Pulled Over Twice in One Day: My Red Mitsubishi 3000GT Story

  • Thread starter Thread starter tmyer2107
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
Sign up Log in
68 replies · 9K views
Well, with the introduction of actual data, I am satisfied that neither model nor colour is a factor in being pulled over.

Of course, we should keep in mind that, if a statistically-significant difference is found, it may well be that we have cause-and-effect reversed. It is quite possible that drivers who are prone to speeding tend to buy more red sportscars...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
DaveC426913 said:
What is a "dibble"?

I guess it must be more regional slang than I thought, it's a police officer. I think it originated from Officer Dibble, from the fantastic Top Cat cartoons.

DaveC426913 said:
Of course, we should keep in mind that, if a statistically-significant difference is found, it may well be that we have cause-and-effect reversed. It is quite possible that drivers who are prone to speeding tend to buy more red sportscars...

If anything the casue and effect seems more plausible this way round.
 
xxChrisxx said:
I guess it must be more regional slang than I thought, it's a police officer.
Ah. You're from Planet England. That explains it. :wink:
 
DaveC426913 said:
Of course, we should keep in mind that, if a statistically-significant difference is found, it may well be that we have cause-and-effect reversed. It is quite possible that drivers who are prone to speeding tend to buy more red sportscars...

As always, everything is intercorrelated and it's tough to untangle causes and effects.

Here's my theory.

Cops tend to profile. They disproportionately harass cars known to be popular among bad drivers. Subaru Impreza STi is a sports car and Porsche Boxster is a sports car, but the STi is more likely to be pulled over for going 68 in 60, because the cop will expect the STi to be driven by a twentysomething and the average age of Boxster's driver is in the low 40's. Visible/audible mods such as modified exhaust are indicative of immature drivers, they make you more likely to get pulled over.

On top of that, cops don't like foreign makes, particularly luxury European makes (BMW, Mercedes, Audi, Porsche), and particularly in the hinterland. If you're in LA, a BMW 3-series may not stand out much (everyone and their cousin drives one). Try to drive the same 3-series from Dallas to Wichita, chances are, you'll get pulled over a couple of times even if you go 65 on cruise control all the way.
 
This isn't a fight. leroy's discussion style simply needs some work if he's to be taken seriously. I'm just not being very patient about it.
You cherry-pick pieces of posts you want to address, then for the rest of it, you find reasons why you're not obligated to. You respond until you find a point where you can't think of a legitimate response, so you then begin to say the person's argument is invalid because <insert cop out>.
Instead of addressing my argument, you start addressing my debating style. You cite fallacies so often, I thought you'd recognize when you're guilty of one.
 
Last edited:
leroyjenkens said:
You cherry-pick pieces of posts you want to address, then for the rest of it, you find reasons why you're not obligated to. You respond until you find a point where you can't think of a legitimate response, so you then begin to say the person's argument is invalid because <insert cop out>.
Instead of addressing my argument, you start addressing my debating style. You cite fallacies so often, I thought you'd recognize when you're guilty of one.

I'll correct myself. I'm not criticizing your style, I'm criticizing your inclination (or ability) to form valid arguments, and to induce logical conclusions from given premises.

The onus is on you to assemble valid arguments. I can't argue your points if they haven't been constructed well.

A common example is when a foregone conclusion is inherent in the question. For example "Have you stopped beating your girlfriend yet?" This question cannot be answered logically. The only response to declare the question as invalid. (You did this with the "concurrent reality" conclusion).



If this happens often enough, and the questioner does not seem to realize what they are doing, then one must ask if they are being obtuse.

I'm sorry you think I'm deflecting your arguments, but answer me this: "Have you stopped beating your girlfriend yet?" Don't evade the question.
 
Last edited:
DaveC426913 said:
I'm sorry you think I'm deflecting your arguments, but answer me this: "Have you stopped beating your girlfriend yet?" Don't evade the question.

That's easy. You answer it with a statement. "I have never, at any point, beaten my girlfriend"

That's the only way to answer a loaded question. If you asked for a yes or no answer, it would be impossible.
 
Last edited:
I'll correct myself. I'm not criticizing your style, I'm criticizing your inclination (or ability) to form valid arguments, and to induce logical conclusions from given premises.

The onus is on you to assemble valid arguments. I can't argue your points if they haven't been constructed well.

A common example is when a foregone conclusion is inherent in the question. For example "Have you stopped beating your girlfriend yet?" This question cannot be answered logically. The only response to declare the question as invalid. (You did this with the "concurrent reality" conclusion).
You asked me if my friend did the same 7 MPH over in a different car. For that to be a legitimate comparison, he would have had to drive a different car, at the same speed, on the same road, at the exact same time. Otherwise the time difference would have affected the results. You even said "oh right, you have no comparison". Indicating it's impossible for that to have happened. I have an example, yet you shoot it down because I don't have a comparison of him doing 7 over in a different car, yet everyone else who has an example that complies with your opinion, is perfectly valid and requires no comparisons.

So because you didn't like that question, the entire post and all subsequent posts of mine are automatically invalid, and I'm hence forth no longer able to make a logical argument?
I'm sorry you think I'm deflecting your arguments, but answer me this: "Have you stopped beating your girlfriend yet?" Don't evade the question.
I'm not saying you're evading one single question. Ignore the "concurrent reality" question, since you're so fixated on it. But you still have several posts of arguments that you also ignored that don't include the "concurrent realities" question.
That's easy. You answer it with a statement. "I have never, at any point, beaten my girlfriend"

That's the only way to answer a loaded question. If you asked for a yes or no answer, it would be impossible.
Which would be the response of someone who debates properly and not someone just looking for an out.