School has started, and Drive to School Hall of Shame Web ..

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ryan Robbins wrote:
> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:sWuPe.10639$p%3.41053@typhoon.sonic.net...
>
>>In June, I started this project, but school was almost out. Now school has
>>started again, and I've begun adding to the site. Now my kids are in two
>>different schools, so I should be able to get even more photos, and I'm
>>hoping to get other people to send some photos in as well. I've splurged
>>the $8 for a domain name: "http://drivetoschoolhallofshame.com" .
>
>
> Your photos don't show any conclusive evidence of any wrongdoing by anybody.

In California, and most other states, vehicles must stop for pedestrians
in the crosswalk.

> Also, I'm curious why you don't show license plate numbers and drivers'
> faces.

I was advised against it.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"eawckyegcy@yahoo.com" <eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> writes:

> Sooner or later,
> as unjustified as it may be, you will have to explain your presence to
> a cop. What evidence can you present to him that you are what you
> claim, as opposed to his likely view that you are just some closet
> pedophile who is using stop-sign 'violations' as a cover for taking
> pictures of kids?

If that is a digital SLR (the only On-topic type in this newsgroup), he can
certainly show the previously taken photos on the spot. With film cameras
it would be more difficult.

Dragan

--
Dragan Cvetkovic,

To be or not to be is true. G. Boole No it isn't. L. E. J. Brouwer

!!! Sender/From address is bogus. Use reply-to one !!!

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

wilt wrote:
> SMS,
> I have long noted that drivers picking up and dropping off their
> children at school are horribly preoccupied and oblivious to their
> surroundings...other than their own children. Driving is atrocious. My
> wife, who teaches school, agrees with my observations. Probably
> somewhat analogous to drivers who have so little brain matter available
> that they cannot even control the pressure of their accelerator foot as
> they talk on cell phones! But this is NOT a newsgroup for political
> or civil matters, it is about DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY. Get the hint?

The point really is that just carrying a dSLR (as opposed to a small
camera) is an intimidation tool against these drivers (this was the
original subject of this post). You'd be amazed to witness the change in
behavior of some drivers when you raise the camera and point it at their
car; you can read their mind, "why is he pointing a camera at me?
should I go or stop? oh, I'm supposed to stop so I'd better stop).

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:

> Seems to me you are being watched carefully by attentive parents: they
> see some kook with a camera in front of a frickin' school. Are they
> supposed to think glowing, warm, thoughts of you? They simply have no
> idea, nor are likely to care about what you may say -- their bayesian
> prior is that you are a _threat_ to their offspring.

Not really, since I am walking with myo own offspring, and am clearly
another parent going to the school. And of course it isn't really in
front of the school in most cases.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>
>
>>The point really is that just carrying a dSLR (as opposed to a small
>>camera) is an intimidation tool against these drivers (this was the
>>original subject of this post). You'd be amazed to witness the change in
>>behavior of some drivers when you raise the camera and point it at their
>>car; you can read their mind, "why is he pointing a camera at me?
>>should I go or stop? oh, I'm supposed to stop so I'd better stop).
>
>
> Seems to me you are being watched carefully by attentive parents: they
> see some kook with a camera in front of a frickin' school. Are they
> supposed to think glowing, warm, thoughts of you? They simply have no
> idea, nor are likely to care about what you may say -- their bayesian
> prior is that you are a _threat_ to their offspring. Sooner or later,
> as unjustified as it may be, you will have to explain your presence to
> a cop. What evidence can you present to him that you are what you
> claim, as opposed to his likely view that you are just some closet
> pedophile who is using stop-sign 'violations' as a cover for taking
> pictures of kids? But hey, it's your life: carry on!
>


I, and I presume many others, understand your point. However, unless
the possession of photographic equipment (and it's usage) near public
schools is prohibited by law and posted by signage immediately adjacent
to the public thoroughfare, his admitted usage of his photographic
equipment within the context of this thread cannot be reasonably
construed as a violation of any criminal statute.

Constitutional egg cracked. And your welcome.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'