Enforcement on the traffic

[SugarD]

You've learned a different sort of English than I have.

can 
/kan/
Verb
Be able to: "they can run fast"; "he can't afford it".

potentially 
Web definitions
with a possibility of becoming actual; "he is potentially dangerous"; "potentially useful".

So being able to do something, and the possibility of doing something are not the same thing now? You can't have the possibility without the ability, and the ability is not possible without the possibility of it happening. These words go hand-in-hand for a reason.

[Pingster]

A fat man has a potential of running fast, if he trained and lost some weight. However, as it is, he can not run fast.

That's the difference, in one in a million situation reversing will harm someone, doesn't make it illegal in every single situation.

[Megamidget]

A fat man has a potential of running fast, if he trained and lost some weight. However, as it is, he can not run fast.

That's the difference, in one in a million situation reversing will harm someone, doesn't make it illegal in every single situation.

Reversing up a highway off ramp could harm someone, hence why it is deemed reckless driving. The probability of the incident resulting in harm to another person is irrelevant in the Law. The fact that it Could is what matters, not that its a 1 in a Million chance.

[Conk]

Inappropriate language usage removed - Paul

[Pingster]

Reversing up a highway off ramp could harm someone, hence why it is deemed reckless driving. The probability of the incident resulting in harm to another person is irrelevant in the Law. The fact that it Could is what matters, not that its a 1 in a Million chance.

Ok so you, as SAPD Sergeant, are permitting officers to pull people over whenever the officer can figure out ANY way possible that it could harm someone, regardless of the possibility?

I'll keep that in mind next time you're in a car, as I said before, even while obeying all traffic laws, you can harm someone. If I get ARPD reports, I'll make sure to refer to this and everyone else's posts.

[Jones]

What's with the pointless argument in here... Paul has said what he has to say and it is quite clear...

Instead of trying to twist the constitution and it's meaning.. Use logic sense to find out what it actually means.. It is quite easy.

Reversing up a ramp with the potential to get in the way of oncoming traffic when they have just reached the end of the unlimited speed limit is reckless and would cause an accident.

As a Judge yourself I'm surprised that you are unable to understand a simple part of what the topic of argument is about.

Act III: [...]driving recklessly, or not driving on the right side of the road is still a punishable offense. Law prescribe a fine of a maximum of 250 dollars for any road infraction. [...]
   III.I: Reckless driving understand any form of driving that could endanger other citizens. Under such circumstances, a police officer is allowed to take necessary actions.

The argument of that it does not specifically say that it is not okay to reverse is completely wrong considering the constitution defines 'Reckless driving'..

Ok so you, as SAPD Sergeant, are permitting officers to pull people over whenever the officer can figure out ANY way possible that it could harm someone, regardless of the possibility?

I'll keep that in mind next time you're in a car, as I said before, even while obeying all traffic laws, you can harm someone. If I get ARPD reports, I'll make sure to refer to this and everyone else's posts.

If you are caught in the act of doing something which may cause danger to other citizens you can be stopped by the police. If you drive down the wrong side of the road, you will be pulled over for reckless driving as you have created a situation where you would be the cause of any accidents.


A final quote:

Act V: A criminal offence is an offence only if it is an offence in the written official documents of the United State of Argonath. Anything that is not specifically included can be brought into civil court in order to set the legitimacy of the case.

My statements and quotes above follow this act. The act of reversing up a ramp is considered reckless driving. The act of reversing in the wrong direction of travel is considered reckless driving unless the person is reversing to park their vehicle.

If this is so hard to understand, do as the quote says above, take it into the Civil Court and I will happily clear it up officially.

[Pingster]

If you are caught in the act of doing something which may cause danger to other citizens you can be stopped by the police.

My point in the argument is that if this is a generally accepted thing, then it allows for people pulling you over for just driving a car - the act of doing so has a potential of endangering other citizens. It's a bit outrageous, but permitted, apparently. Though, of course, if anyone actually tried to do that, everyone arguing here for it would yell for copbans and ARPD reports, so I want to know where's the line between "Too low of a potential of endangering someone - legal" and "You've got a pretty good chance of endangering someone - illegal". Again, you getting in your car and accelerating has a potential of endangering someone, but you wouldn't view it as a crime, as reckless driving, would you?

As a Judge yourself I'm surprised that you are unable to understand a simple part of what the topic of argument is about.

I understand things pretty well.

[Jones]

If a person enters a vehicle they are given a responsibility to ensure they drive within the road laws and how they are taught by the Driving Schools. The act of reckless driving would be when they go against these responsibilities and pose, or has the potential to cause, an unnecessary risk to others.

[SugarD]

Ok so you, as SAPD Sergeant, are permitting officers to pull people over whenever the officer can figure out ANY way possible that it could harm someone, regardless of the possibility?

If they are doing something which breaks the law and can lead to this, yes. Reckless driving is pretty straightforward. You do it, and you are committing a crime. It's not hard to understand. Dissecting the meaning of the law from it's actual wording is just an attempt to find a loophole in the system. That is why laws are enforced by "the spirit of the law" and not "the letter of the law". That has always applied IRL and IG for various, obvious reasons.