
since the act of making it change was an actNOT contemplated for you to do under the law that spells out yourrequirements to obey all traffic control devices. That which is not explictly forbidden is permitted. There is no law that explicitly says I cannot throw you off a cliff; however, that is certainly outlawed by the more general language of most assault or attempted murder statutes. Likewise, in most places, the introduction of such signal pre-emption systems is accompanied by regulations as provided by statute that specify types or classes of authorized users. If you are not one of them, using it under such an allowed circumstance, then you are in violation. It's really that simple.

Kevin,

You will learn that the simple, obvious, and common sense answers rarely
work with this crew. If it doesn't fit whatever their personnal view of the
world is, it is 'obviously' harrasment and the man out to get them.....

George Grapman

11-10-2003, 05:37 PM

russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message news:<t-Sdna7r_9ovNjKiRTvUqQ@speakeasy.net>... In article <3FAC0160.C500CE3E@pacbelll.net>, George Grapman <sfgeorge@pacbelll.net> wrote: In the town that I grew up in we had an exit ramp off of a localhighway leading to a stop light. The light was timed in favor of localtraffic but would change for the exit ramp every two minutes or after 3cars passed over a metal plate on the end of the ramp. You could speedup the process by crossing the plate, backing up over it and goingforward again. But that's TAMPERING!!!!! (not)
You want to see tampering? There is a stretch of U.S. 1/9 in North
Bergen, N.J. At one time (for all Iknow it still does) the button for
pedestrian crossing actually chaged the light within a few
seconds.Drivers crossing the road, (also known as Tonnelle Ave.) would
get out of their cars and push the button.

Marc

11-10-2003, 09:16 PM

flynnk@rockymountainnews.com (Kevin Flynn) wrote:"zoomer" <zoomer@zoom.net> wrote in message news:<vql2eah3b1af46@corp.supernews.com>... that depends on how the statues and courts define "tamper" "interfere" would be different as well.Most certainly, any construal of "tamper" or "interfere" regarding anofficial traffic control device would encompass the notion of acitizen with his/her own device altering the signal cycle at his/herwhim.Illegal as all get-out.

I don't see it. So, if I pick up a bottle of aspirin in the store to read
the label, I'm "tampering" with it. At that moment, anyone else that
wanted that bottle couldn't get it. It is a temporary interference with
the usage by anyone else. I guess that is what got those people so mad
when someone was "tampering" with Tylenol.

I've never seen any definition where "tamper" included the misuse of
something while using it in the way designed. It is obviously misuse of
the traffic light, but it certainly is not modifying the hardware or
software of the light. It is just sending correct input to it to cause it
to act in the designed manner (but not in the situation it was designed).

Evidently, some people can not understand the difference in definition
between "tamper" and "misuse."

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

Marc

11-10-2003, 09:16 PM

Lisa Taylor <lisa.taylor@no.spam> wrote:x-no-archive: yesCop Killer wrote: http://www.kenneke.com/ir.html Has anyone tried one of these? Is there any place wher I can find this cheaper?So you don't want to have to stop for a red light! Thanks for showingyour cards about what kind of driver you are.

Are you a driver that likes to stop at every light? If so, you'd be the
first.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

Marc

11-10-2003, 10:14 PM

flynnk@rockymountainnews.com (Kevin Flynn) wrote:russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message news:<D6Sdnb5Kh5a5NjKiRTvUqA@speakeasy.net>... In article <71e3923f.0311071137.315314c0@posting.google.com>, Kevin Flynn <flynnk@rockymountainnews.com> wrote:russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message news:<cNydnSiEt4l3JDaiRTvUqQ@speakeasy.net>...> In article <71e3923f.0311062333.290a0ee1@posting.google.com>,> Kevin Flynn <flynnk@rockymountainnews.com> wrote:> >"zoomer" <zoomer@zoom.net> wrote in message news:<vql2eah3b1af46@corp.supernews.com>...> >> that depends on how the statues and courts define "tamper"> >>> >> "interfere" would be different as well.> >>> >Most certainly, any construal of "tamper" or "interfere" regarding an> >official traffic control device would encompass the notion of a> >citizen with his/her own device altering the signal cycle at his/her> >whim.>> Tamper? Using a standard feature of a signal isn't "tampering" with> it. "Interfere" is a different matter, though.I think you have an extremely limited view of "tampering," which means"to interfere so as to weaken or change for the worse." It is not astandard feature of the signal to permit every citizen to carry aremote control for it. You're trying to stretch "tampering" so thin it breaks.???The example of someone triggering a change in the signal with a MIRTwhen he/she is not authorized to do so is the very *essence* oftampering. I don't know why you're avoiding this. By your example, itwould be legal for me to have a friend posted at every curbsidecontrol box and open it, then manually give me the green whenever Iapproach it. The MIRT is tampering in the same way.

It most certainly is not. Opening the box and changing the contents is
obviously not the same thing as giving inputs that the equipment regards as
normal in a manner it was designed to receive. It would be more like
hiring a large number of people to sit there and push the "pedestrian walk"
buttons at a coordinated time to shorter your commute. Would that be
tampering?

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

Marc

11-10-2003, 10:14 PM

flynnk@rockymountainnews.com (Kevin Flynn) wrote:russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message news:<IN-dnfakCew_LDKiRTvUqA@speakeasy.net>... In article <hf5rqvs87t3m925rfes379ldk438tauq59@4ax.com>, AZGuy <jimnazSPAMOUT@cox.net> wrote: Your unregistered car example isn't really applicable. No one wouldever cite you for a MOVING violation simply because your car wasunregistered. Of course they would; driving an unregistered vehicle is a moving violation.In what state is it a moving violation to drive an unregisteredvehicle? It is not a moving violation here in CO, and certainly isn'tin the class that is considered "moving" violations. It's a class Bmisdemeanor here and carries no points against your license. Like nothaving a front license plate. If it's a moving violation in yourstate, I'd like to know which state you're in and what the cite is.Besides, that wasn't where your analogy failed; it failed because yourexample didn't cite a legal dilemma. Road sensors or cameras are meantto actuate the signal whenever vehicle presence thresholds aredetected, no matter whether your 2003 license tab is current or not.It is not an unauthorized use; it's the intended use of the system asanticipated under traffic codes and regulations. However, use of aMIRT by someone not authorized to use it is tampering. It's the samelanguage that would prohibit me from stationing acquaintances at eachcurbside controller and having them open them up and manually give methe green as I approach. Would you suggest this is legal?In what way are you suggesting that any and all citizens areauthorized to interfere with signal phasing? Merely because they "can"if they get this device doesn't mean they are authorized under anystatute or related regulation. I "can" buy a police radio, but Icannot respond to calls I hear with the authority of a sworn officer.For these MIRTs, In the absence of a specific law outlawingunauthorized use of them, if it was me writing the ticket I wouldwrite it up as "Failure to obey a traffic control device" Sorry, the traffic device was obeyed.But not the regulations limiting the use of them to authorized personsonly.since the act of making it change was an actNOT contemplated for you to do under the law that spells out yourrequirements to obey all traffic control devices. That which is not explictly forbidden is permitted.There is no law that explicitly says I cannot throw you off a cliff;however, that is certainly outlawed by the more general language ofmost assault or attempted murder statutes.

There isn't a specific law against it because you must violate multiple
laws in order to do it. What law makes it illegal to give intended input
to a traffic signal?
Likewise, in most places, the introduction of such signal pre-emptionsystems is accompanied by regulations as provided by statute thatspecify types or classes of authorized users. If you are not one ofthem, using it under such an allowed circumstance, then you are inviolation.It's really that simple.

Please point to a law that makes it illegal for an unauthorized user to use
a pre-emption system. If you can't, then it is presumed legal until proven
otherwise.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

Harry K

11-11-2003, 05:49 AM

Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message news:<3031rv0f9ekbpn0sneo7gs6g3iuslq02qh@4ax.com>...

<snip>
???The example of someone triggering a change in the signal with a MIRTwhen he/she is not authorized to do so is the very *essence* oftampering. I don't know why you're avoiding this. By your example, itwould be legal for me to have a friend posted at every curbsidecontrol box and open it, then manually give me the green whenever Iapproach it. The MIRT is tampering in the same way. It most certainly is not. Opening the box and changing the contents is obviously not the same thing as giving inputs that the equipment regards as normal in a manner it was designed to receive. It would be more like hiring a large number of people to sit there and push the "pedestrian walk" buttons at a coordinated time to shorter your commute. Would that be tampering? Marc For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

Yes it most assuredly would if the intent is not to cross the street.
You can now extend it into your accomplices also crossing the street
repeatedly. It would still be tampering. You lost this rediculous
debate several days ago. Give it up.

Harry K

John F. Carr

11-11-2003, 07:44 AM

In article <hf5rqvs87t3m925rfes379ldk438tauq59@4ax.com>,
AZGuy <jimnazSPAMOUT@cox.net> wrote:On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 22:42:38 +0000 (UTC), John F. Carr <jfc@carrsw.com>wrote:In article <71e3923f.0311071137.315314c0@posting.google.com>,Kevin Flynn <flynnk@rockymountainnews.com> wrote:I think you have an extremely limited view of "tampering," which means"to interfere so as to weaken or change for the worse." It is not astandard feature of the signal to permit every citizen to carry aremote control for it.It's a standard feature of the signal to change when a pulsed lightbeam hits it, just like it's a standard feature to change when a carapproaches and trips the pavement sensors or cameras. If I drive anunregistered or illegal vehicle over a loop sensor, I'm not tamperingwith the signal even though I'm not allowed to be on the road.Courts might side with "preemption is tampering" but they could alsogo the other way. Your unregistered car example isn't really applicable. No one wouldever cite you for a MOVING violation simply because your car wasunregistered.

It's relevant in Massachusetts. Driving an unregistered car is a moving
violation, but more importantly the state Supreme Court has said that an
unregistered car is a trespasser. Changing a signal by trespassing
should be more illegal than changing a signal as a result of a device
that is not regulated.

For these MIRTs, In the absence of a specific law outlawingunauthorized use of them, if it was me writing the ticket I wouldwrite it up as "Failure to obey a traffic control device" or "Avoidinga traffic control device" since the act of making it change was an actNOT contemplated for you to do under the law that spells out yourrequirements to obey all traffic control devices.
It might not hold up in court but there's only one way to find out.

In return I'd sue you for a civil rights violation because it is
absolutely clear that neither of those laws is applicable and you
had no basis for thinking they might be.

The law about obeying a traffic control device says what to do for
each color. It doesn't say "only if you deserve to have a green
light."

The law about avoiding a traffic control device, in the few states
that have a law, says you can't go through private property to avoid
a signal. If you drive through an intersection at 90 MPH with your
MIRT flashing to guide your way, you aren't using private property.

John F. Carr

11-11-2003, 08:06 AM

In article <751f8d35.0311110649.4bf623c0@posting.google.com>,
Harry K <turnkey4099@hotmail.com> wrote:Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in messagenews:<3031rv0f9ekbpn0sneo7gs6g3iuslq02qh@4ax.com>... It most certainly is not. Opening the box and changing the contents is obviously not the same thing as giving inputs that the equipment regards as normal in a manner it was designed to receive. It would be more like hiring a large number of people to sit there and push the "pedestrian walk" buttons at a coordinated time to shorter your commute. Would that be tampering?Yes it most assuredly would if the intent is not to cross the street.

There is a specific law prohibiting pressing the button "unless
a crossing is intended". If pressing the button were tampering
that law wouldn't be needed.

Kevin Flynn

11-11-2003, 08:39 AM

Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message news:<3031rv0f9ekbpn0sneo7gs6g3iuslq02qh@4ax.com>... flynnk@rockymountainnews.com (Kevin Flynn) wrote:The example of someone triggering a change in the signal with a MIRTwhen he/she is not authorized to do so is the very *essence* oftampering. I don't know why you're avoiding this. By your example, itwould be legal for me to have a friend posted at every curbsidecontrol box and open it, then manually give me the green whenever Iapproach it. The MIRT is tampering in the same way. It most certainly is not. Opening the box and changing the contents is obviously not the same thing as giving inputs that the equipment regards as normal in a manner it was designed to receive. It would be more like hiring a large number of people to sit there and push the "pedestrian walk" buttons at a coordinated time to shorter your commute. Would that be tampering?

Your childlike certainty notwithstanding, it most certainly is
tampering. Unauthorized opening of the control box and changing the
program or pushing the manual controller inside (like cops do
sometimes to manage accident scenes, e.g. -- this is not "changing the
contents" -- have you ever seen one?) is the same thing as
unauthorized use of a MIRT. Both are using the design and operational
standards of the unit; the sole difference is that you, as a private
citizen without specific authority under the code and regulations to
use a MIRT or to open the box, are in violation of this code when you
do that. It's a perfect analogy, MIRT vs opening the box manually. You
can't do either -- legally -- without authority. Most codes I've seen
make this fairly clear.

Kevin Flynn

11-11-2003, 08:43 AM

Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message news:<8o21rvsdp9vfdvr1fdkhnbn0kl25gkgol7@4ax.com>... flynnk@rockymountainnews.com (Kevin Flynn) wrote:russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message news:<IN-dnfakCew_LDKiRTvUqA@speakeasy.net>... In article <hf5rqvs87t3m925rfes379ldk438tauq59@4ax.com>, AZGuy <jimnazSPAMOUT@cox.net> wrote: > > Your unregistered car example isn't really applicable. No one would >ever cite you for a MOVING violation simply because your car was >unregistered. Of course they would; driving an unregistered vehicle is a moving violation.In what state is it a moving violation to drive an unregisteredvehicle? It is not a moving violation here in CO, and certainly isn'tin the class that is considered "moving" violations. It's a class Bmisdemeanor here and carries no points against your license. Like nothaving a front license plate. If it's a moving violation in yourstate, I'd like to know which state you're in and what the cite is.Besides, that wasn't where your analogy failed; it failed because yourexample didn't cite a legal dilemma. Road sensors or cameras are meantto actuate the signal whenever vehicle presence thresholds aredetected, no matter whether your 2003 license tab is current or not.It is not an unauthorized use; it's the intended use of the system asanticipated under traffic codes and regulations. However, use of aMIRT by someone not authorized to use it is tampering. It's the samelanguage that would prohibit me from stationing acquaintances at eachcurbside controller and having them open them up and manually give methe green as I approach. Would you suggest this is legal?In what way are you suggesting that any and all citizens areauthorized to interfere with signal phasing? Merely because they "can"if they get this device doesn't mean they are authorized under anystatute or related regulation. I "can" buy a police radio, but Icannot respond to calls I hear with the authority of a sworn officer. >For these MIRTs, In the absence of a specific law outlawing >unauthorized use of them, if it was me writing the ticket I would >write it up as "Failure to obey a traffic control device" Sorry, the traffic device was obeyed.But not the regulations limiting the use of them to authorized personsonly. >since the act of making it change was an act >NOT contemplated for you to do under the law that spells out your >requirements to obey all traffic control devices. That which is not explictly forbidden is permitted.There is no law that explicitly says I cannot throw you off a cliff;however, that is certainly outlawed by the more general language ofmost assault or attempted murder statutes. There isn't a specific law against it because you must violate multiple laws in order to do it. What law makes it illegal to give intended input to a traffic signal?Likewise, in most places, the introduction of such signal pre-emptionsystems is accompanied by regulations as provided by statute thatspecify types or classes of authorized users. If you are not one ofthem, using it under such an allowed circumstance, then you are inviolation.It's really that simple. Please point to a law that makes it illegal for an unauthorized user to use a pre-emption system. If you can't, then it is presumed legal until proven otherwise.

Virtually all traffic codes and regulations limit the authority to
control their operation to specific folks. In the case of pre-emption,
the type of people so authorized is typically limited to emergency
personnel under limited circumstances. That don't include you, son.
Deal with it.

I'm still waiting to hear from the OP in what state it is that driving
an unregistered vehicle is considered to be a moving violation.

Matthew Russotto

11-11-2003, 10:01 AM

In article <71e3923f.0311101240.693901ac@posting.google.com>,
Kevin Flynn <flynnk@rockymountainnews.com> wrote:russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message news:<IN-dnfakCew_LDKiRTvUqA@speakeasy.net>...
In what state is it a moving violation to drive an unregisteredvehicle? It is not a moving violation here in CO, and certainly isn'tin the class that is considered "moving" violations. It's a class Bmisdemeanor here and carries no points against your license. Like nothaving a front license plate. If it's a moving violation in yourstate, I'd like to know which state you're in and what the cite is.

I'm fairly sure both not having a front license plate and driving an
unregistered vehicle are moving violations (carrying points) in Maryland.
Besides, that wasn't where your analogy failed; it failed because yourexample didn't cite a legal dilemma. Road sensors or cameras are meantto actuate the signal whenever vehicle presence thresholds aredetected, no matter whether your 2003 license tab is current or not.It is not an unauthorized use; it's the intended use of the system asanticipated under traffic codes and regulations. However, use of aMIRT by someone not authorized to use it is tampering.

Unauthorized use is not tampering, particularly in the absence of a
law requiring authorization.
For these MIRTs, In the absence of a specific law outlawingunauthorized use of them, if it was me writing the ticket I wouldwrite it up as "Failure to obey a traffic control device" Sorry, the traffic device was obeyed.But not the regulations limiting the use of them to authorized personsonly.

What regulations? There aren't any.
Likewise, in most places, the introduction of such signal pre-emptionsystems is accompanied by regulations as provided by statute thatspecify types or classes of authorized users.

This discussion started with the assumption that no such statutes
existed, and that instead they'd go after you on some general statute
against "tampering with a traffic control device".

--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

Kevin Flynn

11-11-2003, 02:09 PM

russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message news:<UEidnc6WLta4ryyiXTWc-w@speakeasy.net>... In article <71e3923f.0311101240.693901ac@posting.google.com>, Kevin Flynn <flynnk@rockymountainnews.com> wrote:russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message news:<IN-dnfakCew_LDKiRTvUqA@speakeasy.net>...In what state is it a moving violation to drive an unregisteredvehicle? It is not a moving violation here in CO, and certainly isn'tin the class that is considered "moving" violations. It's a class Bmisdemeanor here and carries no points against your license. Like nothaving a front license plate. If it's a moving violation in yourstate, I'd like to know which state you're in and what the cite is. I'm fairly sure both not having a front license plate and driving an unregistered vehicle are moving violations (carrying points) in Maryland.

Do you have a cite for that? It surely is not a moving violation here
in CO. Moving violations typically have to do with the way in which
you're "moving" your car, not its status re: registration or plates.
The only exception I know of here in CO is the child restraint law,
violation of which is considered a moving violation.
Besides, that wasn't where your analogy failed; it failed because yourexample didn't cite a legal dilemma. Road sensors or cameras are meantto actuate the signal whenever vehicle presence thresholds aredetected, no matter whether your 2003 license tab is current or not.It is not an unauthorized use; it's the intended use of the system asanticipated under traffic codes and regulations. However, use of aMIRT by someone not authorized to use it is tampering. Unauthorized use is not tampering, particularly in the absence of a law requiring authorization.

Bone up on the definitions. Unauthorized use most certainly is
tampering. Most states do not have an absence of a law that prohibits
private citizens from monkeying around with signal timings on their
own. If your state lacks one, that would be highly unusual.
>For these MIRTs, In the absence of a specific law outlawing >unauthorized use of them, if it was me writing the ticket I would >write it up as "Failure to obey a traffic control device" Sorry, the traffic device was obeyed.But not the regulations limiting the use of them to authorized personsonly. What regulations? There aren't any.

There are *always* regulations. This is government, after all.
Likewise, in most places, the introduction of such signal pre-emptionsystems is accompanied by regulations as provided by statute thatspecify types or classes of authorized users. This discussion started with the assumption that no such statutes existed, and that instead they'd go after you on some general statute against "tampering with a traffic control device".

Then I am glad to have enlightened you otherwise. The assumption was
incorrect. I am sure this is not the first time that's happened.

Do you really think pre-emption systems have been installed outside
the law? And that there are no regulations governing who is authorized
to use them?

Kevin Flynn

11-11-2003, 02:13 PM

John F. Carr <jfc@carrsw.com> wrote in message news:<bor4vb$d59$1@pcls4.std.com>... In article <751f8d35.0311110649.4bf623c0@posting.google.com>, Harry K <turnkey4099@hotmail.com> wrote:Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in messagenews:<3031rv0f9ekbpn0sneo7gs6g3iuslq02qh@4ax.com>... It most certainly is not. Opening the box and changing the contents is obviously not the same thing as giving inputs that the equipment regards as normal in a manner it was designed to receive. It would be more like hiring a large number of people to sit there and push the "pedestrian walk" buttons at a coordinated time to shorter your commute. Would that be tampering?Yes it most assuredly would if the intent is not to cross the street. There is a specific law prohibiting pressing the button "unless a crossing is intended". If pressing the button were tampering that law wouldn't be needed.

However, you just demonstrated Harry's point, not Marc's.

The law, as noted, establishes the authorized use of the pedestrian
crossing. This is necessary in order to then establish that other uses
would be unauthorized or tampering.

A same as unauthorized use of a MIRT.

Paul S. Wolf

11-11-2003, 03:49 PM

On 11/11/2003 12:39 PM, Kevin Flynn wrote: Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message news:<3031rv0f9ekbpn0sneo7gs6g3iuslq02qh@4ax.com>...flynnk@rockymountainnews.com (Kevin Flynn) wrote:The example of someone triggering a change in the signal with a MIRTwhen he/she is not authorized to do so is the very *essence* oftampering. I don't know why you're avoiding this. By your example, itwould be legal for me to have a friend posted at every curbsidecontrol box and open it, then manually give me the green whenever Iapproach it. The MIRT is tampering in the same way.It most certainly is not. Opening the box and changing the contents isobviously not the same thing as giving inputs that the equipment regards asnormal in a manner it was designed to receive. It would be more likehiring a large number of people to sit there and push the "pedestrian walk"buttons at a coordinated time to shorter your commute. Would that betampering? Your childlike certainty notwithstanding, it most certainly is tampering. Unauthorized opening of the control box and changing the program or pushing the manual controller inside (like cops do sometimes to manage accident scenes, e.g. -- this is not "changing the contents" -- have you ever seen one?) is the same thing as unauthorized use of a MIRT. Both are using the design and operational standards of the unit; the sole difference is that you, as a private citizen without specific authority under the code and regulations to use a MIRT or to open the box, are in violation of this code when you do that. It's a perfect analogy, MIRT vs opening the box manually. You can't do either -- legally -- without authority. Most codes I've seen make this fairly clear.

Here are Ohio's laws on Tampering with traffic control devices:

§ 4511.17 Tampering with sign, device or manhole cover; driving on
freshly applied marking material.

No person, without lawful authority, shall do any of the following:

(A) Knowingly move, deface, damage, destroy, or otherwise improperly
tamper with any traffic control device, any railroad sign or signal, or
any inscription, shield, or insignia on the device, sign, or signal, or
any part of the device, sign, or signal;
....

And

§ 4511.16 Prohibition against unauthorized signs and signals.

(A) No person shall place, maintain, or display upon or in view of any
highway any unauthorized sign, signal, marking, or device which purports
to be, is an imitation of, or resembles a traffic control device or
railroad sign or signal, or which attempts to direct the movement of
traffic or hides from view or interferes with the effectiveness of any
traffic control device or any railroad sign or signal,

--
Paul S. Wolf, P.E. mailto:pwolf@traffpro.com
Traffic Engineer, Traff-Pro Consultants, Inc.
Member, Institute of Transportation Engineers

Ross Brown

11-11-2003, 06:34 PM

On 2003 11 11 01:16, in article nhv0rvkftogehl0uvhsnu1bp9cagj4o3j6@4ax.com,
"Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
Lisa Taylor <lisa.taylor@no.spam> wrote: x-no-archive: yes Cop Killer wrote: http://www.kenneke.com/ir.html Has anyone tried one of these? Is there any place wher I can find this cheaper? So you don't want to have to stop for a red light! Thanks for showing your cards about what kind of driver you are. Are you a driver that likes to stop at every light? If so, you'd be the first.

Natural selection will out: Eventually, two of these nudniks will try to
use their IR/MIRT devices at the same intersection at the same time...

Ross Brown
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Matthew Russotto

11-12-2003, 08:05 AM

In article <71e3923f.0311111509.78b0bc8d@posting.google.com>,
Kevin Flynn <flynnk@rockymountainnews.com> wrote:russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message news:<UEidnc6WLta4ryyiXTWc-w@speakeasy.net>... This discussion started with the assumption that no such statutes existed, and that instead they'd go after you on some general statute against "tampering with a traffic control device".Then I am glad to have enlightened you otherwise. The assumption wasincorrect. I am sure this is not the first time that's happened.

You haven't posted any such statutes, in CO or elsewhere.
Do you really think pre-emption systems have been installed outsidethe law?

I believe they may have no specific statutory authority in many cases,
instead falling under the general authority of the highway departments to
install traffic control devices. That authority does not give the
highway departments the authority to impose additional restrictions
upon the public,

--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

G R Jenks

11-12-2003, 10:13 AM

You can be charged with tampering with Aspirin or what ever by touching the
protective seal, or opening of the box.
Many stores will try to over look some items... but, I have seen many that
do not want tampering.

"Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message
news:n6v0rv8s3u2bur41ahhdf3dlrfbf7csbpa@4ax.com... flynnk@rockymountainnews.com (Kevin Flynn) wrote:"zoomer" <zoomer@zoom.net> wrote in message
news:<vql2eah3b1af46@corp.supernews.com>... that depends on how the statues and courts define "tamper" "interfere" would be different as well.Most certainly, any construal of "tamper" or "interfere" regarding anofficial traffic control device would encompass the notion of acitizen with his/her own device altering the signal cycle at his/herwhim.Illegal as all get-out. I don't see it. So, if I pick up a bottle of aspirin in the store to read the label, I'm "tampering" with it. At that moment, anyone else that wanted that bottle couldn't get it. It is a temporary interference with the usage by anyone else. I guess that is what got those people so mad when someone was "tampering" with Tylenol. I've never seen any definition where "tamper" included the misuse of something while using it in the way designed. It is obviously misuse of the traffic light, but it certainly is not modifying the hardware or software of the light. It is just sending correct input to it to cause it to act in the designed manner (but not in the situation it was designed). Evidently, some people can not understand the difference in definition between "tamper" and "misuse." Marc For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

Kevin Flynn

11-12-2003, 02:42 PM

russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message news:<spGcndW-vrP79S-iXTWc-w@speakeasy.net>... In article <71e3923f.0311111509.78b0bc8d@posting.google.com>, Kevin Flynn <flynnk@rockymountainnews.com> wrote:russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message news:<UEidnc6WLta4ryyiXTWc-w@speakeasy.net>... This discussion started with the assumption that no such statutes existed, and that instead they'd go after you on some general statute against "tampering with a traffic control device".Then I am glad to have enlightened you otherwise. The assumption wasincorrect. I am sure this is not the first time that's happened. You haven't posted any such statutes, in CO or elsewhere.

Well, it's because I was being graceful enough to allow you to take
your foot out of your mouth and save face on your own. Here I thought
you were smart enough to realize that CO, and I would confidently
venture to assert, every other state, already has such a statute. Do
you really think that no state has a law prohibiting you or me or
anyone other than whoever is authorized by the traffic division of
city, county or state to have access to signal control?

Here, if you must be spoon-fed:

Colorado Revised Statutes 42-4-607. Interference with official
devices.

No person shall, without lawful authority, attempt to or in fact
alter, deface, injure, knock down, remove, or interfere with the
effective operation of any official traffic control device or any
railroad sign or signal or any inscription, shield, or insignia
thereon or any other part thereof. Any person who violates any
provision of this section commits a class B traffic infraction.

Note: "No person shall... without lawful authority... alter...
interfere with the effective operation of any official traffic control
device..." This allows police to cite you if you are a private citizen
and you use a MIRT to pre-empt traffic signals in Colorado.

So I repeat, I am glad to have enlightened you otherwise and your
prior assumptions were wrong. I am sure if you search other states'
statutes you also will find similar prohibitions because these things
are fairly standard in the model traffic codes.
Do you really think pre-emption systems have been installed outsidethe law? I believe they may have no specific statutory authority in many cases,

.... but you would be wrong.
instead falling under the general authority of the highway departments to install traffic control devices.

This *is* the specific statutory authority, son. It's a specific
statute, and it allows the state to install devices. Any recognized
TCD would fall under it including pre-emption systems. There is no
need to make a comprehensive list as these things keep evolving, just
as the general murder statute doesn't *specifically* prohibit me from
throwing you off a cliff.
That authority does not give the highway departments the authority to impose additional restrictions upon the public,

Do you listen to yourself before you hit send? Your own words
contradict your claim. The authority given to traffic departments to
install devices most certainly includes the authority to impose
whatever restrictions are called for upon the public. That includes
telling you that you cannot yank open the control box and time it
yourself -- and that you cannot use a MIRT.

Thanks for playing.

Excop42198

11-12-2003, 04:06 PM

cop_killer649@hotmail.com

Wishing you all that you get,
excop
:*
~~~
Q: What's the only thing worse than criminals?

A: Their lawyers.

Alan Hamilton

11-12-2003, 07:18 PM

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 21:16:19 -0900, Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:
I've never seen any definition where "tamper" included the misuse ofsomething while using it in the way designed. It is obviously misuse ofthe traffic light, but it certainly is not modifying the hardware orsoftware of the light. It is just sending correct input to it to cause itto act in the designed manner (but not in the situation it was designed).

An apropos analogy might be a fire alarm. Activating it when there is
in fact no fire "is just sending correct input to it to cause it
to act in the designed manner (but not in the situation it was
designed)."

But it is illegal to falsely set off a fire alarm (or do you argue
that, too?), even though there's nothing to physically prevent you
from setting it off at any time.

Likewise, a preemption device is reserved for emergency vehicles only.
If you activate a preemption device and you're not in an emergency
vehicle, it's the same as activating a fire alarm when there's no
fire.
--
/
/ * / Alan Hamilton
* * alanh@arizonaroads.com

Arizona Roads -- http://www.arizonaroads.com

Kevin Flynn

11-13-2003, 07:32 AM

Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message news:<n6v0rv8s3u2bur41ahhdf3dlrfbf7csbpa@4ax.com>... flynnk@rockymountainnews.com (Kevin Flynn) wrote:"zoomer" <zoomer@zoom.net> wrote in message news:<vql2eah3b1af46@corp.supernews.com>... that depends on how the statues and courts define "tamper" "interfere" would be different as well.Most certainly, any construal of "tamper" or "interfere" regarding anofficial traffic control device would encompass the notion of acitizen with his/her own device altering the signal cycle at his/herwhim.Illegal as all get-out. I don't see it. So, if I pick up a bottle of aspirin in the store to read the label, I'm "tampering" with it. At that moment, anyone else that wanted that bottle couldn't get it. It is a temporary interference with the usage by anyone else. I guess that is what got those people so mad when someone was "tampering" with Tylenol. I've never seen any definition where "tamper" included the misuse of something while using it in the way designed. It is obviously misuse of the traffic light, but it certainly is not modifying the hardware or software of the light. It is just sending correct input to it to cause it to act in the designed manner (but not in the situation it was designed). Evidently, some people can not understand the difference in definition between "tamper" and "misuse." Marc

Evidentlyl, Marc, your vocabulary needs expansion:

tamper: to interfere so as to weaken or change for the worse -- used
with "with"

Nothing in the notion of "tampering" requires that the tamperer make
modifications to the hardware or software. You are tampering with the
signal when you are an unauthorized user of a MIRT and you use the
system "to interfere so as to .... change for the worse." Worse not
for you obviously if you get the green, but worse for those of us who
rely on the signal timing without your self-centered tampering.

You most certainly can "tamper" with something while using its proper
physical design. That's because the operation of the signal does not
authorize you as a private citizen to use the pre-emption capability
for your own purpose.

Scott M. Kozel

11-13-2003, 01:45 PM

Alan Hamilton <alanh@arizonaroads.com> wrote: Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:I've never seen any definition where "tamper" included the misuse ofsomething while using it in the way designed. It is obviously misuse ofthe traffic light, but it certainly is not modifying the hardware orsoftware of the light. It is just sending correct input to it to cause itto act in the designed manner (but not in the situation it was designed). An apropos analogy might be a fire alarm. Activating it when there is in fact no fire "is just sending correct input to it to cause it to act in the designed manner (but not in the situation it was designed)." But it is illegal to falsely set off a fire alarm (or do you argue that, too?), even though there's nothing to physically prevent you from setting it off at any time. Likewise, a preemption device is reserved for emergency vehicles only. If you activate a preemption device and you're not in an emergency vehicle, it's the same as activating a fire alarm when there's no fire.

That's an excellent analogy for this issue, Alan.

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com

Paul R

11-13-2003, 05:19 PM

<snip>

I've been following this thread for about a week now and what I haven't seen
is any concept of defeating a traffic light is just plain wrong.

Traffic lights are a "zero sum game". This means that the only way I can
get an advantage is if I steal your rightful turn. Doesn't anyone here
believe that this is just plain unfair? Whatever the legal issue is? Isn't
it the same as cutting into line at a supermarket checkout?

Paul R

Matthew Russotto

11-13-2003, 06:12 PM

In article <71e3923f.0311121542.1da6e92b@posting.google.com>,
Kevin Flynn <flynnk@rockymountainnews.com> wrote:russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message news:<spGcndW-vrP79S-iXTWc-w@speakeasy.net>...>> This discussion started with the assumption that no such statutes> existed, and that instead they'd go after you on some general statute> against "tampering with a traffic control device".Then I am glad to have enlightened you otherwise. The assumption wasincorrect. I am sure this is not the first time that's happened. You haven't posted any such statutes, in CO or elsewhere.Well, it's because I was being graceful enough to allow you to takeyour foot out of your mouth and save face on your own. Here I thoughtyou were smart enough to realize that CO, and I would confidentlyventure to assert, every other state, already has such a statute.

The regulation you post is not a specific regulation, it is a general
one. It doesn't use the word "tamper", which we've been discussing (I
previously claimed that "interfere" might be made to stretch to cover the
situation).
Do you really think that no state has a law prohibiting you or me oranyone other than whoever is authorized by the traffic division ofcity, county or state to have access to signal control?

What "access"? If you mean opening it up, sure. If you mean pushing
the little button for pedestrian signals, or crossing the road loops,
no. The emergency pre-emption doesn't fall squarely into either categor.
Here, if you must be spoon-fed:Colorado Revised Statutes 42-4-607. Interference with officialdevices.No person shall, without lawful authority, attempt to or in factalter, deface, injure, knock down, remove, or interfere with theeffective operation of any official traffic control device or anyrailroad sign or signal or any inscription, shield, or insigniathereon or any other part thereof. Any person who violates anyprovision of this section commits a class B traffic infraction.Note: "No person shall... without lawful authority... alter...interfere with the effective operation of any official traffic controldevice..." This allows police to cite you if you are a private citizenand you use a MIRT to pre-empt traffic signals in Colorado.

They can cite you for anything they want, and probably would. But
trying to get a conviction on this in a real court against a real
attorney would be difficult, IMO. You'd have to go with "interfere
with the effective operation", when in fact the MIRT does no such
thing; it merely accesses a designed-in feature of the signal.
I believe they may have no specific statutory authority in many cases,... but you would be wrong. instead falling under the general authority of the highway departments to install traffic control devices.This *is* the specific statutory authority, son.

Look up "specific" in a good dictionary, Pops.
That authority does not give the highway departments the authority to impose additional restrictions upon the public,Do you listen to yourself before you hit send? Your own wordscontradict your claim. The authority given to traffic departments toinstall devices most certainly includes the authority to imposewhatever restrictions are called for upon the public.

They certainly do not.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

Matthew Russotto

11-13-2003, 07:29 PM

In article <1ZWsb.58598$Ec1.3558992@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Paul R <nospam@nospam.please> wrote:<snip>I've been following this thread for about a week now and what I haven't seenis any concept of defeating a traffic light is just plain wrong.

Sure it is. But it's also wrong to attempt to stretch laws
to cover situations they weren't intended to cover. That erodes what
freedom is left. Better to pass a new law (and I don't say that very
often).

Oh, yeah, and make the things work in the visible rather than
the infrared, then it'd be blindingly obvious who is using them.

--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

Kevin Flynn

11-14-2003, 07:43 AM

russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message news:<keicnRTtl6vZxymiXTWc-w@speakeasy.net>... In article <1ZWsb.58598$Ec1.3558992@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Paul R <nospam@nospam.please> wrote:<snip>I've been following this thread for about a week now and what I haven't seenis any concept of defeating a traffic light is just plain wrong. Sure it is. But it's also wrong to attempt to stretch laws to cover situations they weren't intended to cover. That erodes what freedom is left. Better to pass a new law (and I don't say that very often).

The law against interfering with a traffic signal is not being
stretched when it is used to cite someone for unauthorized use of a
MIRT. No new law is needed; the present one is plainly sufficient. It
uses the plain words, "No person shall... without lawful authority...
alter... or interfere with the effective operation of any official
traffic control device..." Can't be any plainer.

What I don't understand is this, in line with what Paul R asked you
above: If you agree by saying "Sure it is" that -- as Paul said -- it
is "just plain wrong" to defeat a traffic signal, and as I
demonstrated, the current law prohibits unauthorized persons from
doing this, why in the heck are you still arguing the point?

Kevin Flynn

11-14-2003, 09:11 AM

russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message news:<O9mdnf3tBNGD1SmiXTWc-g@speakeasy.net>... In article <71e3923f.0311121542.1da6e92b@posting.google.com>, Kevin Flynn <flynnk@rockymountainnews.com> wrote:russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message news:<spGcndW-vrP79S-iXTWc-w@speakeasy.net>... >> >> This discussion started with the assumption that no such statutes >> existed, and that instead they'd go after you on some general statute >> against "tampering with a traffic control device". > >Then I am glad to have enlightened you otherwise. The assumption was >incorrect. I am sure this is not the first time that's happened. You haven't posted any such statutes, in CO or elsewhere.Well, it's because I was being graceful enough to allow you to takeyour foot out of your mouth and save face on your own. Here I thoughtyou were smart enough to realize that CO, and I would confidentlyventure to assert, every other state, already has such a statute. The regulation you post is not a specific regulation, it is a general one.

Ooops, but no. It is the specific statute that governs this situation.
Most specific statutes contain generalities, that so that they will
cover what is intended but perhaps not foreseen. It says you cannot
interfere with the effective operation of a signal. Period. Doesn't
say, "Oh, if some new technology comes along later that allows
interference that we didn't think of, you can go ahead and use that
until we convene another legislature and prohibit that interference
too along with all the others." If you are an unauthorized user of a
MIRT, that would clearly and plainly put you in violation.

The statute against murder doesn't specify that I cannot throw you off
a cliff, but clearly and plainly that would be prosecutable under the
murder statute. It doesn't have to spell out in specifics each
possible way to murder someone. If I come up with a new way not tried
before, it's still friggin' illegal.

In the same way, the law against interfering with traffic signals does
not have to spell out every conceivable way in which this could be
done. It merely says, "alter, deface, injure, knock down, remove, or
interfere with." Use a MIRT, and you've violated that.
It doesn't use the word "tamper", which we've been discussing (I previously claimed that "interfere" might be made to stretch to cover the situation).

Bone up on vocabulary. To interfere with the effective operation of a
device is very much within the definition of tampering. This is not a
stretch, it's what it is. Did you fail to read my previous post on
this? The definition of "tamper" uses the word "interfere" to wit:
tamper: to interfere so as to weaken or change for the worse -- used
with "with" (Merriam-Webster)
Do you really think that no state has a law prohibiting you or me oranyone other than whoever is authorized by the traffic division ofcity, county or state to have access to signal control? What "access"? If you mean opening it up, sure. If you mean pushing the little button for pedestrian signals, or crossing the road loops, no. The emergency pre-emption doesn't fall squarely into either categor.

Yes it does. It's illegal interference. You're mixing metaphors, son.
The pedestrian button is put there precisely for you as a pedestrian
to push in order to cross the street. The loops (and detection
cameras) are placed there by traffic authorities precisely for your
car and all other vehicles on that roadway for the purpose of
effective traffic control. When you use these things put there for
public access and use, *you are an authorized user.* Why are you
missing this point repeatedly?

By contrast, unless you are a firefighter or EMT or someone to whom
lawful authorities have – through their legally established processes
– delegated use of the MIRT, you then would be an unauthorized user of
the pre-emption system were to push the button and "gain access" to
the device via the beam and alter the signal timing for your own
benefit. In this case, you are... lemme see, where's that statute
again? Oh, here... you are violating this law:

"No person shall, WITHOUT LAWFUL AUTHORITY, attempt to or in fact
alter, deface, injure, knock down, remove, or INTERFERE WITH THE
EFFECTIVE OPERATION OF ANY OFFICIAL TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICE (my
emphasis) or any railroad sign or signal or any inscription, shield,
or insignia thereon or any other part thereof." (CRS 42-4-607, but
it's boilerplate and is likely in every other state's traffic code in
similar fashion).

When you drive across a loop detector or push a pedestrian "walk"
button, you are doing as the law authorizes you. When you use a MIRT,
you are violating the law unless you have permission to do so from
those duly constituted traffic authorities who established that signal
and device. Merely because your unauthorized possession of a MIRT
might allow you to enter or access the device does not give you
permission to do so. If you leave your front door open, I would be
able to walk in. But Norristown police would be justified in picking
me up.

Alan Hamilton's fire alarm analogy fits here. You are breaking the law
if you turn in a false alarm, even though you've properly initiated
the technical function of the device.

But if there IS a fire, then you ought to use it. That's the
authorized use of a fire alarm. Same with a pre-emption device. The
authorized use is by emergency personnel and not by you.
Note: "No person shall... without lawful authority... alter...interfere with the effective operation of any official traffic controldevice..." This allows police to cite you if you are a private citizenand you use a MIRT to pre-empt traffic signals in Colorado. They can cite you for anything they want, and probably would.

No, they would only cite you for interfering with the device. What
else would it be?
But trying to get a conviction on this in a real court against a real attorney would be difficult, IMO. You'd have to go with "interfere with the effective operation", when in fact the MIRT does no such thing; it merely accesses a designed-in feature of the signal.

Knock knock? Hello? Did you MISS the part where it says "NO PERSON
SHALL... WITHOUT LAWFUL AUTHORITY?" Conviction would be a piece of
cake. You had no lawful authority to alter the signal timing through
the MIRT. It is exactly the same as convicting someone for opening the
control box on the curb and manually adjusting it. To follow your
logic, a person would be legally justified in saying "Hmmm, I think
I'll start changing the signal timing for all my friends driving up
and down the side street here."

You can just tell the judge, "Your honor, I was merely accessing a
designed-in feature of the signal. That's not interference, that's
part of the signal's proper design functioning!" I'd bet you would
still be convicted. No different with the MIRT. You're acting as
though there is a difference in the ways in which you could interfere
with the signal, when there is not. The sole determinate is whether
you are an authorized lawful user or not. Drive over a loop or push a
ped button, and you are. Use a MIRT and you are not.
I believe they may have no specific statutory authority in many cases,... but you would be wrong. instead falling under the general authority of the highway departments to install traffic control devices.This *is* the specific statutory authority, son. Look up "specific" in a good dictionary, Pops.

You are the one in need of the edjicashun. Just read this:
1 a : constituting or falling into a specifiable category
(Hmmm, that ends your argument right there.) b : sharing or being
those properties of something that allow it to be referred to a
particular category (Likewise; or this:) 3 : free from ambiguity

The statute, in legal terms, provides the *specific* authority to
traffic departments to make these rules within those particular
categories of traffic control. As new devices are developed and added
to the control system, they are automatically included.
That authority does not give the highway departments the authority to impose additional restrictions upon the public,Do you listen to yourself before you hit send? Your own wordscontradict your claim. The authority given to traffic departments toinstall devices most certainly includes the authority to imposewhatever restrictions are called for upon the public. They certainly do not.

Well, uh, yeah they do. Such childlike certainty you have in the face
of overwhelming facts against you. That's no rebuttal. How I outlined
it is in fact how that statute operates every day of the year. The
"general" authority to regulate and control traffic also gives traffic
departments a huge range of "specific" things they can do – take a
look at the rules and regs for once before you post. They are not
limited only to putting up a signal with a static controller. As new
devices are available – walk signals, pre-emption for emergency use,
no left turn at certain hazardous spots, restricted turns – they are
legally entitled and in fact do integrate them into the system and
promulgate the rules for them within the framework of the MUTCD, which
is adopted by reference in most states' statutes. That's called the
"specifics."

Just try driving around that mess near you around Valley Forge and
King of Prussia if such provisions were not legal for traffic
engineers. Egad man, give it up.

Matthew Russotto

11-14-2003, 11:45 AM

In article <71e3923f.0311140843.32149297@posting.google.com>,
Kevin Flynn <flynnk@rockymountainnews.com> wrote:russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message news:<keicnRTtl6vZxymiXTWc-w@speakeasy.net>... In article <1ZWsb.58598$Ec1.3558992@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Paul R <nospam@nospam.please> wrote:<snip>I've been following this thread for about a week now and what I haven't seenis any concept of defeating a traffic light is just plain wrong. Sure it is. But it's also wrong to attempt to stretch laws to cover situations they weren't intended to cover. That erodes what freedom is left. Better to pass a new law (and I don't say that very often).The law against interfering with a traffic signal is not beingstretched when it is used to cite someone for unauthorized use of aMIRT. No new law is needed; the present one is plainly sufficient. Ituses the plain words, "No person shall... without lawful authority...alter... or interfere with the effective operation of any officialtraffic control device..." Can't be any plainer.

The "..." are a bit misleading, as the full sentence cannot be reasonably
parsed to cover altering the effective operation of any official
traffic control device. Rather, it covers altering the traffic
control device and interfering with its effective operation. A MIRT
does not do so. The MIRT pre-emption cycle is PART of the effective
operation of the traffic control device.
What I don't understand is this, in line with what Paul R asked youabove: If you agree by saying "Sure it is" that -- as Paul said -- itis "just plain wrong" to defeat a traffic signal, and as Idemonstrated, the current law prohibits unauthorized persons fromdoing this, why in the heck are you still arguing the point?

Because when you stretch a general law that far, it ends up able to
cover all sorts of situations which it shouldn't cover, both good and
bad.

Scott Kozel put in a fire alarm example. Fine and good, but pulling a
fire alarm when there is no fire is NOT a violation of laws against
tampering with fire alarms. Rather, it is a violation of a law
against sounding a false alarm.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

John F. Carr

11-14-2003, 05:00 PM

In article <keicnRTtl6vZxymiXTWc-w@speakeasy.net>,
Matthew Russotto <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote:Oh, yeah, and make the things work in the visible rather thanthe infrared, then it'd be blindingly obvious who is using them.

Some signals flash a strobe when preempted. If you see the
flash and no emergency vehicle, probably somebody is cheating.

John F. Carr

11-14-2003, 05:02 PM

Scott in Aztlán

11-14-2003, 05:47 PM

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 02:19:41 GMT, "Paul R" <nospam@nospam.please> wrote:
Traffic lights are a "zero sum game". This means that the only way I canget an advantage is if I steal your rightful turn. Doesn't anyone herebelieve that this is just plain unfair? Whatever the legal issue is? Isn'tit the same as cutting into line at a supermarket checkout?

Absolutely - this goes without saying.
--
When I die, I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my Grandfather did -
not screaming like the passengers in his car.

Matthew Russotto

11-15-2003, 05:04 PM

In article <bp41b3$29l$1@pcls4.std.com>, John F. Carr <jfc@carrsw.com> wrote:In article <keicnRTtl6vZxymiXTWc-w@speakeasy.net>,Matthew Russotto <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote:Oh, yeah, and make the things work in the visible rather thanthe infrared, then it'd be blindingly obvious who is using them.Some signals flash a strobe when preempted. If you see theflash and no emergency vehicle, probably somebody is cheating.

Yes, but you don't see who.

--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

Kevin Flynn

11-15-2003, 06:28 PM

russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message news:<84adneWd0udKoyiiXTWc-w@speakeasy.net>... In article <71e3923f.0311140843.32149297@posting.google.com>, Kevin Flynn <flynnk@rockymountainnews.com> wrote:russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message news:<keicnRTtl6vZxymiXTWc-w@speakeasy.net>... In article <1ZWsb.58598$Ec1.3558992@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Paul R <nospam@nospam.please> wrote: ><snip> > >I've been following this thread for about a week now and what I haven't seen >is any concept of defeating a traffic light is just plain wrong. Sure it is. But it's also wrong to attempt to stretch laws to cover situations they weren't intended to cover. That erodes what freedom is left. Better to pass a new law (and I don't say that very often).The law against interfering with a traffic signal is not beingstretched when it is used to cite someone for unauthorized use of aMIRT. No new law is needed; the present one is plainly sufficient. Ituses the plain words, "No person shall... without lawful authority...alter... or interfere with the effective operation of any officialtraffic control device..." Can't be any plainer. The "..." are a bit misleading, as the full sentence cannot be reasonably parsed to cover altering the effective operation of any official traffic control device.

Huh? It most certainly does cover that. The sentence is plain on its
face... no one without lawful authority may interfere with the
effective operation of the traffic signal. It's really that simple.
What are you missing here? The fact that you can buy a MIRT on the
internet does NOT give you the legal authority to use it.

The ellipses only serve to limit the discussion to the apropos point
at hand. That is how the law is applied. I clipped the rest that
didn't apply. You didn't knock down or deface the device when you used
the MIRT, but you did "without lawful authority" "alter" "or
interfere" with it. That's how you disobey this law when you use a
MIRT without legal authority. You keep missing the fact that only
people authorized to use it may do so legally. That's the whole point
here. Anyone else is interfering and is guilty of violating that
statute.

It's the same as if a police officer is direcing traffic manually
through an intersection because of an accident detour, but you go up
to the box and take control yourself. You'd be arrested. Even though
you're using the mechanism in its designed functioning. You are
missing the key ingredient ... you do not have the right of access to
the controller. A MIRT gives access to the controller and alters the
timing, and this right is reserved only to those with "legal
authority" to do so. Not to you.
Rather, it covers altering the traffic control device and interfering with its effective operation. A MIRT does not do so.

Son, you're wrong. That's the entire PURPOSE of the MIRT. It pre-empts
the signal timing to give priority to the user. And that's precisely
why the law LIMITS its authorized use to emergency personnel. For
someone who is not authorized to use a MIRT -- you, for instance -- to
go out and use it anyway IS interference with the effective operation
of the device. The law PROHIBITS anyone without lawful authority from
doing this. I am sorry you keep ignoring this because it's dragging
this thread out.
The MIRT pre-emption cycle is PART of the effective operation of the traffic control device.

FOR AUTHORIZED USERS ONLY! Read the statute again. Traffic engineers
install and reserve use of the pre-emption function for emrgency
personnel only. The fact that you might be able to access it with a
unit should you be able to get your hands on one does not mean that
you have the legal right to use it. Again, do you think it's legal for
you to go open up the control box on the corner and alter the timing
to your benefit? If you answer no to this, then you have lost your
larger argument. If you answer yes, then we have a whole other
problem.
What I don't understand is this, in line with what Paul R asked youabove: If you agree by saying "Sure it is" that -- as Paul said -- itis "just plain wrong" to defeat a traffic signal, and as Idemonstrated, the current law prohibits unauthorized persons fromdoing this, why in the heck are you still arguing the point? Because when you stretch a general law that far, it ends up able to cover all sorts of situations which it shouldn't cover, both good and bad.

I have not stretched the law. What are you talking about? The very
point of the law is to make it illegal for anyone except authorized
persons to interfere with traffic control devices. How is this a
stretch? No one who merely buys a MIRT online can claim to have lawful
authority to use it.

There is nothing bad about limiting use of a signal per-emption device
to emergency personnel only and not allowing the general to use it.
Scott Kozel put in a fire alarm example.

Wrong again. Read upthread. As I said, Alan Hamilton provided it,
Scott Kozel applauded it as fitting.
Fine and good, but pulling a fire alarm when there is no fire is NOT a violation of laws against tampering with fire alarms. Rather, it is a violation of a law against sounding a false alarm.

This is a distinction with no difference. I am not familiar with the
statute on tampering with fire alarms, but it sure sounds like if
there is such a law, turning in a false alarm would certainly violate
it.

And as you noted, if sounding a false fire alarm is a violation of a
law against sounding a false alarm, then your proposed unauthorized
use of a MIRT would also violate the law that reserves this right only
to those "with lawful authority."

Case close, man. Move on.

Matthew Russotto

11-16-2003, 09:49 AM

In article <71e3923f.0311151928.500b5e9@posting.google.com>,
Kevin Flynn <flynnk@rockymountainnews.com> wrote:russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message news:<84adneWd0udKoyiiXTWc-w@speakeasy.net>... The "..." are a bit misleading, as the full sentence cannot be reasonably parsed to cover altering the effective operation of any official traffic control device.Huh? It most certainly does cover that. The sentence is plain on itsface... no one without lawful authority may interfere with theeffective operation of the traffic signal.

Interfere, yes. "Alter", no.
It's really that simple.What are you missing here? The fact that you can buy a MIRT on theinternet does NOT give you the legal authority to use it.

Nor do you need such authority, in the absence of a law prohibiting
its use.
The ellipses only serve to limit the discussion to the apropos pointat hand.

The ellipses changed the meaning.
That is how the law is applied. I clipped the rest thatdidn't apply. You didn't knock down or deface the device when you usedthe MIRT, but you did "without lawful authority" "alter" "orinterfere" with it.

No. You did NOT alter the device by using the MIRT.
of the device. The law PROHIBITS anyone without lawful authority fromdoing this. I am sorry you keep ignoring this because it's draggingthis thread out. The MIRT pre-emption cycle is PART of the effective operation of the traffic control device.FOR AUTHORIZED USERS ONLY! Read the statute again. Traffic engineersinstall and reserve use of the pre-emption function for emrgencypersonnel only.

For any user. It's the same as if they'd put a small unlabeled button
somewhere on the light post which did the same thing. In the absence of a
law specifically forbidding you from pushing that button, it's legal
to push -- general statutes about "interfering" don't cut it. Same
goes for the MIRT.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

Kevin Flynn

11-16-2003, 09:49 PM

russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message news:<sS2dncRv4qNJWyqiXTWc-w@speakeasy.net>... In article <71e3923f.0311151928.500b5e9@posting.google.com>, Kevin Flynn <flynnk@rockymountainnews.com> wrote:russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message news:<84adneWd0udKoyiiXTWc-w@speakeasy.net>... The "..." are a bit misleading, as the full sentence cannot be reasonably parsed to cover altering the effective operation of any official traffic control device.Huh? It most certainly does cover that. The sentence is plain on itsface... no one without lawful authority may interfere with theeffective operation of the traffic signal. Interfere, yes. "Alter", no.

Same thing. Both would be illegal for non-emergency or other
unauthorized parties. The law is very clear on this.It's really that simple.What are you missing here? The fact that you can buy a MIRT on theinternet does NOT give you the legal authority to use it. Nor do you need such authority, in the absence of a law prohibiting its use.

I already cited the law. There is such a law. There is no absence of a
law prohibiting this. That's plain as day. You are trying to ignore
the fact that the law I cited, which is boilerplate in most states,
allows only authorized persons to do these things.
The ellipses only serve to limit the discussion to the apropos pointat hand. The ellipses changed the meaning.

No they did not. In what way do you contend they changed the meaning?
Please explain this. I take such things seriously. The ellipses simply
redacted the portions of the statute not applicable to the discussion.
The sentence is comprehensible and means what I quoted. This is how
statutes work .. I deal with them every day. I skipped over the other
prohibitions, such as knocking down a sign or signal, or defacing it.
The ellipses changed nothing.
That is how the law is applied. I clipped the rest thatdidn't apply. You didn't knock down or deface the device when you usedthe MIRT, but you did "without lawful authority" "alter" "orinterfere" with it. No. You did NOT alter the device by using the MIRT.

Yes you did. BTW, "alter" isn't the word. It's "interfere." But
regardless, the MIRT does both in any case. It alters the programmed
timing of the signal and interferes with the effective operation of
the device when used by an unauthorized party. THIS IS WHAT THE LAW
SAYS. Your continued ignoring of this doesn't change that simple fact.
Your use of a MIRT would have the exact same effect as if you opened
the control box on the corner and manually changed the signals. In
both cases, you are using the device's proper features, *but in both
cases, you are not a person authorized to do that.* The law provides
this so that we don't have 1,000,000 people a day retiming signals to
their own needs or preferences.

Answer this, which you ignored in the previous post: Do you believe it
is legal or illegal for a citizen al large -- as opposed to a police
officer or traffic department worker -- to open up the control box on
the corner and start changing the signals himself? Is this OK in your
opinion?

Unlike a pedestrian walk button or magnetic detection loop/camera
detection device, which are placed there for use by the public, the
pre-emption system IS NOT PLACED for public usage. The mere fact that
you can purchase a knock-off actuator *does not give you the authority
to use it.* You would be cited and convicted quite easily if caught.
of the device. The law PROHIBITS anyone without lawful authority fromdoing this. I am sorry you keep ignoring this because it's draggingthis thread out. The MIRT pre-emption cycle is PART of the effective operation of the traffic control device.

ONLY WHEN USED BY AUTHORIZED PARTIES, as noted in the statute. The
general public is not so authorized.FOR AUTHORIZED USERS ONLY! Read the statute again. Traffic engineersinstall and reserve use of the pre-emption function for emrgencypersonnel only. For any user.

OK, got you now! Please be kind enough to advance this stalled
discussion by citing any statute or regulation anywhere that allows
any user to access the pre-emption feature of a signal. It would have
to override the prohibition on unauthorized users being allowed to do
so, as the statute explicitly says.

The pre-emption system most certainly is not installed here "for any
user." Read the MUTCD. It is for emergency personnel and those with
*specific authority.* You go and find a regulation or law that
circumvents that, and you'd be on to something. Otherwise, you have no
leg to stand on.
It's the same as if they'd put a small unlabeled button somewhere on the light post which did the same thing. In the absence of a law specifically forbidding you from pushing that button, it's legal to push -- general statutes about "interfering" don't cut it. Same goes for the MIRT.

Nope. The statute prohibits it quite specifically. If there were a
small unlabeled button on the light post that did the same thing (I am
not aware of any real application of this hypothetical -- the buttons
are usually in the control box) it too would be illegal for the
general public to use. This isn't even a contest. Give it up.

Marc

11-17-2003, 12:13 AM

flynnk@rockymountainnews.com (Kevin Flynn) wrote:Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message news:<8o21rvsdp9vfdvr1fdkhnbn0kl25gkgol7@4ax.com>...
Please point to a law that makes it illegal for an unauthorized user to use a pre-emption system. If you can't, then it is presumed legal until proven otherwise.Virtually all traffic codes and regulations limit the authority tocontrol their operation to specific folks. In the case of pre-emption,the type of people so authorized is typically limited to emergencypersonnel under limited circumstances. That don't include you, son.Deal with it.

So you don't know of any law that makes it illegal. That's what I thought,
pops (and by pops, I mean old person that makes up things because the facts
don't agree with them).

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

Marc

11-17-2003, 12:13 AM

turnkey4099@hotmail.com (Harry K) wrote:Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message news:<3031rv0f9ekbpn0sneo7gs6g3iuslq02qh@4ax.com>...<snip>???The example of someone triggering a change in the signal with a MIRTwhen he/she is not authorized to do so is the very *essence* oftampering. I don't know why you're avoiding this. By your example, itwould be legal for me to have a friend posted at every curbsidecontrol box and open it, then manually give me the green whenever Iapproach it. The MIRT is tampering in the same way. It most certainly is not. Opening the box and changing the contents is obviously not the same thing as giving inputs that the equipment regards as normal in a manner it was designed to receive. It would be more like hiring a large number of people to sit there and push the "pedestrian walk" buttons at a coordinated time to shorter your commute. Would that be tampering? Marc For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"Yes it most assuredly would if the intent is not to cross the street.You can now extend it into your accomplices also crossing the streetrepeatedly. It would still be tampering.

So if they cross after they push the button, then it will be ok. And if I
drive through the intersection after using and MIRT, then it would be ok
too, right? After all, that is what it was designed to do.
You lost this rediculousdebate several days ago. Give it up.

Ah, yes. I lost because you assert it.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

Marc

11-17-2003, 12:13 AM

Alan Hamilton <alanh@arizonaroads.com> wrote:On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 21:16:19 -0900, Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote:I've never seen any definition where "tamper" included the misuse ofsomething while using it in the way designed. It is obviously misuse ofthe traffic light, but it certainly is not modifying the hardware orsoftware of the light. It is just sending correct input to it to cause itto act in the designed manner (but not in the situation it was designed).An apropos analogy might be a fire alarm. Activating it when there isin fact no fire "is just sending correct input to it to cause itto act in the designed manner (but not in the situation it wasdesigned)."But it is illegal to falsely set off a fire alarm (or do you arguethat, too?), even though there's nothing to physically prevent youfrom setting it off at any time.Likewise, a preemption device is reserved for emergency vehicles only.If you activate a preemption device and you're not in an emergencyvehicle, it's the same as activating a fire alarm when there's nofire.

You've finally got it right. Pulling a fire alarm is using the device as
it was intended. However, it is perfectly legal to do so unless prevented
by law. I'll accept your assertion that it is illegal to pull a fire
alarm, but only if there is a law that prevents it. Just as it is legal to
use MIRT unless specifically prevented by law.

If there is no law that makes something illegal, it is legal. Since I've
seen no law that makes civilian use of MIRT illegal and all versions of
tampering that have been posted or that I've ever seen don't consider it
illegal, it must be legal.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

Marc

11-17-2003, 12:13 AM

"Paul R" <nospam@nospam.please> wrote:<snip>I've been following this thread for about a week now and what I haven't seenis any concept of defeating a traffic light is just plain wrong.Traffic lights are a "zero sum game". This means that the only way I canget an advantage is if I steal your rightful turn. Doesn't anyone herebelieve that this is just plain unfair? Whatever the legal issue is? Isn'tit the same as cutting into line at a supermarket checkout?

You are right. It is morally wrong. But it isn't illegal. Or can you get
arrested in a supermarket for cutting in line too?

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

Marc

11-17-2003, 12:13 AM

flynnk@rockymountainnews.com (Kevin Flynn) wrote:Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message news:<n6v0rv8s3u2bur41ahhdf3dlrfbf7csbpa@4ax.com>... flynnk@rockymountainnews.com (Kevin Flynn) wrote:"zoomer" <zoomer@zoom.net> wrote in message news:<vql2eah3b1af46@corp.supernews.com>...> that depends on how the statues and courts define "tamper">> "interfere" would be different as well.>Most certainly, any construal of "tamper" or "interfere" regarding anofficial traffic control device would encompass the notion of acitizen with his/her own device altering the signal cycle at his/herwhim.Illegal as all get-out. I don't see it. So, if I pick up a bottle of aspirin in the store to read the label, I'm "tampering" with it. At that moment, anyone else that wanted that bottle couldn't get it. It is a temporary interference with the usage by anyone else. I guess that is what got those people so mad when someone was "tampering" with Tylenol. I've never seen any definition where "tamper" included the misuse of something while using it in the way designed. It is obviously misuse of the traffic light, but it certainly is not modifying the hardware or software of the light. It is just sending correct input to it to cause it to act in the designed manner (but not in the situation it was designed). Evidently, some people can not understand the difference in definition between "tamper" and "misuse." MarcEvidentlyl, Marc, your vocabulary needs expansion:tamper: to interfere so as to weaken or change for the worse -- usedwith "with"

So, one light red and one green changed to one green and one red makes it
"weakened"or "worse?" I'd need to see your definition of "weakened" and
"worse" to go along with that...
Nothing in the notion of "tampering" requires that the tamperer makemodifications to the hardware or software. You are tampering with thesignal when you are an unauthorized user of a MIRT and you use thesystem "to interfere so as to .... change for the worse." Worse notfor you obviously if you get the green, but worse for those of us whorely on the signal timing without your self-centered tampering.

So if you don't like it, you find it "worse" and therefore "tampering." I
guess campaign donations are tampering with the elections. If you are home
and someone comes to your door and rings the bell, if you didn't want to
hear it, they "tampered" with your doorbell by making it make a sound you
didn't like. Heck, someone that is driving slower than you in the lane in
front of you is "tampering" with the road by making your driving experience
"worse."

No wonder our society is so litigious.
You most certainly can "tamper" with something while using its properphysical design. That's because the operation of the signal does notauthorize you as a private citizen to use the pre-emption capabilityfor your own purpose.

It certainly does, unless otherwise prohibited. If there isn't a
regulation that makes it illegal for a civilian to use it, it is legal.

Despite your protestations to the opposite, the law has not yet gotten to
the point where all actions are prohibited until otherwise allowed (though
the Patriot Act, War on Drugs, and MPAA/RIAA are a good step toward that).

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

G R Jenks

11-17-2003, 03:13 AM

It is illegal to use a Blue light to get through the intersection also, and
you are tampering when you being unauthorized to use that feature which is
identified for use with emergency signal over-ride. When a person not
authorized to change the function of the light, do... it is tampering.

"Marc" <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message
news:hefgrvk1b3qktn5ikbgnqcf174p7fh62ek@4ax.com... "Paul R" <nospam@nospam.please> wrote:<snip>I've been following this thread for about a week now and what I haven't
seenis any concept of defeating a traffic light is just plain wrong.Traffic lights are a "zero sum game". This means that the only way I canget an advantage is if I steal your rightful turn. Doesn't anyone herebelieve that this is just plain unfair? Whatever the legal issue is?
Isn'tit the same as cutting into line at a supermarket checkout? You are right. It is morally wrong. But it isn't illegal. Or can you
get arrested in a supermarket for cutting in line too? Marc For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

Kevin Flynn

11-17-2003, 08:46 AM

Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message news:<blfgrvsinrif6ihju8f722mffhsiosj3cu@4ax.com>... flynnk@rockymountainnews.com (Kevin Flynn) wrote:tamper: to interfere so as to weaken or change for the worse -- usedwith "with" So, one light red and one green changed to one green and one red makes it "weakened"or "worse?" I'd need to see your definition of "weakened" and "worse" to go along with that...

What it means is that if a person without authorization accesses the
pre-emption function of the signal, the law automatically considers it
to be interference. The key element here is your lack of authority to
do so, just as you would be cited if you yanked open the controller
and began working the signal. Get it? You do not possess the right to
do that. The law already provides for this, even if you manage to buy
a MIRT on the internet. I know it's cool for you guys to think, "Wow,
I bought this thing that allows me to change all my lights to green!"
but you have been suckered into thinking that it is legal. READ THE
LAW that already is on the books that says no-no, you can't do this.
Nothing in the notion of "tampering" requires that the tamperer makemodifications to the hardware or software. You are tampering with thesignal when you are an unauthorized user of a MIRT and you use thesystem "to interfere so as to .... change for the worse." Worse notfor you obviously if you get the green, but worse for those of us whorely on the signal timing without your self-centered tampering. So if you don't like it, you find it "worse" and therefore "tampering."

Doesn't matter what I like or not; the law considers it so, and
rightly, otherwise there would be no traffic control. The people
through their elected representatives over time have promulgated these
regulations for the gook of mobility. Live with it.
I guess campaign donations are tampering with the elections.

No, they are legal. Whatever would make you "guess" that?
If you are home and someone comes to your door and rings the bell, if you didn't want to hear it, they "tampered" with your doorbell by making it make a sound you didn't like.

No, this is legal; and if you don't like the sound, it's your damn
doorbell so change it.
Heck, someone that is driving slower than you in the lane in front of you is "tampering" with the road by making your driving experience "worse."

No, this is allowable under the law (limited by keep-right provisions
when there are multiple lanes of course).

This has to be the worst reach for a bad point that I have ever seen
on usenet. Get a life. None of this is analogous. You see,
unauthorized use of a MIRT is AGAINST THE LAW regarding improper
interference with a traffic device. Your other examples all are legal
activities.
You most certainly can "tamper" with something while using its properphysical design. That's because the operation of the signal does notauthorize you as a private citizen to use the pre-emption capabilityfor your own purpose. It certainly does, unless otherwise prohibited. If there isn't a regulation that makes it illegal for a civilian to use it, it is legal.

Have you missed the discussion, Marc? There is a law against it, quite
explicitly. It is not legal. Despite your protestations to the opposite, the law has not yet gotten to the point where all actions are prohibited until otherwise allowed (though the Patriot Act, War on Drugs, and MPAA/RIAA are a good step toward that).

Take a chill pill for your paranoia, man. Interference with a traffic
signal's effective operation by unauthorized parties has *always* been
illegal, and it doesn't matter if you come up with a new way to
interfere with it that didn't exist at the time the law was written.
It is still interference and still illegal.

Kevin Flynn

11-17-2003, 08:51 AM

Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message news:<eoegrvgk83rv0gead7uvjaim5ipn7tle72@4ax.com>... turnkey4099@hotmail.com (Harry K) wrote:Yes it most assuredly would if the intent is not to cross the street.You can now extend it into your accomplices also crossing the streetrepeatedly. It would still be tampering. So if they cross after they push the button, then it will be ok. And if I drive through the intersection after using and MIRT, then it would be ok too, right? After all, that is what it was designed to do.

Are you an EMT? Do you work for the traffic department's signal
division? If so, you're OK. Otherwise you are not authorized, as the
statute so states, to use the pre-emption device.

If you went out and bought an emergency light bar for the top of your
car and played cop, you would still be arrested even though you are
only using the device in the technical function it was designed to do.
A pre-emption device is authorized in the law only for certain types
of users, and the general motorist isn't among them.

Kevin Flynn

11-17-2003, 08:55 AM

Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message news:<rjegrv8khvjel5f1i2633v3oinpns60tv2@4ax.com>... flynnk@rockymountainnews.com (Kevin Flynn) wrote:Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message news:<8o21rvsdp9vfdvr1fdkhnbn0kl25gkgol7@4ax.com>... Please point to a law that makes it illegal for an unauthorized user to use a pre-emption system. If you can't, then it is presumed legal until proven otherwise.Virtually all traffic codes and regulations limit the authority tocontrol their operation to specific folks. In the case of pre-emption,the type of people so authorized is typically limited to emergencypersonnel under limited circumstances. That don't include you, son.Deal with it. So you don't know of any law that makes it illegal. That's what I thought, pops (and by pops, I mean old person that makes up things because the facts don't agree with them).

I already cited the law, son (and by son, I mean immature boob who
shoots from the lip without knowledge and maturity just because he
wants to stomp up and down and hold his breath and hopes he found some
loophole that lets him play with traffic signals and doesn't like it
when someone points out that he is wrong).

It is illegal. Get over it. Your not gonna be able to get one of these
MIRTs and impress the teeny boppers by changing all the lights. You'll
be cited and fined. That's a fact. Read the law I cited.

Kevin Flynn

11-17-2003, 09:00 AM

Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message news:<54fgrv8uufvl50mr49vgfg0j7b8ic0voei@4ax.com>... If there is no law that makes something illegal, it is legal. Since I've seen no law that makes civilian use of MIRT illegal and all versions of tampering that have been posted or that I've ever seen don't consider it illegal, it must be legal.

Ooops for you, son. You need to keep up with the thread. The law has
been cited earlier (CRS 42-4-607) and this is a boilerplate-type of
traffic regulation that is in use in virtually every state. Where do
you live? Look up your state's code before you claim there is no law.

Matthew Russotto

11-17-2003, 09:46 AM

In article <71e3923f.0311162249.363e09b5@posting.google.com>,
Kevin Flynn <flynnk@rockymountainnews.com> wrote:russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message news:<sS2dncRv4qNJWyqiXTWc-w@speakeasy.net>...
Same thing. Both would be illegal for non-emergency or otherunauthorized parties. The law is very clear on this.

Doesn't matter how often you write this, it still ain't so.
That is how the law is applied. I clipped the rest thatdidn't apply. You didn't knock down or deface the device when you usedthe MIRT, but you did "without lawful authority" "alter" "orinterfere" with it. No. You did NOT alter the device by using the MIRT.Yes you did. BTW, "alter" isn't the word. It's "interfere."

Note that you wrote "alter" as well as intefere.
But regardless, the MIRT does both in any case. It alters the programmedtiming of the signal

Yes, but altering the timing is not altering the device.
and interferes with the effective operation ofthe device when used by an unauthorized party.

No, it does NOT interfere with the effective operation of the device.
The MIRT pre-emption cycle is PART of the effective operation of the
device. If I were to block the MIRT sensor somehow, THAT would be
interfering with the effective operation of the device. But merely
using the MIRT is not doing so.
> The MIRT pre-emption cycle is PART of the effective> operation of the traffic control device.ONLY WHEN USED BY AUTHORIZED PARTIES, as noted in the statute. Thegeneral public is not so authorized.

You're reading a lot more into the statute that is actually there.
The statute forbids interference except by authorized persons. It does
not define pre-emption as interference.
It's the same as if they'd put a small unlabeled button somewhere on the light post which did the same thing. In the absence of a law specifically forbidding you from pushing that button, it's legal to push -- general statutes about "interfering" don't cut it. Same goes for the MIRT.Nope. The statute prohibits it quite specifically. If there were asmall unlabeled button on the light post that did the same thing (I amnot aware of any real application of this hypothetical -- the buttonsare usually in the control box) it too would be illegal for thegeneral public to use.

ROTFL.

--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

Harry K

11-17-2003, 12:58 PM

flynnk@rockymountainnews.com (Kevin Flynn) wrote in message news:<71e3923f.0311170946.7a2c06cf@posting.google.com>... Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message news:<blfgrvsinrif6ihju8f722mffhsiosj3cu@4ax.com>... flynnk@rockymountainnews.com (Kevin Flynn) wrote:tamper: to interfere so as to weaken or change for the worse -- usedwith "with" So, one light red and one green changed to one green and one red makes it "weakened"or "worse?" I'd need to see your definition of "weakened" and "worse" to go along with that... What it means is that if a person without authorization accesses the pre-emption function of the signal, the law automatically considers it to be interference. The key element here is your lack of authority to do so, just as you would be cited if you yanked open the controller and began working the signal. Get it? You do not possess the right to do that. The law already provides for this, even if you manage to buy a MIRT on the internet. I know it's cool for you guys to think, "Wow, I bought this thing that allows me to change all my lights to green!" but you have been suckered into thinking that it is legal. READ THE LAW that already is on the books that says no-no, you can't do this.Nothing in the notion of "tampering" requires that the tamperer makemodifications to the hardware or software. You are tampering with thesignal when you are an unauthorized user of a MIRT and you use thesystem "to interfere so as to .... change for the worse." Worse notfor you obviously if you get the green, but worse for those of us whorely on the signal timing without your self-centered tampering. So if you don't like it, you find it "worse" and therefore "tampering." Doesn't matter what I like or not; the law considers it so, and rightly, otherwise there would be no traffic control. The people through their elected representatives over time have promulgated these regulations for the gook of mobility. Live with it. I guess campaign donations are tampering with the elections. No, they are legal. Whatever would make you "guess" that? If you are home and someone comes to your door and rings the bell, if you didn't want to hear it, they "tampered" with your doorbell by making it make a sound you didn't like. No, this is legal; and if you don't like the sound, it's your damn doorbell so change it. Heck, someone that is driving slower than you in the lane in front of you is "tampering" with the road by making your driving experience "worse." No, this is allowable under the law (limited by keep-right provisions when there are multiple lanes of course). This has to be the worst reach for a bad point that I have ever seen on usenet. Get a life. None of this is analogous. You see, unauthorized use of a MIRT is AGAINST THE LAW regarding improper interference with a traffic device. Your other examples all are legal activities.You most certainly can "tamper" with something while using its properphysical design. That's because the operation of the signal does notauthorize you as a private citizen to use the pre-emption capabilityfor your own purpose. It certainly does, unless otherwise prohibited. If there isn't a regulation that makes it illegal for a civilian to use it, it is legal. Have you missed the discussion, Marc? There is a law against it, quite explicitly. It is not legal. Despite your protestations to the opposite, the law has not yet gotten to the point where all actions are prohibited until otherwise allowed (though the Patriot Act, War on Drugs, and MPAA/RIAA are a good step toward that). Take a chill pill for your paranoia, man. Interference with a traffic signal's effective operation by unauthorized parties has *always* been illegal, and it doesn't matter if you come up with a new way to interfere with it that didn't exist at the time the law was written. It is still interference and still illegal.

Well Kevin, I see you are still trying. Good luck but I found out
long ago that you cannot convince anyone of a point if they have their
fingers stuck in their ears and keep repeating 'tis not, tis not'.

Harry K

Kevin Flynn

11-17-2003, 02:22 PM

russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message news:<FMqcnVkr2InuiiSiXTWc-g@speakeasy.net>... In article <71e3923f.0311162249.363e09b5@posting.google.com>, Kevin Flynn <flynnk@rockymountainnews.com> wrote:russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message news:<sS2dncRv4qNJWyqiXTWc-w@speakeasy.net>...Same thing. Both would be illegal for non-emergency or otherunauthorized parties. The law is very clear on this. Doesn't matter how often you write this, it still ain't so.

Excuse me, but are you blind? It doesn't matter how often you *deny*
what the statute plainly says; it still says it. They say ignorance of
the law is no excuse, but in your case, ignorance of the law is
purposeful! I copied it for you, so your denials are pretty
meaningless. Everyone got to see it – well, except you and Marc.
>That is how the law is applied. I clipped the rest that >didn't apply. You didn't knock down or deface the device when you used >the MIRT, but you did "without lawful authority" "alter" "or >interfere" with it. No. You did NOT alter the device by using the MIRT.Yes you did. BTW, "alter" isn't the word. It's "interfere." Note that you wrote "alter" as well as intefere.

The law does. No matter. It's interference that is at issue here.
Unauthorized use of a MIRT as you propose falls into the prohibited
acts in the statute as interference with the effective operation of
the device. No matter that your button works the way the device is
meant to ... the point is that you are not an authorized user.

If you bought a police-style light bar and put it on top of your car,
I suppose you think it would also be OK for you to go around stopping
other drivers with it. Under your argument, same thing. But guess
what? Try telling the judge, "Your honor, I was only using the lights
in the way they were manufactured. They flash red and blue and whirl
around, and there's no specific law spelling out that I cannot flip a
switch that just happens to turn them on." But there is a law against
the behavior of impersonating an officer, just like there's the law I
cited for you that prohibits unauthorized interference with a traffic
control device. It don't matter that you got your little hands on a
MIRT and the signal is set up to receive the command… Use it and your
cooked.
But regardless, the MIRT does both in any case. It alters the programmedtiming of the signal Yes, but altering the timing is not altering the device.

Didn't say it was. I said that to do this is unauthorized interference
with a device, which is part of the same statute. Neither is it
"knocking over" or defacing." I'll explain it to you: You only have to
commit ONE of the prohibited acts in the statute, not all of them. You
keep addressing a non-applicable portion of it. Read it again. It is
your status as an unauthorized party that is a violation of the law,
not whether your MIRT works the same as the one in the ambulance.

THE LAW IS PLAIN ON THIS.
and interferes with the effective operation ofthe device when used by an unauthorized party. No, it does NOT interfere with the effective operation of the device.

OMIGOD, for the 1,000th time, yes it does. By definition in the
statute, for an unauthorized person such as you to interfere with the
device's effective operation is illegal. Traffic signals are installed
by agencies under the color of statute passed by our elected
representatives for the greater good of overall mobility. We make the
rules through them, and one of the primary rules is that average joes
such as you or I do not get to access those functions reserved only to
authorized parties such as emergency vehicles. It doesn't matter if
you can get your hands on the controller and it happens to work
properly; it isn't proper for you to use it, that's the point. You're
not allowed to work the signal yourself, get it? That's what is
illegal, not the fact that the MIRT works with the device's circuitry.
You're not illiterate, are you? Read the statute.
The MIRT pre-emption cycle is PART of the effective operation of the device.

ONLY WHEN YOU ARE AN AUTHORIZED USER as the law plainly states. You
are not, so you would be cited and fined in short order.
If I were to block the MIRT sensor somehow, THAT would be interfering with the effective operation of the device.

Well, that too would be a violation. But it would be defacing or
obscuring (a word used in some states' statutes on the matter). But
back to the MIRT, the law also defines unauthorized interference (that
is, someone using a MIRT who has no expressed permission to do so as
outlined in the law) as being illegal as well.
But merely using the MIRT is not doing so.

Yes it is. The law says that. Accept it. The statute has a blanket
prohibition against ALL interference with a signal. Just like the
murder statute doesn't explicitly say I can't throw you off a cliff,
that would still be illegal.
>> The MIRT pre-emption cycle is PART of the effective >> operation of the traffic control device.ONLY WHEN USED BY AUTHORIZED PARTIES, as noted in the statute. Thegeneral public is not so authorized. You're reading a lot more into the statute that is actually there. The statute forbids interference except by authorized persons. It does not define pre-emption as interference.

Whoever said pre-emption in and of itself is interference? Certainly
not me. It isn't; it's a designed-in feature reserved for emergency
vehicles. HOWEVER, unauthorized use by a private citizen of that
feature IS interference, and that's without reading anything else into
the statute. It's what the statute plainly says. Pre-emption was
installed for certain users, mostly emergency vehicles. That's who is
authorized to use it.
It's the same as if they'd put a small unlabeled button somewhere on the light post which did the same thing. In the absence of a law specifically forbidding you from pushing that button, it's legal to push -- general statutes about "interfering" don't cut it. Same goes for the MIRT.Nope. The statute prohibits it quite specifically. If there were asmall unlabeled button on the light post that did the same thing (I amnot aware of any real application of this hypothetical -- the buttonsare usually in the control box) it too would be illegal for thegeneral public to use. ROTFL

And that floor would be a 6-by-8 cell floor, should you insist on
violating this law as you propose.

By the way, you failed to answer the question I posed:

Do you consider it legal or illegal for a private citizen to walk up
to a traffic control box on the sidewalk, open it up and begin to
manage the signal manually? Heck, all the parameters of your bogus
argument are the same here. Tell the judge that you were just using
the signal's standard operational features, what could be wrong with
that?

I know why you didn't answer the question. You lose your argument
either way you go.

It's well past time to move on, dude.

Matthew Russotto

11-18-2003, 06:33 AM

In article <71e3923f.0311171522.11f41e2c@posting.google.com>,
Kevin Flynn <flynnk@rockymountainnews.com> wrote:The law does. No matter. It's interference that is at issue here.Unauthorized use of a MIRT as you propose falls into the prohibitedacts in the statute as interference with the effective operation ofthe device. No matter that your button works the way the device ismeant to ... the point is that you are not an authorized user.

It doesn't matter whether I'm an authorized user or not unless I'm
interfering. The statute does not define use of the MIRT as
interference.
and interferes with the effective operation ofthe device when used by an unauthorized party. No, it does NOT interfere with the effective operation of the device.OMIGOD, for the 1,000th time, yes it does. By definition in thestatute, for an unauthorized person such as you to interfere with thedevice's effective operation is illegal.

But again, the statute does not define use of the MIRT as interference.
You're reading a lot more into the statute that is actually there. The statute forbids interference except by authorized persons. It does not define pre-emption as interference.Whoever said pre-emption in and of itself is interference? Certainlynot me. It isn't; it's a designed-in feature reserved for emergencyvehicles. HOWEVER, unauthorized use by a private citizen of thatfeature IS interference, and that's without reading anything else intothe statute.

The statute does not say that an action taken by an unauthorized user is
interference and the same action taken by an authorized user is not
interference. Rather, it says that unauthorized interference is
prohibited. If pre-emption is not, in and of itself, interference,
then the statute does not apply.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

John wardle

11-18-2003, 10:06 AM

"Matthew Russotto" <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:jYydnVUx4KV7pieiXTWc-g@speakeasy.net... In article <71e3923f.0311171522.11f41e2c@posting.google.com>, Kevin Flynn <flynnk@rockymountainnews.com> wrote:The law does. No matter. It's interference that is at issue here.Unauthorized use of a MIRT as you propose falls into the prohibitedacts in the statute as interference with the effective operation ofthe device. No matter that your button works the way the device ismeant to ... the point is that you are not an authorized user. It doesn't matter whether I'm an authorized user or not unless I'm interfering. The statute does not define use of the MIRT as interference.

Then go buy one and use it extensively, Please.

>and interferes with the effective operation of >the device when used by an unauthorized party. No, it does NOT interfere with the effective operation of the device.OMIGOD, for the 1,000th time, yes it does. By definition in thestatute, for an unauthorized person such as you to interfere with thedevice's effective operation is illegal. But again, the statute does not define use of the MIRT as interference. You're reading a lot more into the statute that is actually there. The statute forbids interference except by authorized persons. It does not define pre-emption as interference.Whoever said pre-emption in and of itself is interference? Certainlynot me. It isn't; it's a designed-in feature reserved for emergencyvehicles. HOWEVER, unauthorized use by a private citizen of thatfeature IS interference, and that's without reading anything else intothe statute. The statute does not say that an action taken by an unauthorized user is interference and the same action taken by an authorized user is not interference. Rather, it says that unauthorized interference is prohibited. If pre-emption is not, in and of itself, interference, then the statute does not apply.

Then go try it yourself to prove him wrong.

Kevin Flynn

11-18-2003, 11:08 AM

russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message news:<jYydnVUx4KV7pieiXTWc-g@speakeasy.net>... It doesn't matter whether I'm an authorized user or not unless I'm interfering. The statute does not define use of the MIRT as interference.

Then you are not reading the very first sentence. You are wrong. It
does matter whether or not you are authorized to use a MIRT; merely
obtaining a MIRT does not confer that authority. The law is clear on
this. It isn't that the pre-emption function itself is the
interference (and here's where I think your fatal confusion is); it's
that the device is reserved for authorized users and your access to it
is inherently the interference. Read MUTCD and the stautue; they are
hand-in-glove.
>and interferes with the effective operation of >the device when used by an unauthorized party. No, it does NOT interfere with the effective operation of the device.OMIGOD, for the 1,000th time, yes it does. By definition in thestatute, for an unauthorized person such as you to interfere with thedevice's effective operation is illegal. But again, the statute does not define use of the MIRT as interference.

It doesn't have to have the term "MIRT" in the statute; it's already
covered. Just as the statute on murder doesn't specifically say I
can't throw you off a cliff. But that is already covered by the plain
legal language. We don't need reams of new laws. It doesn't have to
specifically say, "Oh, and you can't use a MIRT either," when the
blanket language already says no one without lawful authority may
interfere with the effective operation of the device. See, that
already covers it, even when new technologies are intergrated into the
signal. Traffic authorities have the legal right to define what
features are public and which are not, and the pre-emption function is
reserved to emergency vehicles in general.

You do need lawful authority to access that function, clearly.

I see you again ignored my question. Do you consider it legal for you
to pop open the control box and begin to manually work the signal? If
so, then I think you are clearly incorrect. But if you think that's
illegal, then you lose your argument on civilian use of the MIRT,
because this is the same thing. Public traffic uses what the traffic
engineers put out there for their use -- sensors, ped buttons etc. The
pre-emption is specifically reserved to certain users such as fire
trucks. So you have no inherent right to access it, nor can you open
the corner box nad work the light yourself.

You've been missing the point. It's your lack of authority to use the
MIRT that makes it a citable violation. You're reading a lot more into the statute that is actually there. The statute forbids interference except by authorized persons. It does not define pre-emption as interference.Whoever said pre-emption in and of itself is interference? Certainlynot me. It isn't; it's a designed-in feature reserved for emergencyvehicles. HOWEVER, unauthorized use by a private citizen of thatfeature IS interference, and that's without reading anything else intothe statute. The statute does not say that an action taken by an unauthorized user is interference and the same action taken by an authorized user is not interference.

Then you did not read the statute, for that is precisely what it says.
Here it is again, unless someone else might mistakenly think you are
summing it up correctly:

"Colorado Revised Statutes 42-4-607. Interference with official
devices.
No person shall, WITHOUT LAWFUL AUTHORITY, (there, you're wrong, they
said it -- you may not do the following:) attempt to or in fact alter,
deface, injure, knock down, remove, or *INTERFERE WITH* with the
*EFFECTIVE OPERATION* of any official traffic control device..."
Rather, it says that unauthorized interference is prohibited. If pre-emption is not, in and of itself, interference, then the statute does not apply.

Read the MUTCD, which most states have adopted by reference. Traffic
authorities have installed pre-emption devices accordingly and
reserved their use for emergency personnel. Just as you cannot open
the control box ont he corner and take over, so too you cannot use a
MIRT. This is the part that says you lack lawful authority.

Matthew Russotto

11-19-2003, 06:59 AM

In article <71e3923f.0311181208.67a36c1d@posting.google.com>,
Kevin Flynn <flynnk@rockymountainnews.com> wrote:russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message news:<jYydnVUx4KV7pieiXTWc-g@speakeasy.net>... It doesn't matter whether I'm an authorized user or not unless I'm interfering. The statute does not define use of the MIRT as interference.Then you are not reading the very first sentence. You are wrong. Itdoes matter whether or not you are authorized to use a MIRT; merelyobtaining a MIRT does not confer that authority. The law is clear onthis. It isn't that the pre-emption function itself is theinterference (and here's where I think your fatal confusion is); it'sthat the device is reserved for authorized users and your access to itis inherently the interference. Read MUTCD and the stautue; they arehand-in-glove.

If the pre-emption function isn't interference, then the statute does
not apply.
The statute does not say that an action taken by an unauthorized user is interference and the same action taken by an authorized user is not interference.Then you did not read the statute, for that is precisely what it says.Here it is again, unless someone else might mistakenly think you aresumming it up correctly:"Colorado Revised Statutes 42-4-607. Interference with officialdevices.No person shall, WITHOUT LAWFUL AUTHORITY, (there, you're wrong, theysaid it -- you may not do the following:) attempt to or in fact alter,deface, injure, knock down, remove, or *INTERFERE WITH* with the*EFFECTIVE OPERATION* of any official traffic control device..."

That's correct. An action which IS interference is prohibited by that
statute if it is done without lawful authority. An action which is
NOT interference is NOT prohibited by that statute REGARDLESS of
authority. If pre-emption is not intefererence -- and you've said it
is not -- then that statute does not apply, regardless of authority.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.

Guest

11-19-2003, 07:42 AM

Check out this MIRT site.

http://208.39.187.170/727/signalswitcher1

flynnk@rockymountainnews.com (Kevin Flynn) wrote in message news:<71e3923f.0311181208.67a36c1d@posting.google.com>... russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message news:<jYydnVUx4KV7pieiXTWc-g@speakeasy.net>... It doesn't matter whether I'm an authorized user or not unless I'm interfering. The statute does not define use of the MIRT as interference. Then you are not reading the very first sentence. You are wrong. It does matter whether or not you are authorized to use a MIRT; merely obtaining a MIRT does not confer that authority. The law is clear on this. It isn't that the pre-emption function itself is the interference (and here's where I think your fatal confusion is); it's that the device is reserved for authorized users and your access to it is inherently the interference. Read MUTCD and the stautue; they are hand-in-glove.> >and interferes with the effective operation of> >the device when used by an unauthorized party.>> No, it does NOT interfere with the effective operation of the device.OMIGOD, for the 1,000th time, yes it does. By definition in thestatute, for an unauthorized person such as you to interfere with thedevice's effective operation is illegal. But again, the statute does not define use of the MIRT as interference. It doesn't have to have the term "MIRT" in the statute; it's already covered. Just as the statute on murder doesn't specifically say I can't throw you off a cliff. But that is already covered by the plain legal language. We don't need reams of new laws. It doesn't have to specifically say, "Oh, and you can't use a MIRT either," when the blanket language already says no one without lawful authority may interfere with the effective operation of the device. See, that already covers it, even when new technologies are intergrated into the signal. Traffic authorities have the legal right to define what features are public and which are not, and the pre-emption function is reserved to emergency vehicles in general. You do need lawful authority to access that function, clearly. I see you again ignored my question. Do you consider it legal for you to pop open the control box and begin to manually work the signal? If so, then I think you are clearly incorrect. But if you think that's illegal, then you lose your argument on civilian use of the MIRT, because this is the same thing. Public traffic uses what the traffic engineers put out there for their use -- sensors, ped buttons etc. The pre-emption is specifically reserved to certain users such as fire trucks. So you have no inherent right to access it, nor can you open the corner box nad work the light yourself. You've been missing the point. It's your lack of authority to use the MIRT that makes it a citable violation.> You're reading a lot more into the statute that is actually there.> The statute forbids interference except by authorized persons. It does> not define pre-emption as interference.Whoever said pre-emption in and of itself is interference? Certainlynot me. It isn't; it's a designed-in feature reserved for emergencyvehicles. HOWEVER, unauthorized use by a private citizen of thatfeature IS interference, and that's without reading anything else intothe statute. The statute does not say that an action taken by an unauthorized user is interference and the same action taken by an authorized user is not interference. Then you did not read the statute, for that is precisely what it says. Here it is again, unless someone else might mistakenly think you are summing it up correctly: "Colorado Revised Statutes 42-4-607. Interference with official devices. No person shall, WITHOUT LAWFUL AUTHORITY, (there, you're wrong, they said it -- you may not do the following:) attempt to or in fact alter, deface, injure, knock down, remove, or *INTERFERE WITH* with the *EFFECTIVE OPERATION* of any official traffic control device..." Rather, it says that unauthorized interference is prohibited. If pre-emption is not, in and of itself, interference, then the statute does not apply. Read the MUTCD, which most states have adopted by reference. Traffic authorities have installed pre-emption devices accordingly and reserved their use for emergency personnel. Just as you cannot open the control box ont he corner and take over, so too you cannot use a MIRT. This is the part that says you lack lawful authority.

Kevin Flynn

11-19-2003, 09:35 AM

russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message news:<tc2dneSCCOjuDiaiXTWc-g@speakeasy.net>... In article <71e3923f.0311181208.67a36c1d@posting.google.com>, Kevin Flynn <flynnk@rockymountainnews.com> wrote:russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message news:<jYydnVUx4KV7pieiXTWc-g@speakeasy.net>... It doesn't matter whether I'm an authorized user or not unless I'm interfering. The statute does not define use of the MIRT as interference.Then you are not reading the very first sentence. You are wrong. Itdoes matter whether or not you are authorized to use a MIRT; merelyobtaining a MIRT does not confer that authority. The law is clear onthis. It isn't that the pre-emption function itself is theinterference (and here's where I think your fatal confusion is); it'sthat the device is reserved for authorized users and your access to itis inherently the interference. Read MUTCD and the stautue; they arehand-in-glove. If the pre-emption function isn't interference, then the statute does not apply.

I am convinced that you cannot accidentally be this dense; you must
have served on Bill Clinton's legal team.

The pre-emption system, like the curbside control box, is not made
available for public use. Therefore, *it is your lack of lawful
authority* that makes your interference with the signal in either
fashion illegal.

It's really that simple. Get over it.

G R Jenks

11-19-2003, 09:48 AM

Here is another thing about the Law... by using an unauthorized MIRT, and
in that process of use, cause a delay of any real emergency vehicle makes
you guilty of Obstruction... then, if any death is related to the delay
your unauthorized MIRT then can be charged with Man slaughter.

The emergency vehicle responding can hear the radio as to the location of
other responding authorized users... you do not have this extra information
to even make the MIRT safe if its use was legal.

John F. Carr

11-19-2003, 06:25 PM

In article <iWOub.11130$iS6.4886@fed1read04>,
G R Jenks <gjenks@mail.com> wrote:Here is another thing about the Law... by using an unauthorized MIRT, andin that process of use, cause a delay of any real emergency vehicle makesyou guilty of Obstruction...

I don't think we have such a law here. The laws about interfering
with a police officer prohibit physical resistance. You have
to stop on approach of an emergency vehicle, whether or not the
possibly MIRT-influenced signal says "go". Neither law prohibits
accidentally or maliciously causing a light to turn red.

then, if any death is related to the delayyour unauthorized MIRT then can be charged with Man slaughter.

Better my MIRT be charged than me.

If you mean the MIRT's user could be charged, it's very unlikely
that the delay could be proved to be the cause of death, beyond
a reasonable doubt.

Scott in Aztlán

11-19-2003, 07:08 PM

On 19 Nov 2003 08:42:21 -0800, legalsvc@gate.net wrote:
Check out this MIRT site.http://208.39.187.170/727/signalswitcher1

I just *love* this list of "authorized users" of the MIRT device:

"Volunteer 1st Responders
Private Investigators
Emergency Volunteers
City & State Highway Workers
Security Personnel
Community Services
Fire Fighters
Mass Transit
Doctors
Police
EMS
and MUCH MORE!"

I guess if you can produce a rent-a-cop's badge, this guy will sell you a MIRT.
:rolleyes:

--
When I die, I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my Grandfather did -
not screaming like the passengers in his car.

G R Jenks

11-20-2003, 01:01 AM

"John F. Carr" <jfc@carrsw.com> wrote in message
news:bphc83$ilr$1@pcls4.std.com... In article <iWOub.11130$iS6.4886@fed1read04>, G R Jenks <gjenks@mail.com> wrote:Here is another thing about the Law... by using an unauthorized MIRT,
andin that process of use, cause a delay of any real emergency vehicle makesyou guilty of Obstruction... I don't think we have such a law here. The laws about interfering with a police officer prohibit physical resistance. You have to stop on approach of an emergency vehicle, whether or not the possibly MIRT-influenced signal says "go". Neither law prohibits accidentally or maliciously causing a light to turn red.
I would look at your state laws, interferrence with utility or Traffic
Control Device. Read the threads... about every state has been displayed
all saying it is for use by emergency vehicles only. That MIRT is like
walking over and openning the Traffic Control Box... It is not even for the
Police to get the full access to the controls. I have read many states...
most have delay of an Ofcr type wording to equate to obstruction of a Peace
Ofcr. then, if any death is related to the delayyour unauthorized MIRT then can be charged with Man slaughter. Better my MIRT be charged than me. If you mean the MIRT's user could be charged, it's very unlikely that the delay could be proved to be the cause of death, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Many times, I have had the Jackass stop in the middle of the road causing
the emergency vehicle to change its path, and slow me down... I write down
the plate and the driver Discription... Request Court Service....
Obstruction of a Peace Ofcr, and when Fire and/or Police have been
delayed.... Read the Courts case law:
Man slughter is very easy to charge... The Ofcr just has to show how you
delayed them. Not a whole lot of jurors fail the system in these cases.

Marc

11-20-2003, 07:50 AM

flynnk@rockymountainnews.com (Kevin Flynn) wrote:Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message news:<54fgrv8uufvl50mr49vgfg0j7b8ic0voei@4ax.com>... If there is no law that makes something illegal, it is legal. Since I've seen no law that makes civilian use of MIRT illegal and all versions of tampering that have been posted or that I've ever seen don't consider it illegal, it must be legal.Ooops for you, son. You need to keep up with the thread. The law hasbeen cited earlier (CRS 42-4-607) and this is a boilerplate-type oftraffic regulation that is in use in virtually every state. Where doyou live? Look up your state's code before you claim there is no law.

I did. There is no law that prevents use of MIRT by civilians, just as
there isn't in Colorado.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

Marc

11-20-2003, 07:50 AM

flynnk@rockymountainnews.com (Kevin Flynn) wrote:Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message news:<blfgrvsinrif6ihju8f722mffhsiosj3cu@4ax.com>... flynnk@rockymountainnews.com (Kevin Flynn) wrote:tamper: to interfere so as to weaken or change for the worse -- usedwith "with" So, one light red and one green changed to one green and one red makes it "weakened"or "worse?" I'd need to see your definition of "weakened" and "worse" to go along with that...What it means is that if a person without authorization accesses thepre-emption function of the signal, the law automatically considers itto be interference. The key element here is your lack of authority todo so, just as you would be cited if you yanked open the controllerand began working the signal. Get it? You do not possess the right todo that. The law already provides for this, even if you manage to buya MIRT on the internet. I know it's cool for you guys to think, "Wow,I bought this thing that allows me to change all my lights to green!"but you have been suckered into thinking that it is legal. READ THELAW that already is on the books that says no-no, you can't do this.Nothing in the notion of "tampering" requires that the tamperer makemodifications to the hardware or software. You are tampering with thesignal when you are an unauthorized user of a MIRT and you use thesystem "to interfere so as to .... change for the worse." Worse notfor you obviously if you get the green, but worse for those of us whorely on the signal timing without your self-centered tampering. So if you don't like it, you find it "worse" and therefore "tampering."Doesn't matter what I like or not; the law considers it so, andrightly, otherwise there would be no traffic control. The peoplethrough their elected representatives over time have promulgated theseregulations for the gook of mobility. Live with it. I guess campaign donations are tampering with the elections.No, they are legal. Whatever would make you "guess" that?

Because you said that changing something for the "worse" is tampering. If
election donations influence an election, then the outcome was "worse" for
someone. Thus, it is election tampering by your definition.
If you are home and someone comes to your door and rings the bell, if you didn't want to hear it, they "tampered" with your doorbell by making it make a sound you didn't like.No, this is legal; and if you don't like the sound, it's your damndoorbell so change it.

Your peaceful day was made "worse" by the use of the bell by someone you
would rather have not used it, therefore, by your definition, they tampered
with your bell.
Heck, someone that is driving slower than you in the lane in front of you is "tampering" with the road by making your driving experience "worse."No, this is allowable under the law (limited by keep-right provisionswhen there are multiple lanes of course).

I didn't say anything about legal or illegal. I'm only exploring your
absurd use of the word "tampering" to be using something as intended (but
not when intended). There is a *much* better word for that, misuse.
This has to be the worst reach for a bad point that I have ever seenon usenet. Get a life. None of this is analogous. You see,unauthorized use of a MIRT is AGAINST THE LAW regarding improperinterference with a traffic device. Your other examples all are legalactivities.

Lights one way are green. Lights the other way are red. That's the way it
is supposed to work, and that's the way it works when someone uses the
devices in question. What's the problem?
You most certainly can "tamper" with something while using its properphysical design. That's because the operation of the signal does notauthorize you as a private citizen to use the pre-emption capabilityfor your own purpose. It certainly does, unless otherwise prohibited. If there isn't a regulation that makes it illegal for a civilian to use it, it is legal.Have you missed the discussion, Marc? There is a law against it, quiteexplicitly. It is not legal.

I read the law you quoted. I disagree. Telling me the same thing over and
over will not change my mind. Using an MIRT is not tampering with the
signal.
Despite your protestations to the opposite, the law has not yet gotten to the point where all actions are prohibited until otherwise allowed (though the Patriot Act, War on Drugs, and MPAA/RIAA are a good step toward that).Take a chill pill for your paranoia, man. Interference with a trafficsignal's effective operation by unauthorized parties has *always* beenillegal, and it doesn't matter if you come up with a new way tointerfere with it that didn't exist at the time the law was written.It is still interference and still illegal.

Tamper. Tamper. You've been harping on "tamper" all this time. It most
certainly is not "tampering" with the light to give it an expected input.

That you can't understand the language seems to be the problem here. Get
back with me when you understand the word that you have been saying is the
reason it is illegal.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

Marc

11-20-2003, 07:50 AM

flynnk@rockymountainnews.com (Kevin Flynn) wrote:Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message news:<rjegrv8khvjel5f1i2633v3oinpns60tv2@4ax.com>... flynnk@rockymountainnews.com (Kevin Flynn) wrote:Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message news:<8o21rvsdp9vfdvr1fdkhnbn0kl25gkgol7@4ax.com>...> Please point to a law that makes it illegal for an unauthorized user to use> a pre-emption system. If you can't, then it is presumed legal until proven> otherwise.Virtually all traffic codes and regulations limit the authority tocontrol their operation to specific folks. In the case of pre-emption,the type of people so authorized is typically limited to emergencypersonnel under limited circumstances. That don't include you, son.Deal with it. So you don't know of any law that makes it illegal. That's what I thought, pops (and by pops, I mean old person that makes up things because the facts don't agree with them).I already cited the law, son (and by son, I mean immature boob whoshoots from the lip without knowledge and maturity just because hewants to stomp up and down and hold his breath and hopes he found someloophole that lets him play with traffic signals and doesn't like itwhen someone points out that he is wrong).It is illegal. Get over it. Your not gonna be able to get one of theseMIRTs and impress the teeny boppers by changing all the lights. You'llbe cited and fined. That's a fact. Read the law I cited.

I'll be cited? By whom? They don't even care if you run the red lights,
why would they care if you change them so you are running a green?

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

Marc

11-20-2003, 07:50 AM

flynnk@rockymountainnews.com (Kevin Flynn) wrote:russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message news:<FMqcnVkr2InuiiSiXTWc-g@speakeasy.net>...
But merely using the MIRT is not doing so.Yes it is. The law says that.

The law does not say that it is illegal to use an MIRT. You read the law
to mean that it does. I read it to be written in such a manner that it
does not make it illegal. Until someone is taken through court and the
courts interpret the law obviously written to prevent physical tampering to
include MIRT use by civilians, I will stand by my interpretation.

What good is a law prohibiting something if no one enforces it anyway?

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

Kevin Flynn

11-20-2003, 01:51 PM

Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message news:<847mrv8nj2oq1cb52t1mc5j418bqol3vmd@4ax.com>... flynnk@rockymountainnews.com (Kevin Flynn) wrote:Marc <whineryy@yifan.net> wrote in message news:<blfgrvsinrif6ihju8f722mffhsiosj3cu@4ax.com>... I guess campaign donations are tampering with the elections.No, they are legal. Whatever would make you "guess" that? Because you said that changing something for the "worse" is tampering. If election donations influence an election, then the outcome was "worse" for someone. Thus, it is election tampering by your definition.

That's an absolutely crazy interpretation of anything I said. Campaign
contributions are *part of* the legal conduction of an election.
Civilian use of a MIRT is expressly unauthorized. Get over it.
If you are home and someone comes to your door and rings the bell, if you didn't want to hear it, they "tampered" with your doorbell by making it make a sound you didn't like.No, this is legal; and if you don't like the sound, it's your damndoorbell so change it. Your peaceful day was made "worse" by the use of the bell by someone you would rather have not used it, therefore, by your definition, they tampered with your bell.

Again, I have no clue what your thought processes were to come up with
this crazy analogy, but it makes absolutely no sense. Take out your
doorbell if you don't want the public to use it, but otherwise that's
the very reason you install a doorbell. Traffic engineers have already
declared the pre-emption device to be only for authorized emergency
use. You keep ignoring this simple fact. Sorry, you won't get
permission to use it.
Heck, someone that is driving slower than you in the lane in front of you is "tampering" with the road by making your driving experience "worse."No, this is allowable under the law (limited by keep-right provisionswhen there are multiple lanes of course). I didn't say anything about legal or illegal. I'm only exploring your absurd use of the word "tampering" to be using something as intended (but not when intended). There is a *much* better word for that, misuse.

But it is the legality of it that determines the outcome. So your wish
to ignore that is meaningless. Parse words all you like, Bill Clinton,
"Tamper" encompasses interference and it fits this occasion. In any
case, so what? Stop arguing terminology and look at the point, which
is that civilian use of a MIRT violates the law against interfering
with a traffic device.

And you are *not* using pre-emption as intended when you are a
civilian. It is *intended* for authorized users only.
This has to be the worst reach for a bad point that I have ever seenon usenet. Get a life. None of this is analogous. You see,unauthorized use of a MIRT is AGAINST THE LAW regarding improperinterference with a traffic device. Your other examples all are legalactivities. Lights one way are green. Lights the other way are red. That's the way it is supposed to work, and that's the way it works when someone uses the devices in question. What's the problem?

It is illegal for you to use it, just as you are prohibited from
opening the manual controller on the corner and changing the signal.
Or do you also contend you can do that as well? I'll answer for you to
spare us from lengthening this thread: You cannot.
>You most certainly can "tamper" with something while using its proper >physical design. That's because the operation of the signal does not >authorize you as a private citizen to use the pre-emption capability >for your own purpose. It certainly does, unless otherwise prohibited. If there isn't a regulation that makes it illegal for a civilian to use it, it is legal.Have you missed the discussion, Marc? There is a law against it, quiteexplicitly. It is not legal. I read the law you quoted. I disagree. Telling me the same thing over and over will not change my mind. Using an MIRT is not tampering with the signal.

Yes it is. You denying it over and over will not change the fact. Despite your protestations to the opposite, the law has not yet gotten to the point where all actions are prohibited until otherwise allowed (though the Patriot Act, War on Drugs, and MPAA/RIAA are a good step toward that).Take a chill pill for your paranoia, man. Interference with a trafficsignal's effective operation by unauthorized parties has *always* beenillegal, and it doesn't matter if you come up with a new way tointerfere with it that didn't exist at the time the law was written.It is still interference and still illegal. Tamper. Tamper. You've been harping on "tamper" all this time. It most certainly is not "tampering" with the light to give it an expected input.

Yes it is, when you are an unauthorized user. That is the precise
point of passing that law. Are you deliberately this dense? Stomp up
and down all you want and scream "But I wanna change the light, I
wanna change the light!" It is still illegal for you to do so. Clearly
and plainly in the law. That fact that you disagree means only that
you are ignorant of how laws operate or you just can't accept losing
out on this light-changing loophole you mistakenly thought you had.
Like waking up from a wet dream prematurely. That you can't understand the language seems to be the problem here. Get back with me when you understand the word that you have been saying is the reason it is illegal.

You're wrong, son. Everybody here knows it but you and that other guy
from PA.