JUST CRAZY - Texas, naturally, may raise speed limit to 80
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
speeding resulted in license suspension or jail. Stop coddling these
deadly and wasteful criminals and you'll get compliance.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/3863416.html
DOT proposes 80 mph limit on West Texas interstates
Associated Press May 15, 2006, 5:05AM
SAN ANTONIO — Speed limits would increase to 80 mph on two West Texas
interstate highways under a proposal by the Texas Department of
Transportation.
The Texas Transportation Commission could take up the proposed change,
which would apply to Interstate 10 and Interstate 20 in West Texas,
when it meets in Austin next week.
Some advocates for fuel conservation and safety have questioned the
wisdom of boosting speed limits, but transportation officials said
most drivers are already cruising at nearly 80 mph.
Carlos Lopez, director of traffic operations for the department, said
a survey of both interstates found that 85 percent of motorists were
driving up to 79 mph.
"If people begin to think that the number on the sign is unreasonable,
then they won't respect it," Lopez said. "Just putting up a lower
number on the highway isn't going to slow down traffic."
The change was made possible by state legislation passed last year
making 10 counties in West Texas eligible for higher speeds, starting
with Kerr County and stretching to the El Paso County line.
But with gas prices at a premium, some groups said drivers should be
encouraged to slow down rather than speed up.
Increasing the speed limit "will have a perverse reaction," said Peter
Iwanowicz, director of environmental health at the American Lung
Association. "Increasing the speed limit will increase fuel use."
U.S. Department of Energy studies show gas mileage usually decreases
rapidly at speeds above 60 mph. The agency's Web site says that
motorists generally pay an additional 20 cents per gallon of gas for
each 5 mph they drive over 60.
Lopez said fuel conservation is already lost for most drivers, who are
traveling at 77 to 79 mph.
Safety advocates also fear that raising the limit will lead to more
traffic fatalities.
"Our concern is that the two biggest contributors to traffic accidents
is speed and alcohol," said Jerry Johns, president of the Southwestern
Insurance Information Service, an industry group. "That has been
consistent for years and years and years."
Statistics kept by the Texas Department of Public Safety show each
time the state has changed its speed limits, there has been a
correlating effect on the number of traffic fatalities.
Department spokesman Randall Dillard said the 80 mph speed limit is
intended to make driving on the interstate safer.
"It's generally considered a safer condition when motorists are
traveling at a uniform speed," Dillard said.
-------------------------------------------
Mike T.
>
> DOT proposes 80 mph limit on West Texas interstates
>
> Associated Press May 15, 2006, 5:05AM
>
> interstate highways under a proposal by the Texas Department of
> Transportation.
>
>
Time to move to Texas, I guess. -Dave
Garth Almgren
<http://tinyurl.com/65nqz> wrote:
> http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/3863416.html
>
> DOT proposes 80 mph limit on West Texas interstates
> <snip>
> Carlos Lopez, director of traffic operations for the department, said
> a survey of both interstates found that 85 percent of motorists were
> driving up to 79 mph.
Which makes a limit of 80MPH perfectly reasonable.
> "If people begin to think that the number on the sign is unreasonable,
> then they won't respect it," Lopez said. "Just putting up a lower
> number on the highway isn't going to slow down traffic."
Finally, someone who "gets it" and is in a position to effect change. We
should all be so lucky to have someone like Lopez working for our
respective DOTs.
--
~/Garth
"I am patient with stupidity
but not with those who are proud of it." - Edith Sitwell
(Ventis secundis, tene cursum.)
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
Go ahead, troop-killer. One thing about you speeders is you are a
self-correcting problem.
Mike T.
>>
>
> Go ahead, troop-killer. One thing about you speeders is you are a
> self-correcting problem.
>
Actually, people who believe speeding is dangerous are the ones who don't
know how to drive, and THEY are the ones who are statistically more of a
self-correcting problem. Unfortunately, the statistics haven't caught up to
you yet, but I'm sure we won't have to wait long. -Dave
Brent P
> Around 5/15/2006 8:33 AM, Aunt Judy (Pride of Diarrhea)
><http://tinyurl.com/65nqz> wrote:
>
>> http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/3863416.html
>>
>> DOT proposes 80 mph limit on West Texas interstates
>> <snip>
>> Carlos Lopez, director of traffic operations for the department, said
>> a survey of both interstates found that 85 percent of motorists were
>> driving up to 79 mph.
>
> Which makes a limit of 80MPH perfectly reasonable.
>
>> "If people begin to think that the number on the sign is unreasonable,
>> then they won't respect it," Lopez said. "Just putting up a lower
>> number on the highway isn't going to slow down traffic."
>
> Finally, someone who "gets it" and is in a position to effect change. We
> should all be so lucky to have someone like Lopez working for our
> respective DOTs.
Notice however that it is only allowed in this area of texas. Hopefully
it will be enough to prove yet again that proper speed limits that
reflect the speeds people actually drive are best.
Garth Almgren
> In article <4crmlhF...@individual.net>, Garth Almgren wrote:
>> Around 5/15/2006 8:33 AM, Aunt Judy (Pride of Diarrhea)
>> <http://tinyurl.com/65nqz> wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/3863416.html
>>>
>>> DOT proposes 80 mph limit on West Texas interstates
>>> <snip>
>>> Carlos Lopez, director of traffic operations for the department, said
>>> a survey of both interstates found that 85 percent of motorists were
>>> driving up to 79 mph.
>> Which makes a limit of 80MPH perfectly reasonable.
>>
>>> "If people begin to think that the number on the sign is unreasonable,
>>> then they won't respect it," Lopez said. "Just putting up a lower
>>> number on the highway isn't going to slow down traffic."
>> Finally, someone who "gets it" and is in a position to effect change. We
>> should all be so lucky to have someone like Lopez working for our
>> respective DOTs.
>
> Notice however that it is only allowed in this area of texas.
Yeah, but that's just another case of legislation sticking it's nose
where it doesn't belong.
> Hopefully
> it will be enough to prove yet again that proper speed limits that
> reflect the speeds people actually drive are best.
Yep.
--
~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie.
Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave.
******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant."
(p...@v6stang.com for secure mail info) --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)
MBHockey13
Some crazy lady wrote:
>
> But with gas prices at a premium, some groups said drivers should be
> encouraged to slow down rather than speed up.
>
> Increasing the speed limit "will have a perverse reaction," said Peter
> Iwanowicz, director of environmental health at the American Lung
> Association. "Increasing the speed limit will increase fuel use."
The AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION? Why is their opinion relevant in an
article about speed limit increases in West Texas? It's not like
there's smog out there.
>
> U.S. Department of Energy studies show gas mileage usually decreases
> rapidly at speeds above 60 mph. The agency's Web site says that
> motorists generally pay an additional 20 cents per gallon of gas for
> each 5 mph they drive over 60.
How does that stat make sense? I completely understand they use more
fuel at higher speeds, but it also COSTS MORE PER GALLON? If you use 3
gallons a week or 30 gallons, it's still the same price per gallon
used. Did they mean per mile? I'm confused.
>
> Safety advocates also fear that raising the limit will lead to more
> traffic fatalities.
>
> "Our concern is that the two biggest contributors to traffic accidents
> is speed and alcohol," said Jerry Johns, president of the Southwestern
> Insurance Information Service, an industry group. "That has been
> consistent for years and years and years."
Sorry, but "Safety Advocate" does not equal "Southwestern Insurance
Information Service, an industry group". Insurance companies want lower
speed limits because Low Speed Limits=More Tickets=Higher
Surcharges=More Money for Insurance Companies. They need to be honest
here.
>
> Statistics kept by the Texas Department of Public Safety show each
> time the state has changed its speed limits, there has been a
> correlating effect on the number of traffic fatalities.
>
> Department spokesman Randall Dillard said the 80 mph speed limit is
> intended to make driving on the interstate safer.
>
> "It's generally considered a safer condition when motorists are
> traveling at a uniform speed," Dillard said.
>
That's true. That's why it makes sense to set the limit at 80 MPH.
Pooh Bear
MBHockey13 wrote:
> > U.S. Department of Energy studies show gas mileage usually decreases
> > rapidly at speeds above 60 mph. The agency's Web site says that
> > motorists generally pay an additional 20 cents per gallon of gas for
> > each 5 mph they drive over 60.
>
> How does that stat make sense? I completely understand they use more
> fuel at higher speeds, but it also COSTS MORE PER GALLON? If you use 3
> gallons a week or 30 gallons, it's still the same price per gallon
> used. Did they mean per mile? I'm confused.
I imagine it's some half-assed idea to relate the extra fuel consumption to some
imagined equivalent increased cost for fuel at the lower speed.
Graham
The Chief Instigator
>>> http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/3863416.html
Wow. Eight whole counties out of 254, with a combined population of less than
some individual Houston suburbs...maybe you'd be safer if you just stayed in
Denver, eh?
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Milwaukee 4, Houston 2 (May 9)
NEXT GAME: October 2006, opponent/venue/time TBA
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
wrote:
>laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE <xeto...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>>On Mon, 15 May 2006 11:52:47 -0400, "Mike T." <no...@nohow.not> wrote:
>
>>>> http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/3863416.html
>
>>>> DOT proposes 80 mph limit on West Texas interstates
>
>>>> Associated Press May 15, 2006, 5:05AM
>
>>>> SAN ANTONIO - Speed limits would increase to 80 mph on two West Texas
>>>> interstate highways under a proposal by the Texas Department of
>>>> Transportation.
>
>>>Time to move to Texas, I guess. -Dave
>
>>Go ahead, troop-killer. One thing about you speeders is you are a
>>self-correcting problem.
>
>Wow. Eight whole counties out of 254, with a combined population of less than
>some individual Houston suburbs
I don't know if that's true and i don't care . What i do know is this
is just the start. The oil industry loves people wasting gas and the
auto industry loves car crashes so they are paying off the legislators
to raise speed limits. Soon it will be nationwide.
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
wrote:
>>
>> U.S. Department of Energy studies show gas mileage usually decreases
>> rapidly at speeds above 60 mph. The agency's Web site says that
>> motorists generally pay an additional 20 cents per gallon of gas for
>> each 5 mph they drive over 60.
>
>How does that stat make sense? I completely understand they use more
>fuel at higher speeds, but it also COSTS MORE PER GALLON? If you use 3
>gallons a week or 30 gallons, it's still the same price per gallon
>used. Did they mean per mile? I'm confused.
WTF are you talking about.
Mike T.
One can only hope. -Dave
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
wrote:
>
>>
>> U.S. Department of Energy studies show gas mileage usually decreases
>> rapidly at speeds above 60 mph. The agency's Web site says that
>> motorists generally pay an additional 20 cents per gallon of gas for
>> each 5 mph they drive over 60.
>
>How does that stat make sense? I completely understand they use more
>fuel at higher speeds, but it also COSTS MORE PER GALLON? If you use 3
>gallons a week or 30 gallons, it's still the same price per gallon
>used. Did they mean per mile? I'm confused.
You're right - it don't make no sense as written. What they prolly
meant was driving 65 instead of 60 was the SAME as paying 20 cents
more per gallon since the extra 5 mph reduces mpg by around 7% and 7%
of $3 gas is around 20 cents.
US 71
"Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4468B869...@hotmail.com...
>
> I imagine it's some half-assed idea to relate the extra fuel consumption
> to some
> imagined equivalent increased cost for fuel at the lower speed.
>
Nah... it's just so you burn more fuel faster and buy more fuel faster and
make "(fake) native son" King George II a lot richer a lot faster.
Arif Khokar
> Nah... it's just so you burn more fuel faster and buy more fuel faster and
> make "(fake) native son" King George II a lot richer a lot faster.
Who says you need fuel to go 80 mph (or close to it)?
http://www.recumbents.com/WISIL/speedruns2000/worlds-fastest-bicycle-2000.htm
Nate Nagel
Um, how is that? I've been living in areas where literally 90% or more
of drivers speed for the last 5-6 years or so, what's the problem and
how is it correcting itself?
nate
--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
Nate Nagel
> speeding resulted in license suspension or jail. Stop coddling these
> deadly and wasteful criminals and you'll get compliance.
>
> http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/3863416.html
Hmm, everything in that article makes much more sense than you ever do.
In fact, this would hardly be newsworthy as it's so common-sense that
people would shrug and say "eh, whatever" were underposted speed limits
not so prevalent in so many parts of the US.
SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim
>
YEA, ABOUT FUCKING TIME.
maybe our goddamn completely useless pigs will then start doing something
useful for
the FIRST TIME in their horseshit careers and quit harassing taxpayers with
bullshit
Bill Funk
A real question:
Does it bother you that you don't get the same kind of response that
judy gets?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
webs...@cox.net
>Hopefully
>it will be enough to prove yet again that proper speed limits that
>reflect the speeds people actually drive are best.
That area is so wide open, and the traffic so low, that I have no
problem with 80, maybe even 85. I hope they still keep the night
speeds at 65; those deer come up pretty fast and they don't have lights
on 'em, even in Tejas.
I do, however, predict that if the limit is raised by 5, the average
speed will also go up by 5. I noticed the article said the average
speed is 79. That's just under SL+5, which is what many people drive,
figuring that they won't get a ticket for such a small infraction, and
they are probably right. That would hold with my theory that people
drive at the speed they figure they can get away with, regardless of
how fast it is.
Arif Khokar
> Brent P wrote:
>>Hopefully
>>it will be enough to prove yet again that proper speed limits that
>>reflect the speeds people actually drive are best.
> That area is so wide open, and the traffic so low, that I have no
> problem with 80, maybe even 85. I hope they still keep the night
> speeds at 65; those deer come up pretty fast and they don't have lights
> on 'em, even in Tejas.
Deer in west Texas?
> I do, however, predict that if the limit is raised by 5, the average
> speed will also go up by 5.
I doubt it. When they raised the speed limit on WV interstates from 65
to 70 mph, the averge speed increase was 1.6 mph. On ARC routes, where
the limit was increased from 55 to 65 mph, the average speed increase
was around 4.5 mph.
There's also the study conducted for the FHWA by Martin Parker and
associates that found that raising the limit by as much as 15 mph or
lowering it by as much as 20 mph did not change the speed of traffic by
more than 1.5 mph.
Scott en Aztlán
<xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Same BS. "Hey, people do 80 anyway".
Funny, that hasn't been my experience thus far. I've never seen a
bigger bunch of Sloths than I did today in Houston. Sure, the roads
are currently underposted (the speed limits I saw generally ranged
from 45 MPH to 60 MPH) but we were passing people left and right as we
drove at standard SoCal freeway speeds (nominally 75 MPH).
I've been watching out for Jaybird, though - I figure these people are
all driving slow because they have been thoroughly whipped, so there
MUST be a lot of cops hiding in the bushes around here. ;)
And what's with all the funky dedicated U-turn lanes? Every big
intersection seems to have one - seems like a pretty expensive way to
solve a simple problem to me...
Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers)
<xeto...@yahoo.com> was understood to have stated the following:
>>> U.S. Department of Energy studies show gas mileage usually decreases
>>> rapidly at speeds above 60 mph. The agency's Web site says that
>>> motorists generally pay an additional 20 cents per gallon of gas for
>>> each 5 mph they drive over 60.
>>
>>How does that stat make sense? I completely understand they use more
>>fuel at higher speeds, but it also COSTS MORE PER GALLON? If you use 3
>>gallons a week or 30 gallons, it's still the same price per gallon
>>used. Did they mean per mile? I'm confused.
>
>WTF are you talking about.
Learn to read, retard.
---
"Do we operate under a system of equal justice under law? Or is there one system for the average citizen and another for the high and mighty?" ~ Senator Ted Kennedy, 1973
--
El Pollo Loco (Laura Bush Murdered Her Boyfriend) demonstrates it's complete gullibility, stupidity, and state of delusion when it falls for an April Fool's joke, hook, line, and sinker:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/008d032d86999983?hl=en&
Ragnar wrote:
> Gods, you're dumb. Its a rather obvious April Fool's joke. And you're
> the Fool.
This is no joke. Bush has gotten away with stealing two elections and blowing up WTC and lying america into war. So don't put a third term
attempt past him. I mean who's gonna stop him. The democrats and the media are totally bought off.
Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers)
<xeto...@yahoo.com> was understood to have stated the following:
>On 15 May 2006 10:09:36 -0700, "MBHockey13" <MBHoc...@aol.com>
It took you SIX MINUTES to figure that out? You are *FAR* from the
brightest bulb in the box, dullard.
necromancer
> > Soon it will be nationwide.
>
> One can only hope.
One can hope, that /// isn't too far behind....
Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
> On Mon, 15 May 2006 15:33:06 GMT, laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
> <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Same BS. "Hey, people do 80 anyway".
>
> Funny, that hasn't been my experience thus far. I've never seen a
> bigger bunch of Sloths than I did today in Houston. Sure, the roads
> are currently underposted (the speed limits I saw generally ranged
> from 45 MPH to 60 MPH) but we were passing people left and right as we
> drove at standard SoCal freeway speeds (nominally 75 MPH).
>
So you admit you're doing 30 mph over the speed limit?. WTF is wrong
with you?. Why don't you just toss a bomb in a restaurant while you're
at it, you psychopath.?
Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers)
<xeto...@yahoo.com> was understood to have stated the following:
>
>Go ahead, troop-killer. One thing about you speeders is you are a
>self-correcting problem.
We're not speeding; we're experimenting.
Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers)
<xeto...@yahoo.com> was understood to have stated the following:
>
>So you admit you're doing 30 mph over the speed limit?. WTF is wrong
>with you?. Why don't you just toss a bomb in a restaurant while you're
>at it, you psychopath.?
He's not speeding; he's experimenting. URAMORON.
Nate Nagel
So what do you think would happen if they raised the speed limit to 120 MPH?
Scott O. Kuznicki
Maybe I'm dense, but what does "///" mean in that sentence?
--
Scott O. Kuznicki
Civil (Traffic) Engineer
Dedicated Highway Enthusiast
Driving Enthusiast:
'03 525i 5-speed
'90 Ninja 250R (cheap fun!)
Mike T.
"Scott O. Kuznicki" <scottk...@midwestroads.com> wrote in message
news:fr9k62h1bil670vqb...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 16 May 2006 02:08:54 -0400, necromancer
> <necro...@kretp.tmy> wrote:
>
>> > > Soon it will be nationwide.
>> >
>> > One can only hope.
>>
>> One can hope, that /// isn't too far behind....
>
> Maybe I'm dense, but what does "///" mean in that sentence?
In certain countries, it is a speed limit sign which means NO speed limit.
:) -Dave
kh...@jersey.net
like that way better.
Don't like it - don't drive it. Don't want to be on an 80 mph roadway?
Don't drive it. There are other options.
Floyd Rogers
>
>> > > Soon it will be nationwide.
>> >
>> > One can only hope.
>>
>> One can hope, that /// isn't too far behind....
>
> Maybe I'm dense, but what does "///" mean in that sentence?
>
> --
> Scott O. Kuznicki
> Civil (Traffic) Engineer
> Dedicated Highway Enthusiast
> Driving Enthusiast:
> '03 525i 5-speed
> '90 Ninja 250R (cheap fun!)
It's the universal symbol for "resume speed" or "end of slow zone".
You call yourself a traffic engineer and don't know that? Of course
in this context, it is probably referring to it's use on the speed limitless
autobahns.
FloydR
AnotherDrunkDriv...@spamgourmet.com
You could have just stopped at "I don't know" and it would have been an
accurate assessment of all your posts.
Garth Almgren
Around 5/16/2006 12:29 PM, Scott O. Kuznicki wrote:
> On Tue, 16 May 2006 02:08:54 -0400, necromancer
> <necro...@kretp.tmy> wrote:
>
>>>> Soon it will be nationwide.
>>> One can only hope.
>> One can hope, that /// isn't too far behind....
>
> Maybe I'm dense, but what does "///" mean in that sentence?
http://gettingaroundgermany.home.att.net/zeichen.htm#reg
It means "End of all restrictions: This sign cancels all previous speed
limit and passing restrictions; However, the general speed limit applies."
--
~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie.
Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave.
******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant."
(p...@v6stang.com for secure mail info) --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)
Michael G. Koerner
The German Autobahn sign that means 'end speed restrictions' is a grey disk
with (IIRC) five thin black diagonal lines as a slash.
--
___________________________________________ ____ _______________
Regards, | |\ ____
| | | | |\
Michael G. Koerner May they | | | | | | rise again!
Appleton, Wisconsin USA | | | | | |
___________________________________________ | | | | | | _______________
Scott O. Kuznicki
<fbloo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> One can hope, that /// isn't too far behind....
> >
> > Maybe I'm dense, but what does "///" mean in that sentence?
>
> It's the universal symbol for "resume speed" or "end of slow zone".
> You call yourself a traffic engineer and don't know that? Of course
> in this context, it is probably referring to it's use on the speed limitless
> autobahns.
Thanks, I think . . . :-o
I'm not terribly familiar with European/International signage,
although probably more familiar than most American traffic engineers.
I've certainly never come across anything like that in the States in
my travels to nearly every state and major population center.
Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
Mike T. wrote:
> "Scott O. Kuznicki" <scottk...@midwestroads.com> wrote in message
> news:fr9k62h1bil670vqb...@4ax.com...
> >
>
> In certain countries, it is a speed limit sign which means NO speed limit.
> :) -Dave
Well hell - let's legalize rape and murder while we're at it. WTF is
wrong with you.??? Why do you like to kill and maim people with your
car?
ILoveMyS...@spamgourmet.com
Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
> Mike T. wrote:
> > "Scott O. Kuznicki" <scottk...@midwestroads.com> wrote in message
> > news:fr9k62h1bil670vqb...@4ax.com...
> > >
> > > Maybe I'm dense, but what does "///" mean in that sentence?
> >
> > In certain countries, it is a speed limit sign which means NO speed limit.
> > :) -Dave
>
> Well hell - let's legalize rape and murder while we're at it. WTF is
I *knew* you were a Kennedy supporter.
> wrong with you.??? Why do you like to kill and maim people with your
> car?
Got proof he does? Didn't think so.
Arif Khokar
> I'm not terribly familiar with European/International signage,
> although probably more familiar than most American traffic engineers.
> I've certainly never come across anything like that in the States in
> my travels to nearly every state and major population center.
The reason behind that is that the MUTCD standard differs substantially
from the standard used for road signage in Europe. But there are some
similarities with regards to yield signs and stop signs.
webs...@cox.net
>So what do you think would happen if they raised the speed limit to 120 MPH?
Well, at some point most people, or their cars, would peter out.
Darwin would account for a few, as blowouts and animals entered the
scene. However, there would be a certain percentage--you know who you
are--who would drive 125. Or 136 to tempt the speeed cameras... ;<)
Pat O'Connell
> On Mon, 15 May 2006 17:33:03 GMT, laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
> <xeto...@yahoo.com> was understood to have stated the following:
>
>>>> U.S. Department of Energy studies show gas mileage usually decreases
>>>> rapidly at speeds above 60 mph. The agency's Web site says that
>>>> motorists generally pay an additional 20 cents per gallon of gas for
>>>> each 5 mph they drive over 60.
>>>
>>>How does that stat make sense? I completely understand they use more
>>>fuel at higher speeds, but it also COSTS MORE PER GALLON? If you use 3
>>>gallons a week or 30 gallons, it's still the same price per gallon
>>>used. Did they mean per mile? I'm confused.
>>
>>WTF are you talking about.
>
> Learn to read, retard.
Judy, you need to learn to think, and stop flaming people who are
actually math literate. Gas, like milk or water, costs the same per
gallon whether it's standing still or moving.
Now you can argue that the mileage (that is, the number of miles your
car can travel per gallon) varies on the speed of the car. It does, due
to wind resistance. One can get better mileage if driving a streamlined
car instead of a 70s era slab sided car.
However, there are other factors that affect mileage, such as the speed
and direction of wind, whether you're going uphill or downhill, the kind
of pavement you're traveling on (like gravel), how much your car is
idling (at stoplights or in traffic jams--big killer of mileage),and
whether you have the A/C on or not.
--
Pat O'Connell
[note munged EMail address]
Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints,
Kill nothing but vandals...
Larry Bud
Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
I'll flip your question about Kennedy right back at you: How many has
Dave killed? Oh, none? I see.
THINK.
AnotherDrunkDriv...@spamgourmet.com
Pat O'Connell wrote:
> Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad
> Mothers) wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 May 2006 17:33:03 GMT, laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
> > <xeto...@yahoo.com> was understood to have stated the following:
> >
> >>>> U.S. Department of Energy studies show gas mileage usually decreases
> >>>> rapidly at speeds above 60 mph. The agency's Web site says that
> >>>> motorists generally pay an additional 20 cents per gallon of gas for
> >>>> each 5 mph they drive over 60.
> >>>
> >>>How does that stat make sense? I completely understand they use more
> >>>fuel at higher speeds, but it also COSTS MORE PER GALLON? If you use 3
> >>>gallons a week or 30 gallons, it's still the same price per gallon
> >>>used. Did they mean per mile? I'm confused.
> >>
> >>WTF are you talking about.
> >
> > Learn to read, retard.
>
attribution
One entry found for attribution.
Main Entry: at·tri·bu·tion
Pronunciation: "a-tr&-'byü-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : the act of attributing; especially : the ascribing of a work (as of
literature or art) to a particular author or artist
2 : an ascribed quality, character, or right
- at·tri·bu·tion·al /-sh(&-)n&l/ adjective
necromancer
> Well hell - let's legalize rape and murder while we're at it.
I'm sure the kennedy klan of taxachusetts would love that.
> WTF is wrong with you.???
I might asj the same, but I really don't want to know.
> Why do you like to kill and maim people with your car?
That piece of shit you drive is more likely to kill or maim than all of
the rest of our cars combined.
Btw, aren't you the one who brags about not killing anyone in 3.5
years??
--
"My dash lights burned out years ago. Just
keep a cheapie flashlight on the seat."
--Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend, 12 Nov 2005 18:11:38 -0800
Ref: http://tinyurl.com/akxtu
Message ID: 1131847898.473454.275...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com
Jeff
"Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1147830799.6...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Here we go again, do you know what a non sequitur is?
Rape and Murder are only analogous to speeding in your distorted reality.
BTW his comment deals with the lack of a speed limit means it is impossible
to be a speeder so in your twisted logic that would make him a good guy
because he doesn't speed.
mavman
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:
> Same BS. "Hey, people do 80 anyway". Well - they wouldn't do that if
> speeding resulted in license suspension or jail. Stop coddling these
> deadly and wasteful criminals and you'll get compliance.
>
> http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/3863416.html
>
> DOT proposes 80 mph limit on West Texas interstates
>
> Associated Press May 15, 2006, 5:05AM
>
> SAN ANTONIO - Speed limits would increase to 80 mph on two West Texas
> interstate highways under a proposal by the Texas Department of
> Transportation.
>
> which would apply to Interstate 10 and Interstate 20 in West Texas,
> when it meets in Austin next week.
>
> Some advocates for fuel conservation and safety have questioned the
> wisdom of boosting speed limits, but transportation officials said
> most drivers are already cruising at nearly 80 mph.
>
> Carlos Lopez, director of traffic operations for the department, said
> a survey of both interstates found that 85 percent of motorists were
> driving up to 79 mph.
>
> "If people begin to think that the number on the sign is unreasonable,
> then they won't respect it," Lopez said. "Just putting up a lower
> number on the highway isn't going to slow down traffic."
>
> The change was made possible by state legislation passed last year
> making 10 counties in West Texas eligible for higher speeds, starting
> with Kerr County and stretching to the El Paso County line.
>
> But with gas prices at a premium, some groups said drivers should be
> encouraged to slow down rather than speed up.
>
> Increasing the speed limit "will have a perverse reaction," said Peter
> Iwanowicz, director of environmental health at the American Lung
> Association. "Increasing the speed limit will increase fuel use."
>
> U.S. Department of Energy studies show gas mileage usually decreases
> rapidly at speeds above 60 mph. The agency's Web site says that
> motorists generally pay an additional 20 cents per gallon of gas for
> each 5 mph they drive over 60.
>
> traveling at 77 to 79 mph.
>
> Safety advocates also fear that raising the limit will lead to more
> traffic fatalities.
>
> "Our concern is that the two biggest contributors to traffic accidents
> is speed and alcohol," said Jerry Johns, president of the Southwestern
> Insurance Information Service, an industry group. "That has been
> consistent for years and years and years."
>
> Statistics kept by the Texas Department of Public Safety show each
> time the state has changed its speed limits, there has been a
> correlating effect on the number of traffic fatalities.
>
> Department spokesman Randall Dillard said the 80 mph speed limit is
> intended to make driving on the interstate safer.
>
> "It's generally considered a safer condition when motorists are
> traveling at a uniform speed," Dillard said.
>
> -------------------------------------------
N8N
webs...@cox.net wrote:
> Nate Nagel asked:
> >So what do you think would happen if they raised the speed limit to 120 MPH?
>
> Well, at some point most people, or their cars, would peter out.
Indeed.
> Darwin would account for a few, as blowouts and animals entered the
> scene. However, there would be a certain percentage--you know who you
> are--who would drive 125. Or 136 to tempt the speeed cameras... ;<)
Probably those would be the people whose skills and cars were
sufficient to handle 120+ MPH, i.e. very few.
You are aware of the studies (links posted elsewhere in this thread)
that show that outside of areas with grossly underposted speed limits
combined with heavy enforcement activities, changing the speed limit
has minimal effect on actual travel speeds, yes?
nate
Shawn K. Quinn
and alt.true-crime removed.]
begin quotation
from Laura Bush murdered her boy friend <xeto...@yahoo.com>
in message <1147830799.6...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>
posted at 2006-05-17T01:53
In countries without set numeric speed limits on some roads, those roads
*still* have all other traffic laws in place, including those against
reckless driving, following too closely, and even the basic speed law
(too fast for conditions).
Granted, I don't think the US will be ready for /// for some time.
I personally would probably not exceed 80 mi/h (~130 km/h) in perfect
conditions even on roads posted ///.
--
___ _ _____ |*|
/ __| |/ / _ \ |*| Shawn K. Quinn
\__ \ ' < (_) | |*| skq...@speakeasy.net
|___/_|\_\__\_\ |*| Houston, TX, USA
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
<skq...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>["Followup-To:" header set to misc.transport.road; talk.politics.misc
>and alt.true-crime removed.]
>begin quotation
> from Laura Bush murdered her boy friend <xeto...@yahoo.com>
> in message <1147830799.6...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>
> posted at 2006-05-17T01:53
>>
>> Mike T. wrote:
>>> "Scott O. Kuznicki" <scottk...@midwestroads.com> wrote in message
>>> news:fr9k62h1bil670vqb...@4ax.com...
>>> > Maybe I'm dense, but what does "///" mean in that sentence?
>
>>> In certain countries, it is a speed limit sign which means NO speed limit.
>>> :) -Dave
>
>> Well hell - let's legalize rape and murder while we're at it. WTF is
>> wrong with you.??? Why do you like to kill and maim people with your
>> car?
>
>In countries without set numeric speed limits on some roads, those roads
>*still* have all other traffic laws in place, including those against
>reckless driving, following too closely, and even the basic speed law
>(too fast for conditions).
>
>Granted, I don't think the US will be ready for /// for some time.
>I personally would probably not exceed 80 mi/h (~130 km/h) in perfect
>conditions even on roads posted ///.
Oh yes you would. Other people would be doing 100 mph and like the
dumb sheep you are, you'd feel like you "have" to do the same.
Brent P
> Granted, I don't think the US will be ready for /// for some time.
Effectively, that is what we have many places right now. The big things
keeping 85th percentile speeds at ~80mph is the large number of
undisciplined drivers, traffic, and road surface conditions.
Enforcement of the underposted speed limits in most cases is quite a ways
down the list.
> I personally would probably not exceed 80 mi/h (~130 km/h) in perfect
> conditions even on roads posted ///.
Given US drivers I have to share the roads with, that's about where I top
out as well. However, on the autobahn, crusing at 90-100mph is very
comfortable.
Pooh Bear
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:>
> >Granted, I don't think the US will be ready for /// for some time.
> >I personally would probably not exceed 80 mi/h (~130 km/h) in perfect
> >conditions even on roads posted ///.
>
> Oh yes you would. Other people would be doing 100 mph and like the
> dumb sheep you are, you'd feel like you "have" to do the same.
Well, I certainly don't allow anyone to intimidate me into driving faster than I'm
comfortable with. Can't see why anyone else should either.
Graham
webs...@cox.net
>You are aware of the studies (links posted elsewhere in this thread)
>that show that outside of areas with grossly underposted speed limits
>combined with heavy enforcement activities, changing the speed limit
>has minimal effect on actual travel speeds, yes?
Not personally, though I understand that studies which support one's
own opinion are generally rated as good studies. ;<)
Maybe what the study shows is that, if the limit is high enough, and
enforcement low enough, people will drive at whatever speed they want.
In which case, sure, changing the limit might have no effect.
I also suspect that the number of people who think they can handle high
speeds far surpasses the number who really can. Strangely, it seems
that a huge proportion of folks in their late teens and early twenties,
who by definition have limited experience, think they can handle the
high speeds. Folks in their mid-years, who are still not old enough to
generally have much degraded skills, seem to mellow as their real
experience teaches them that it's the unexpected that causes the
problem. i.e., they can handl their own vehicle, until some clown
bumps them, or there's a blowout, etc.
And in the news, Phoenix has the second highest rating for rude driving
(or was it road rage? I can't remember; same thing). I couldn't argue
with that at all. People won't let others merge, etc. I saw someone
today non-chalantly driving on the shoulder in stopped traffic to pass
everyone else at the highway exit, and just pull in front of some
startled other person. The driver later went to the shopping center...
So few people are nice any more.
Scott en Aztlán
>And in the news, Phoenix has the second highest rating for rude driving
>(or was it road rage? I can't remember; same thing).
NOT the same thing - the latter is the primary cause of the former.
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
Oh hell - you hear it all the time. Idiots say "If i do the SL, i
get run off the road." Not only is that a cowardly thing to say it's
not even true. I've driven the SL or less all my life and nobody does
a thing to me.
Pooh Bear
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:
> On Thu, 18 May 2006 03:14:06 +0100, Pooh Bear
> <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:>
> >
> >> >Granted, I don't think the US will be ready for /// for some time.
> >> >I personally would probably not exceed 80 mi/h (~130 km/h) in perfect
> >> >conditions even on roads posted ///.
> >>
> >> Oh yes you would. Other people would be doing 100 mph and like the
> >> dumb sheep you are, you'd feel like you "have" to do the same.
> >
> >Well, I certainly don't allow anyone to intimidate me into driving faster than I'm
> >comfortable with. Can't see why anyone else should either.
>
> Oh hell - you hear it all the time. Idiots say "If i do the SL, i
> get run off the road."
Not in this country you don't. Maybe we're more polite to ppl driving a few under the
SL ? I do get annoyed by those who are 20 under on a single carriageway road with
little overtaking opportunites though.
Graham
Nate Nagel
> N8N wrote:
>
>>You are aware of the studies (links posted elsewhere in this thread)
>>that show that outside of areas with grossly underposted speed limits
>>combined with heavy enforcement activities, changing the speed limit
>>has minimal effect on actual travel speeds, yes?
>
>
> Not personally, though I understand that studies which support one's
> own opinion are generally rated as good studies. ;<)
>
> Maybe what the study shows is that, if the limit is high enough, and
> enforcement low enough, people will drive at whatever speed they want.
> In which case, sure, changing the limit might have no effect.
>
> I also suspect that the number of people who think they can handle high
> speeds far surpasses the number who really can. Strangely, it seems
> that a huge proportion of folks in their late teens and early twenties,
> who by definition have limited experience, think they can handle the
> high speeds. Folks in their mid-years, who are still not old enough to
> generally have much degraded skills, seem to mellow as their real
> experience teaches them that it's the unexpected that causes the
> problem. i.e., they can handl their own vehicle, until some clown
> bumps them, or there's a blowout, etc.
>
> And in the news, Phoenix has the second highest rating for rude driving
> (or was it road rage? I can't remember; same thing). I couldn't argue
> with that at all. People won't let others merge, etc.
PEOPLE WON'T LET OTHERS MERGE???
all right, I'm going to stop reading now. People who think it's the
responsibility of through traffic to let them in should have their
driver's licenses shredded. Nothing to see here, move along now.
nate
I saw someone
> today non-chalantly driving on the shoulder in stopped traffic to pass
> everyone else at the highway exit, and just pull in front of some
> startled other person. The driver later went to the shopping center...
> So few people are nice any more.
>
--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
Nate Nagel
ITYM the former is the primary cause of the latter...
nate
Nate Nagel
>
> laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:
>
>
>>On Thu, 18 May 2006 03:14:06 +0100, Pooh Bear
>><rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:>
>>>
>>>>>Granted, I don't think the US will be ready for /// for some time.
>>>>>I personally would probably not exceed 80 mi/h (~130 km/h) in perfect
>>>>>conditions even on roads posted ///.
>>>>
>>>>Oh yes you would. Other people would be doing 100 mph and like the
>>>>dumb sheep you are, you'd feel like you "have" to do the same.
>>>
>>>Well, I certainly don't allow anyone to intimidate me into driving faster than I'm
>>>comfortable with. Can't see why anyone else should either.
>>
>> Oh hell - you hear it all the time. Idiots say "If i do the SL, i
>>get run off the road."
>
>
> Not in this country you don't. Maybe we're more polite to ppl driving a few under the
> SL ? I do get annoyed by those who are 20 under on a single carriageway road with
> little overtaking opportunites though.
>
> Graham
>
>
It's not that you're more polite, you probably have more reasonable
speed limits and/or stricter enforcement. Over here even the rightmost
lane is probably doing a minimum of 10 over outside of rush hour so a
driver actually following the speed limit - and they never stay in the
right lane, either - is a serious impediment to traffic.
Even if one attempts to be legal yet polite and to the SL in the
rightmost lane, one will be inadvertantly tailgated by the people trying
to pass slow traffic in the left lane. LLBers are everywhere here, and
it's usually a safe assumption that the right lane will be mostly empty.
Weird but true.
Scott en Aztlán
wrote:
>Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>> On 17 May 2006 20:10:03 -0700, webs...@cox.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>>And in the news, Phoenix has the second highest rating for rude driving
>>>(or was it road rage? I can't remember; same thing).
>>
>>
>> NOT the same thing - the latter is primarily caused by the former.
>
>ITYM the former is the primary cause of the latter...
Fixed. :)
Brent P
> PEOPLE WON'T LET OTHERS MERGE???
>
> all right, I'm going to stop reading now. People who think it's the
> responsibility of through traffic to let them in should have their
> driver's licenses shredded.
Amen.
I am so sick of people who think that merging into 70-80mph traffic at
35-40mph is acceptable, the fact they must do it in front of me even worse.
Floyd Rogers
Actually, the precise complaint was a little different: "5. Obnoxious
drivers who speed up to keep you from changing lanes (Gap Snatchers)".
The full list is at:
http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/5/15/151842.shtml?s=ic
FloydR
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
<rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote:
20 under??? Even i don't do that and i don't think anyone else does.
More lies from you.
Floyd Rogers
A commentary with local Seattle comments:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/270649_roadrage18.html
One example: "Nothing makes him crazier than this classic move: Drivers in
the freeway fast lane who refuse to go fast, letting traffic pile up behind
them. "The culture is kind of this childish, 'I'm going to stick by the
book,' " he said.
That's the worst form of passive-aggressive motoring, said Leon James, a
psychology professor at the University of Hawaii who studies driving. "The
person is breaking all the rules and creating a traffic danger point,
forcing others to go into the right lane to pass them," James said. "That
one driver will upset hundreds of drivers in one minute. That's dangerous
and selfish."
FloydR
N8N
I'm not a big Leon James fan, but that statement I will agree with.
nate
Jeff
"laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE" <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:g8ln625oi94f4qttl...@4ax.com...
On what information do you base this baseless conclusion you ignorant twit?
Just because you are as you say a "sheep" that doesn't mean the rest of us
are.
Again you prove your lack of ability to use your brain before you subject
the rest of us to your CROSSPOSTED drivel.
Jeff
Except those times you have admitted to speeding.
>
Jeff
you blithering twit the man appears to be in the UK, have you ever been
there? If not then you are agian spewing drivel out of your ass.
I have been tehre and occasionally the situation he describes occured to me
so I am sure he sees it more often as he has a higher exposure.
Again we prove you are the lying pile of filth.
Go away troll.
>
OBC
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:
> 20 under??? Even i don't do that and i don't think anyone else does.
> More lies from you.
That's funny. A retard calling someone a liar. Have you ever considered
a stand up act? You might find it's something you won't be a complete
failure at.
Fallen for any more april fool's jokes, moron? :))
Scott en Aztlán
<fbloo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>A commentary with local Seattle comments:
>http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/270649_roadrage18.html
>
>One example: "Nothing makes him crazier than this classic move: Drivers in
>the freeway fast lane who refuse to go fast, letting traffic pile up behind
>them. "The culture is kind of this childish, 'I'm going to stick by the
>book,' " he said.
>That's the worst form of passive-aggressive motoring, said Leon James, a
>psychology professor at the University of Hawaii who studies driving. "The
>person is breaking all the rules and creating a traffic danger point,
>forcing others to go into the right lane to pass them," James said. "That
>one driver will upset hundreds of drivers in one minute. That's dangerous
>and selfish."
The very definition of MFFY.
webs...@cox.net
Oh, we've all seen that, and I have the same opinion of that stunt as
you do. Either get going or get off.
However, that isn't quite the thing I was thinking of....
For example, in Colorado, there is/was a very busy 287 (think that's
the number) between Loveland and Longmont. It has one lane each way,
separated by a stripe of paint. Since is was for years a country/farm
type road, the uphill sides frequently had a pull-over lane to allow
tractors and slow trucks to go to the right to allow normal or faster
traffic to pass. So far so good, but the neighborhood grew and it got
busy busy busy. Well, me not wanting to get one of the tickets, and
besides being a generally law-abiding type, I usually moved to the
right to allow the beemers from Boulder to do their arrogant 65 to 70
in a 55 road. (55 was absolutely fine there--driveways, livestock,
crossroads, etc.). But more and more frequently, the nice high-speed
people stopped letting the polite slower--at the legal limit--traffic
merge back in. It wasn't an issue of speeding up. It was an issue of
all the center lane traffic going bumper to bumper to prevent you from
getting in at any speed. Well, screw that. After nearly getting run
of the road when the slow lane ended, because those rude high-speed
drivers prevented a re-merge after I was so polite to move to the right
(as the speeders so eloquently demand...), and while carrying a van
load of school kids to boot, I just bagged the whole deal. I stayed in
the straight lane, went to about +5 to keep a couple of them off my
tail, and stayed there. Made some mad I suppose, but I wasn't going to
get run off the road because of their MFFY attitude (more like Me First
Kill You).
It's pretty much the same here, when the traffic gets built up. A lane
ends, but the wonderful folks in the straight-through won't let you in.
We aren't talking speed here; we're talking about stop'n'crawl on
regular roads, narrowing to a single lane. Blocking others drivers out
is just plain rude and crude.
As far as "responsibility to let others merge".... Maybe it's
responsibility, mabye it's not. But it sure makes life easier in busy
traffic, including freeways, to just back off a bit, or speed up a bit,
to make the merge easier and safer for all. It's rather arrogant to
drive as if it was a major hassle to adjust a little bit to allow
things to happen nicely. Sometimes those accelerate/merge lanes end a
little short, and we'd all not like to hit the dirt or force someone
over. Play nice out there; the world gets crowded at times.
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
wrote:
>
>"laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE" <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:oo3p621nfvb9ik62s...@4ax.com...
>>
>> 20 under??? Even i don't do that and i don't think anyone else does.
>> More lies from you.
>
>you blithering twit the man appears to be in the UK, have you ever been
>there? If not then you are agian spewing drivel out of your ass.
>
>I have been tehre and occasionally the situation he describes occured to me
>so I am sure he sees it more often as he has a higher exposure.
>
>Again we prove you are the lying pile of filth.
>
>Go away troll.
If i'm a troll, what does that make you who responds to every one of
my posts???
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
<OsamaBinClin...@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
My mistake. I though i was addressing adults.
Scott en Aztlán
>As far as "responsibility to let others merge".... Maybe it's
>responsibility, mabye it's not. But it sure makes life easier in busy
>traffic, including freeways, to just back off a bit, or speed up a bit,
>to make the merge easier and safer for all.
Actually, it's safest for traffic on the main road to maintain a
steady speed, alowing the incoming traffic to correctly predict where
to merge. The problem is, incompetent mergers either don't get up to
the common speed of traffic before trying to merge, or they drive
right next to you expecting you to slow down and let them in, even
though there is a perfectly good gap both in front of your car and
behind your car.
Jeff
Hopefully a troll killer.
>
webs...@cox.net
>Actually, it's safest for traffic on the main road to maintain a
>steady speed, alowing the incoming traffic to correctly predict where
>to merge.
Perhaps. But that assumes that there actually IS room for the merging
traffic to get into. Frequently, on a busy highway, there isn't.
Around here, I see that quite frequently. So if a vehicle or more is
on the merge lane, but there really isn't room to merge into, I have no
problem helping things along a bit by speeding up or slowing down
juuuuuust a tad. I might even shift left into the fast lane, if need
be. Something has to be done if that merge lane ends, or something
will happen that none of us wants to see. So play nice.
Nate Nagel
If there's not enough room for a driver to merge in front of you,
someone's incompetent - either the merging traffic for not having the
confidence to slip into the space, or you, for following too closely to
the car in front.
I feel no need to "play nice" because nobody else does. What I *do* do
is try to drive in a legal, correct, safe manner at all times and let
everybody else sort stuff out amongst themselves, because I can't
control what they do.
nate
Arif Khokar
> Hopefully a troll killer.
I don't know how long you've been posting to usenet, but it's obvious
that responses only feed and embolden the troll. If you're not a
newbie, you should definitely know better than to respond to one.
webs...@cox.net
>If there's not enough room for a driver to merge in front of you,
someone's incompetent -
There are MANY more situations in life than that little black 'n white
description.
Once in a while, even in the right lane, there just isn't a lot of
room, and lo and behold, up comes a cluster of on-ramp folks who want
to play on the freeway. Something's got to give. You can ignore it,
or help, as appropriate. Maybe there's just enough room between you
and the guy in front--until the merge has to happen. You can assist
the merge, and be nice.
Others do "play nice". But if they stop being nice because others
don't play nice (your justification), pretty soon nobody is playing
nice, which isn't nice. It isn't about controlling what others do;.
it's about helping the whole situation along.
Who amongst us hasn't tried to get on a main road from a side road, and
appreciated some driver leaving an opening so we can get going? A wave
of thanks, and the world is better. When someone else needs to change
a lane, you can stay tight on the bumper of the car in front, or you
can make a space. Your choice; and it has an effect on safety, and the
other guy's day.
Maybe all those around you could " drive in a legal, correct, safe
manner at all times and let" YOU sort things out for yourself...
Bummer, if you can't get squeezed in before the lane ends, or pull into
a busy street from a driveway, etc.
If you don't feel the need to play nice, maybe you should stay off the
road until you grow up.
necromancer
released this flatulence this in rec.autos.driving:
> Oh yes you would. Other people would be doing 100 mph and like the
> dumb sheep you are, you'd feel like you "have" to do the same.
As opposed to you who want us to be dumb sheep and do what ever the
governemnt tells us to do whether the government is right or wrong. Go
play on a freeway, punk.
necromancer
> Oh hell - you hear it all the time. Idiots say "If i do the SL, i
> get run off the road."
Hell, if I do the SL, I can't get nowhere because of sloth assholes like
you.
> Not only is that a cowardly thing to say it's not even true.
You should know a thing or two about cowardice, you who tosses marbles
out of car windows.
> I've driven the SL or less all my life and nobody does
> a thing to me.
Liar.
--
"> Have you ever driven a car faster than the legal speed limit?
Yes, but never deliberately. In fact i got a speeding ticket about 5
years ago for doing 41 in a 25. I just about kicked the cops teeth in
cause i was sure he was lying. No way the SL on this wide open
stretch could be 25, i thought."
Pride of America (c.k.a. "laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMOCIDE), 10/3/2002
Message-ID: <3c1753f7.02100...@posting.google.com>
http://tinyurl.com/5u4wg
Connecting POA to LBMHB/lbVH:
See the following: http://tinyurl.com/ahphj
necromancer
> 20 under??? Even i don't do that and i don't think anyone else does.
Bullshit. You are the one always saying "you can never drive too slow."
Make up your mind, you disingenuous faggot.
> More lies from you.
You should know a thing or two about being a filthy liar, you filthy
liar.
And since dwpjr65 seems to be absent from these newsgroups lately, I
will ask the following in his absence: How's things going at the
bathhouse, faggot?
Floyd Rogers
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>If there's not enough room for a driver to merge in front of you,
> someone's incompetent -
>
> There are MANY more situations in life than that little black 'n white
> description.
> Once in a while, even in the right lane, there just isn't a lot of
> room, and lo and behold, up comes a cluster of on-ramp folks who want
> to play on the freeway. Something's got to give. You can ignore it,
> or help, as appropriate. Maybe there's just enough room between you
> and the guy in front--until the merge has to happen. You can assist
> the merge, and be nice.
>
> Others do "play nice". But if they stop being nice because others
> don't play nice (your justification), pretty soon nobody is playing
> nice, which isn't nice. It isn't about controlling what others do;.
> it's about helping the whole situation along.
So, if you're a part of a cluster like you say, and you yield to
someone in that place, you have discomoded 1/2 the people
in the cluster (on average) rather than the 1 person that should
have, but didn't, yield. Being "nice" to one is exactly equivelant
to not being nice to many others. Great choice. A much higher
chance of getting someone ticked off at you.
FloydR
webs...@cox.net
>So, if you're a part of a cluster like you say, and you yield to
>someone in that place, you have discomoded
I never supported knocking anyone off the toilet seat.. ;<)
At any rate, the original situation was such that the merge lane was
running out, and the incoming traffic had no where to go, either on a
freeway access or in the case of a rural highway slow lane that
disappeared into gravel and a ditch.
What's the other guy to do? It's not in his control that the lane was
full when he arrived. Should he park on the shoulder, if there is one,
and wait for a break? (snort). Drive on the shoulder until you find
it convenient to let him in? Call a helicopter and get airlifted?
Just exactly how should he have been discomfitted.
Failure to allow the guy to get into the traffic could cause a wreck,
with serious consequences. That's a pretty high price to force someone
else, who has done nothing improper in any way, to pay just so that you
are not "discomoded". MFFY attitude, anyone?
Of course, many in this ng wouldn't care anyway, since they are in the
fast left lane cruising at SL+15 or more, and want everyone else
crowded in the right lane to give them more room in the left lane,
which was what might have created the problem in the first place.
(aw, heck, ignore that last. It was bait.....)
Shawn K. Quinn
and alt.true-crime removed *again*; three groups is plenty.]
begin quotation
from laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE <xeto...@yahoo.com>
in message <g8ln625oi94f4qttl...@4ax.com>
posted at 2006-05-18T02:01
> On Wed, 17 May 2006 19:01:32 -0500, "Shawn K. Quinn"
> <skq...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>> In countries without set numeric speed limits on some roads, those roads
>> *still* have all other traffic laws in place, including those against
>> reckless driving, following too closely, and even the basic speed law
>> (too fast for conditions).
>> Granted, I don't think the US will be ready for /// for some time.
>> I personally would probably not exceed 80 mi/h (~130 km/h) in perfect
>> conditions even on roads posted ///.
> Oh yes you would.
Oh no, I wouldn't.
> Other people would be doing 100 mph and like the dumb sheep you are,
> you'd feel like you "have" to do the same.
"Dumb sheep" is the exact *opposite* of what I am. I drive the speed I
want to, up to and including the legal limit. And I have doubts my car
would safely do 100 mi/h anyway.
--
___ _ _____ |*|
/ __| |/ / _ \ |*| Shawn K. Quinn
\__ \ ' < (_) | |*| skq...@speakeasy.net
|___/_|\_\__\_\ |*| Houston, TX, USA
Alex Rodriguez
says...
>I don't know if that's true and i don't care . What i do know is this
>is just the start. The oil industry loves people wasting gas and the
>auto industry loves car crashes so they are paying off the legislators
>to raise speed limits. Soon it will be nationwide.
It's freedom of choice. Plain and simple. You don't have to drive that fast.
It is supposed to be a limit, not a recommended travel speed. Keep to the far
right lane and drive at least 45mph and you have nothing to worry about.
---------------
Alex
ILoveMyS...@spamgourmet.com
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:
> >Fallen for any more april fool's jokes, moron? :))
>
> My mistake. I though i was addressing adults.
That's a ludicrous thought, considering you have never demonstrated
adult behavior.
Thanks for addressing the issue, by the way.
AnotherDrunkDriv...@spamgourmet.com
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:
> >Go away troll.
>
> If i'm a troll, what does that make you who responds to every one of
> my posts???
Someone who enjoys playing with retards.
Xeton2001IsAM...@spamgourmet.com
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:
> not even true. I've driven the SL or less all my life and nobody does
> a thing to me.
So doing 41 in a 25mph school zone, or 60 in a 55mph zone is driving
the speed limit or less?
You *really* need to put down your porno mags with Ahnald in them and
get a new dictionary, retard.
Kevin Rhodes
limit to 80mph on nice wide straight middle of nowhere Interstates, might I
point out that every narrow, breakdown laneless, bumpy, farm backroad in Texas
is ALREADY posted at 70mph! Frankly, first time I went down there for work I
couldn't believe it, those are roads that would be maybe 45mph here in Maine.
So what difference does another 10mph make on roads that were actually
designed for it?
And to refute the argument that 80mph will lead to people driving 100, well,
maybe some, but I find I tend to drive 80ish regardless of what the actual
speed limit is, conditions depending of course. Seems like a natural and
comfortable speed in most modern cars. For that matter, that's how fast I tend
to drive in Europe too, even in Germany. Except for the obligatory "see
what the rental car will do" blast on the Autobahn. :-)
Kevin Rhodes
Westbrook, Maine