Re: Speed Cameras vs. Red Light Cameras
Phil
<nolionn...@yahoo.com> writes:
> They have set up red light cameras around here, and it still doesn't
> stop the barbarian drivers from speeding.
Maybe thats because they are intended to stop driver going through
red-lights.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
> "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
>
> > They have set up red light cameras around here, and it still doesn't
> > stop the barbarian drivers from speeding.
>
> Maybe thats because they are intended to stop driver going through
> red-lights.
Right, they are not taming traffic between lights. But you'd assume
the drivers would somehow tame themselves. We simply need the whip
against the wild animals.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
OK, I just want to mention that RED LIGHT CAMERAS + SPEED CAMERAS =
SAFER ROADS
That's a formula easy to remember. As much of 82% of speeding 10 miles
over the limit is reduced this way.
But I want to focus my attention --or should I say my wisdom-- on
another object of stupid design...
Last Friday (8 nights ago) we were scrambling out of South Pointe Park
and I hit a chain on my way out that almost gave me a heart attack and
damaged the most sacred object of the Beach Cruiser Philosophy --my
bike. I wasn't thrown over the handlebar because fate or Buddha is
watching over me.
Again I visited last night and was almost speechless that this chain
is found at the entrance to the park (at Washington Ave), with no
markings on warning of any kind. It must be a bicycle trap. But wait,
it's not the only trap. There are many innocent-looking ramps going
down to the grass next to the channel where a cyclist can simply fall
and hit his head and... another case for the lawyers.
Well guys, I already gave up the mixed path nearby, with its dogs,
blinding lights, distracted pedestrians and blue carpet (the bike
destroyer) and I'm doing loops endlessly at a park --full of homeless,
but that's another issue.
Happy survival to all!
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
On Apr 23, 3:22 pm, Billy <Wildbi...@withouta.net> wrote:
> In the US, we are supposed to be protected by the Fourth Amendment from
> unreasonable search and seizure. What constitutes reasonableness,
> curiosity? There needs to be a compelling basis for invading our
> privacy, and that compelling basis, and not a woman's breasts, needs to
> be transparent to scrutiny.
I don't care. I want more cameras to fight BAD DRIVERS, PETTY
CRIMINALS, POLLUTERS... I really don't give a damn because I'm playing
by the rules.
By the way, I want to wear a MONKEY MASK and ride my bike with it to
see whether there's a problem with it. Nice way to catch attention and
hand out my fliers. It seems to me that most people is wearing a mask
anyway, and Christianity is part of the hypocrisy of the system.
This mask is more of a hominid than a monkey so it will bring them
back to a reality that they want to avoid. I will hand out some
bananas as well --for those who are nice. ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
> Once again, MonkeyBoy demonstrates his love of Big Brother. Sadly, the facts
> are that Red Light Cameras are not only ineffective, they also result in
> rear end collisions that would not have happened had the guy in front not
> stopped in the first second of a Yellow.
I'm sorry to hear that you are such a supporter of a Banana Republic.
If you hate Big Brother, go smash the red lights (when they don't see
you) and remove the speed limit signs. If they are there, they must be
FOLLOWED & ENFORCED by all means possible, all the time. I don't want
to see cars going 45mph on a 30mph zone.
I haven't seen those accidents that you talk about and I've seen those
red light cameras flashing all the time. Regrettably we don't have
SPEED CAMERAS, which are the only ones that can bring some safety for
other cars, bicycles and pedestrians.
Protesters who hate speed cameras in Europe (they have their own share
of barbarian drivers) go and vandalize them. Perhaps you can join
their ranks.
Jesicca Powell
> (Do you expect me to run into trouble?)
>
> On Apr 23, 3:22 pm, Billy<Wildbi...@withouta.net> wrote:
>
>> In the US, we are supposed to be protected by the Fourth Amendment from
>> unreasonable search and seizure. What constitutes reasonableness,
>> curiosity? There needs to be a compelling basis for invading our
>> privacy, and that compelling basis, and not a woman's breasts, needs to
>> be transparent to scrutiny.
>
> I don't care. I want more cameras to fight BAD DRIVERS, PETTY
> CRIMINALS, POLLUTERS... I really don't give a damn because I'm playing
> by the rules.
So you don't care if the person is guilty or not, you just want the
innocent to pay. Cameras aren't there for justice, they are there to
raise REVENUE. Note that the companies installing the camera receive a
portion so they have incentive to make sure the cameras serve as their
personal ATMs, no speeders necessary for cash receipts.
Speed cameras are a complete scam, they take pictures and accuse
innocent citizens of speeding. See the article below for an example.
http://wusa9.com/news/article/147930/77/Forest-Heights-Man-Uses-Math-To-Defeat-Speed-Tickets
Jesicca Powell
> On Apr 23, 8:53 pm, "Jeff Strickland"<crwlrj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Once again, MonkeyBoy demonstrates his love of Big Brother. Sadly, the facts
>> are that Red Light Cameras are not only ineffective, they also result in
>> rear end collisions that would not have happened had the guy in front not
>> stopped in the first second of a Yellow.
>
> I'm sorry to hear that you are such a supporter of a Banana Republic.
> If you hate Big Brother, go smash the red lights (when they don't see
> you) and remove the speed limit signs. If they are there, they must be
> to see cars going 45mph on a 30mph zone.
Speed cameras are not there for enforcing rules, they are there for
making MONEY even if rules are followed perfectly.
http://wusa9.com/news/article/147930/77/Forest-Heights-Man-Uses-Math-To-Defeat-Speed-Tickets
Red light cameras are designed to trap drivers. Camera companies have
been caught shortening the yellow phase below the engineering
guidelines, therefore increasing the amount of REVENUE. If they cared
about safety, the yellow phase would be set according to established
traffic engineering.
And if you are injured on a bicycle and riding an ambulance so your life
may be saved, a car in front of that ambulance better not move into the
intersection to allow the ambulance to pass when the light is red or
ZAP. Drivers must stay behind that line completely until the light
turns green, even if that means blocking the ambulance behind you, who
will wait minutes more for each light.
F Murtz
> makes our roads unsafe, but we can establish a sort of mathematical
> correlation between speeding and tickets. We can say, "35 miles on
> city streets = 1 ticket," "45 miles on city streets = 2 tickets," etc.
>
> It may seem like the police is doing their job, but it's you and me --
> the good drivers-- who are really the victims of it. I know a lawyer,
> for example, who uses radar to defeat the system.
>
> This extra cash then can be used to really improve bike facilities or
> anything that pacifies our roads. Think about it: The RAT RACE ain't
> worth it. What's the point, SLOW IS BETTER.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION
In Australia we now have red light cameras that do both red light and
speed, the idiot government call them safety cameras.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
Well, remove the speed signs too. They are a complete scam as well.
Let me ask you, they seem to be a complete scam only in America,
right? Your arguments really sound paranoid. BIG BROTHER IS OUT TO GET
YOU!!!
At the point the government doesn't work for the people... Are you
proposing more active measures to defend yourself? Are you withholding
taxes or at least writing graffiti?
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
Do they work or not?
F Murtz
They get a lot of revenue have debatable influence on road toll.
In NSW after the recent election they are having an audit on whether
they have an effect on statistics, but I doubt anything will change.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
My stats seem to be categorical (unless they are made up):
"Automated speed enforcement systems are triggered when a vehicle
exceeding the speed limit by a predetermined amount is observed.
Moreover, the proportion of vehicles exceeding the speed limit by more
than 10 mph declined 82 percent."
Jessica Powell
Then you should read them again and try understand this time.
> BIG BROTHER IS OUT TO GET
> YOU!!!
Not big brother, companies with a financial incentive to issue cash
demands for false claims.
>
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
Well, speed cameras are operating in many countries, and they reduce
80% of speeding according to the source I quoted.
>
> > BIG BROTHER IS OUT TO GET
> > YOU!!!
>
> Not big brother, companies with a financial incentive to issue cash
> demands for false claims.
True, but isn't that a problem common to PRIVATIZATION? We have it in
the military, medical industry, prison industry, drug wars...
Again, why don't you concentrate on challenging the speed limit
itself?
Jessica Powell
The speed limit value is not relevant here. The concern is the ability
of the cameras to send false accusations. See other posts for
documented cases of this.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
Actually the only thing relevant is the speeding so prevalent on our
roads. If you dismiss the best technological methods, you must have
another suggestion to deal with the problem.
You don't want to be another Banana Republic where the laws only exist
on paper, right?
Jessica Powell
False. These phony machines are hardly the "best technical" anything.
Read this news article dated in the last seven days for another account
of these machines sending phony tickets for speeding which never
existed. The cameras are not for safety, they are there for revenue.
And science was NOT used to create most speed limits, traffic
engineering speed studies are trumped by officials looking for low
limits so they can make money.
http://wusa9.com/news/article/147930/77/Forest-Heights-Man-Uses-Math-To-Defeat-Speed-Tickets
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
Wow, what evil system we got!
But I rather have you fight Red Light Cameras than Speed Cameras. They
are more susceptible to tricks and doesn't tame traffic that much.
If you have one you must have the other... or nothing at all! Better
yet, remove the signs that were meant to catch drivers not protect the
people, as you claim to be the case.
Jessica Powell
False dichotomy fallacy.
> Better
> yet, remove the signs that were meant to catch drivers not protect the
> people, as you claim to be the case.
I made no such claim about signs.
Matt Wiser
"Jessica Powell" <jessica...@spam.ah> wrote in message
news:ip3r2l$dh1$1...@dont-email.me...
of a class-action federal lawsuit re: their camera speed enforcement. Not to
mention the SC State Senate voting 40-0 to ban all camera speed enforcment
in the state. (their House has yet to vote on the bill). All this is about
is one thing: emptying drivers' wallets. No different from an old-fashioned
speed trap when the cop sits behind a billboard with a radar gun or annexing
part of an interstate right-of-way so that the local cops can work the
freeway for traffic enforcement.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
Let me give you my thoughts:
Red Light Cameras are meaningless but profitable. Speed Cameras are
meaningful and profitable...
You rather live with something that doesn't change your reckless
driving dramatically and the government gets its profits.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
> "Jessica Powell" <jessica.pow...@spam.ah> wrote in message
> at-Speed-Tickets
>
> You might take a look at Ridgeland, SC on I-95. They're currently the object
> of a class-action federal lawsuit re: their camera speed enforcement. Not to
> mention the SC State Senate voting 40-0 to ban all camera speed enforcment
> in the state. (their House has yet to vote on the bill). All this is about
> is one thing: emptying drivers' wallets. No different from an old-fashioned
> speed trap when the cop sits behind a billboard with a radar gun or annexing
> part of an interstate right-of-way so that the local cops can work the
> freeway for traffic enforcement.
I don't doubt that profit is the motivation, but a side effect of it
will be a significant speeding reduction, which is what we want.
Now, don't we try to keep CONTRACTORS out of the picture instead of
the technology itself?
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 04:40:32 -0700 (PDT), "His Highness the
> TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
>
>
>
> >On Apr 25, 10:49 pm, Jessica Powell <jessica.pow...@spam.ah> wrote:
> >> On 4/25/2011 9:26 AM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser
>
> >> > But I rather have you fight Red Light Cameras than Speed Cameras. They
> >> > are more susceptible to tricks and doesn't tame traffic that much.
>
> >> > If you have one you must have the other... or nothing at all!
>
> >> False dichotomy fallacy.
>
> >> > Better
> >> > yet, remove the signs that were meant to catch drivers not protect the
> >> > people, as you claim to be the case.
>
> >> I made no such claim about signs.
>
> >Let me give you my thoughts:
>
> >Red Light Cameras are meaningless but profitable. Speed Cameras are
> >meaningful and profitable...
>
> running is meaningful.
We still have the traffic going wild instead of being tamed. They race
and zigzag between lights, and most lights don't a have a camera at
all and they know it!
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
says NO. Clear enough it save saves lives since rear-end collisions
are rarely that fatal, and THEY MUST PAY YOU!!!
"Numbers rarely lie, and the numbers produced by the 2011 Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) say red-light cameras do indeed
save lives."
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/red-light-cameras-save-lives.htm
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
> On Apr 26, 2:41 pm, "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser
> anti-motorist and pro-big insurance companies (but at least if you
> know what the acronym stands for you shouldn't be surprised.)
>
> The one thing that they do that is worthwhile and seems to be
> reasonably unbiased is crash testing. Other than that I wouldn't piss
> on them if they were on fire.
Before I try to find out if they are anti-motorist, I'm asking this
question for the whole wide world to see:
WHAT IS WRONG WITH HAVING FEWER BETTER DRIVERS?
Isn't that part of the European "safety" system, along with the
cameras and fewer "trucks" on the road?
Jessica Powell
I pay a lot of taxes. That's where the government get its "profits."
It doesn't need a camera scam to send bills to innocent law abiding
drivers. By the way, the scamera companies profit from each of these
phony tickets, they are who "profits" and has incentive to keep sending
out more phony bills.
Read this case from the past week of yet another scamera;
http://wusa9.com/news/article/147930/77/Forest-Heights-Man-Uses-Math-
Jessica Powell
Cameras=Contractors=Profit Motive to send as many phony bills as
possible. If you need law enforcement, send the police.
Jessica Powell
Even scameras don't take pictures between lights so not sure what you
are even talking about.
Jessica Powell
No.
Matt Wiser
"Jessica Powell" <jessica...@spam.ah> wrote in message
Couldn't agree more. The SC bill would require all traffic citations to be
written by an officer, instead of being sent to you in the mail....which
means the cops have to do it the old-fashioned way. Actually spending time
working traffic instead of being down at the Dunkin' Donut shop.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
> "Gary L. Burnore" <gburn...@databasix.com> wrote in messagenews:ip7a2d$e5a$1...@nntpd.databasix.com...
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 18:01:56 +0000 (UTC), "5995 Dead, 1138 since
> > 1/20/09" <d...@gone.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 10:12:24 -0700, Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
> >>> "Steve" <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:lvsdr6562v5l5trsg...@4ax.com...
> >>>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 10:57:30 -0500, "NotMe" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>"Steve" <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:fccdr6d0kt7d11l40...@4ax.com...
> >>>>>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 04:40:32 -0700 (PDT), "His Highness the> >>>>>>>On Apr 25, 10:49 pm, Jessica Powell <jessica.pow...@spam.ah> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/25/2011 9:26 AM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach
> >>>>>>>> Cruiser
>
> >>>>>>>> > But I rather have you fight Red Light Cameras than Speed Cameras.
> >>>>>>>> > They
> >>>>>>>> > are more susceptible to tricks and doesn't tame traffic that
> >>>>>>>> > much.
>
> >>>>>>>> > If you have one you must have the other... or nothing at all!
>
> >>>>>>>> False dichotomy fallacy.
>
> >>>>>>>> > Better
> >>>>>>>> > yet, remove the signs that were meant to catch drivers not
> >>>>>>>> > protect the
> >>>>>>>> > people, as you claim to be the case.
>
> >>>>>>>> I made no such claim about signs.
>
> >>>>>>>Let me give you my thoughts:
>
> >>>>>>>Red Light Cameras are meaningless but profitable. Speed Cameras are
> >>>>>>>meaningful and profitable...
>
> >>>>>> Red Light Cameras are meaningful. Anything that inhibits red light
> >>>>>> running is meaningful.
>
> >>>>>decrease the most dangerous accidents by over 70%. Red light cameras
> >>>>>have
> >>>>>been shown to increase rear end accidents significantly.
>
> >>>> So says you, huh?
>
> >>> Technically, almost everybody that knows this stuff says so.
> >>> Technically.
>
> >>> It appears that you are one of the few that are not up to speed on this
> >>> issue.
>
> >>He's getting more desperate in his trolling. Nobody takes him seriously
> >>any more.
>
> > I troll. His posts aren't trolling. He really believes the shit he
> > spews. That's not trolling. That's just fucking stupid.
> > --
>
> <agreeing with Gary...>
> The only reports that support red light cameras come from the insurance
> companies that get to raise rates on red light runners, and the
> administrators of the camera systems.
>
> All of the other studies tend to support the idea that red light cameras are
> the cause of accidents.
>
> <not agreeing with Gary...>
OK, I want to make this point: We have Red Light Cameras everywhere,
and it's the more debatable of the two, WHY DO MAKE A FUSS ABOUT SPEED
CAMERAS?
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
Are you saying the police is not into for profit ticketing? But hey, I
do agree that CONTRACTORS --not the technology-- are the problem.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
I'm talking about the SPEED CAMERAS doing the job between lights and
doing a better job at TAMING TRAFFIC. That is the goal, right?
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
Yes, that's a fact. Tougher drivers license in Europe and more public
transportation and bicycles. Also their cars are much smaller, didn't
you notice?
s jennings
the UK statistics are bogus and deliberately incomplete :
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/26/2638.asp This video is also
informative http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADj_lnKVRhE
It's all about the money and not at all about safety.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
> Numbers do lie. This article, and more if you just look, show that
> the UK statistics are bogus and deliberately incomplete :http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/26/2638.aspThis video is also
>
> It's all about the money and not at all about safety.
The data above indicates that speed is only to blame for 7% of
accidents, which sound rather fishy.
Well, they seem to be doing a good job Down Under...
"The use of cameras to enforce speeding has proven road safety
benefits. An independent evaluation of the NSW fixed speed camera
program found that at sites where speed cameras have been installed
there has been a 70 per cent reduction in speeding resulting in a 90
per cent decline in fatalities and a 23 per cent reduction in
injuries."
http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/speedandspeedcameras/safetycameras/index.html
Maybe we question too the reliability and purpose of DUI prosecution
as being the greatest scam of them all. You think MADD is about
reducing deaths? No, it's all about money too!
Case No: 8254XEE
Police allegedly saw a car driving 76mph in a 45mph zone. The officer
tried to pull over the car but it took about ten blocks to pull over.
The officer then observed signs of impairment of the driver. The
client was then offered roadside test with they failed. The driver was
then arrested for DUI and the officer offered a breath test which was
refused.
The defense filed and argued motions that were denied. We moved
forward and took the case to a jury trial where our client was found
not guilty.
http://southfloridadui.com/topics/recentvictories.html
***
Clearly guilty but a good lawyer --and the proper amount of cash-- can
you get out of trouble. DUI's are bad but I bet talking on the phone
causes more deaths. This is a political issue, where the politicians
are afraid to piss off drivers who are after all voters.
This is my point folks, THE WHOLE TRAFFIC SYSTEM NEEDS AN OVERHAUL.
Jessica Powell
They do a better job of sending scam and nearly unbeatable phony
tickets, forcing innocent law abiding drivers to pay up. If the goal is
a racket style scheme, they do a fantastic job.
Jessica Powell
Perhaps they are, but at least they have to prove a case. A camera does
not.
Jessica Powell
You asked the question! Now you are trying to answer it. A smart car
is the same size in North America in Europe. A BMW (same model) is also
the same size. A semi/camion is the same size or perhaps a tad bigger
in Europe. Not too many people bicycling on the autoroutes.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
That sounds interesting. Another conspiracy theory!
So who's behind, Big Brother, contractors, who else? Is the Jewish
lawyer in it? Maybe he's promoting this campaign against cameras. ;)
Jessica Powell
More straw man fallacy.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
Listen, listen, take your pick...
a) Big Brother
b) contractors
c) Jewish lawyer
d) All of the above
WHO'S TO BLAME FOR OUR CHAOTIC TRAFFIC SYSTEM?
Jessica Powell
False dichotomy fallacy.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
Well, someone must be behind the corruption of the cameras, who is it?
Or are you blaming the technology now?
N8N
The manufacturers of the cameras, primarily, and also those that buy
their sales pitch either without applying critical thinking skills and/
or knowing what's going on but giving in to the lure of revenue at the
expense of safety.
nate
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
Do we have the technology to limit speed to the posted speed? Perhaps
we can retire the cameras then.
N8N
Completely undesirable, as you would understand if you've ever driven
on a two lane road that allows passing.
nate
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
The priority is TAMING TRAFFIC... whatever it takes. We have to stop
the carnage and road rage.
N8N
You are implying that aggressive, angry, raging drivers are a
widespread problem. I believe that that is a media-generated
fallacy. However, stupid, incompetent drivers I see every day (and
may very easily contribute to normal people *becoming* angry drivers.)
nate
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
The fact that *everybody* has to drive in America doesn't help the
quality of drivers out there. Mass production shouldn't apply to
issuing a LICENSE TO KILL.
But that's only where the problem begins. Cell phones and lack of lane
discipline --passing on the outer lane-- compound the problem and make
driving very grinding and dangerous.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
mouse is the driver and the cat is the authorities that must be one
step ahead in the game.
This is a neat solution --almost perfect-- for catching predatory
drivers:
http://www.speedcam.co.uk/gatso6.htm
Notice how they are undetectable by RADAR, can be set up to monitor
SPEED and can be complemented with FAKE cameras so the predator never
knows where the trap is. The latter is much better than placing those
empty police cars in parking lots to act as scarecrows.
N8N
you imply that exceeding the posted speed limit is a widespread
problem. I agree that it is widespread, I disagree that it is a
problem. Most incidents are not the result of someone exceeding the
posted speed limit, but they are the result of the driver doing
something stupid (that isn't caught by the camera.)
nate
gpsman
>
> you imply that exceeding the posted speed limit is a widespread
> problem. I agree that it is widespread, I disagree that it is a
> problem.
Your speeding tickets weren't problems...?
Have you never sat waiting to enter a roadway and waited for speeding
traffic?
Have you never waited to turn R upstream of a red signal as speeding
traffic approached, where you could have got out had they not been
speeding...and watched them get nothing for their speeding, except to
make you wait for the green, and then all the speeders to get out of
your way...?
Not a problem, a'cause... you think it's a rare occurrence...?
Oh, I forgot. If you're speeding you're staying out of motorist's
ways, you can't get in one.
> Most incidents are not the result of someone exceeding the
> posted speed limit, but they are the result of the driver doing
> something stupid (that isn't caught by the camera.)
False premise. Single cause fallacy.
(Watch this.)
-----
- gpsman
Alan Baker
<039cb905-bddc-4a6f...@l18g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 29, 3:00 pm, N8N <njna...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > you imply that exceeding the posted speed limit is a widespread
> > problem. I agree that it is widespread, I disagree that it is a
> > problem.
>
> Your speeding tickets weren't problems...?
>
> Have you never sat waiting to enter a roadway and waited for speeding
> traffic?
Nope. Not ever where the problem would have been ameliorated by them not
exceeding the speed limit.
>
> Have you never waited to turn R upstream of a red signal as speeding
> traffic approached, where you could have got out had they not been
> speeding...and watched them get nothing for their speeding, except to
> make you wait for the green, and then all the speeders to get out of
> your way...?
That one's really false. If they'd not been speeding, you could just
have easily encountered a blockage from a different part of the traffic
stream.
>
> Not a problem, a'cause... you think it's a rare occurrence...?
>
> Oh, I forgot. If you're speeding you're staying out of motorist's
> ways, you can't get in one.
>
> > Most incidents are not the result of someone exceeding the
> > posted speed limit, but they are the result of the driver doing
> > something stupid (that isn't caught by the camera.)
>
> False premise. Single cause fallacy.
LOL
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
sort of a guessing game...
We put as many fake yellow boxes as real ones and we keep 'em
guessing.
Look at the decoys here:
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
Again, if you have an issue with the speed limit, just don't ignore
the law. I do agree they set the speed low in order to trap you in
some cases, but then fight the law.
How about setting lane discipline where the right lane is the slow
lane, and we stop a greater danger: zigzagging around traffic at high
speed.
The most stupid thing though is to talk on the phone, often at lower
speeds.
BY RELYING ON CAMERAS WE CAN FREE THE POLICE FROM AMBUSHING SPEEDERS,
AND CONCENTRATE ON MULTITASKING.
Jessica Powell
Read the well documented article I posted earlier (several times). I'm
sure you are smart enough to discover for yourself.
Jessica Powell
So if somebody is about to hit you and can avoid being hit by
accelerating above the posted limit, and thus avoid a major accident
with potential severe injury, you would rather remain at the speed limit
and crash?
>
Jessica Powell
Nonsense.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
Wait, you hardly defended yourself from accusing the government of
corruption and making seditious statements.
Are you saying our government is as corrupt as Mubarak's?
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
No I'd rather get the ticket than crash.
Is this a worst case scenario?
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
Oh yes, public transportation --which I just gave up for good-- and
safe bicycling are not possible in any meaningful way.
I'd expect that bicycling at least would work since it doesn't depend
on a bureaucracy and it only takes TAMING TRAFFIC.
Jessica Powell
Preventing an accident should never result in a ticket.
Jessica Powell
I made no such comparison.
Jessica Powell
Incorrect. Try riding the Boston T, DC Metro, NYC Subway, etc. etc.
They all exist in America. You continue to spout uniformed nonsense
e.g. "*everybody* (your emphasis) has to drive in America."
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
The old cities vs. the new sprawl... Sorry, most Americans fall in
this no-man's land:
"The bicycle master plan is divided by no-man's land."
http://forums.miamibeach411.com/off-topic-chit-chat/9089-bermuda-triangle-cycling-l-n-y-miami-2.html
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
PREVENTION means doing the things I propose which are widely practiced
in Europe.
"If you speed in Sweden, you risk a heavy fine and maybe even losing
your driving license."
This is the safest place to drive in Europe, but Germany has a very
good record while tolerating no speed limits on the Autobahn.
Jessica Powell
> h are widely practiced
> in Europe.
>
> "If you speed in Sweden, you risk a heavy fine and maybe even losing
> your driving license."
You can replace Sweden with most places.
>
> This is the safest place to drive in Europe
Statistics? Number of cars and drivers on road?
Jessica Powell
"most Americans" != "everybody."
You lose again.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
> On 4/30/2011 12:52 PM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser
>
> Philosopher wrote:
> > h are widely practiced
> > in Europe.
>
> > "If you speed in Sweden, you risk a heavy fine and maybe even losing
> > your driving license."
>
> You can replace Sweden with most places.
Not here. Here you go to Jewish lawyer and come out clean after
dishing out some 200 bucks. ;)
>
>
>
> > This is the safest place to drive in Europe
>
> Statistics? Number of cars and drivers on road?
Oh c'mon, just watch a video...
Jessica Powell
> On Apr 30, 1:28 pm, Jessica Powell<jessica.pow...@spam.ah> wrote:
>> On 4/30/2011 12:52 PM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser
>>
>> Philosopher wrote:
>>> h are widely practiced
>>> in Europe.
>>
>>> "If you speed in Sweden, you risk a heavy fine and maybe even losing
>>> your driving license."
>>
>> You can replace Sweden with most places.
>
> Not here. Here you go to Jewish lawyer and come out clean after
> dishing out some 200 bucks. ;)
Not sure what your anti semite stance is coming from but it severely
undermines your diminishing credibility.
>>
>>
>>
>>> This is the safest place to drive in Europe
>>
>> Statistics? Number of cars and drivers on road?
>
> Oh c'mon, just watch a video...
Video cotains neither safety statistics nor numbers. Clearly you only
care about anecdotes not facts.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
I just get bored by facts. They are out there though. Easier to find
than evidence that Obama is NOT born in America... ;)
Safest countries
According to the International Traffic Safety Data and Analysis Group
(IRTAD), Denmark is the European country where you are least likely to
get injured in a road accident. In 2006, 100 people per 100,000 were
injured on the roads there. However, the Netherlands has the lowest
fatality rate of any European country - just 4.5 people per 100,000
died on Dutch roads in 2006.
http://www.greenflag.com/help/driving-in-europe/safest-countries.html
***
Sorry I bypassed my Dutch friends. Sweden is usually listed #1.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
(Now I'm redeemed and can take a nap in my hammock)
The Top Ten Most Dangerous Countries to Drive in
The list starts at number 10 with the least dangerous of the finalists
and working down to the ones you, as a driver, really want to avoid at
all costs. So before you start, where in the list do you think the
United Kingdom comes in?
1. Belgium - 100 deaths per year for every million inhabitants.168
deaths per year for every million vehicles
2. Czech Republic - 118 deaths per year for every million
inhabitants. 235 deaths per year for every million vehicles
3. United States of America - 136 deaths per year for every million
inhabitants. 163 deaths per year for every million vehicles
4. Greece - 121 deaths per year for every million inhabitants. 226
deaths per year for every million vehicles
5. Korea - 127 deaths per year for every million inhabitants. 317
deaths per year for every million vehicles
6. Hungary - 123 deaths per year for every million inhabitants. 347
deaths per year for every million vehicles
7. Turkey - 68 deaths per year for every million inhabitants - 594
deaths per year for every million vehicles
8. Poland - 147 deaths per year for every million inhabitants. 310
deaths per year for every million vehicles
9. Slovakia - 122 deaths per year for every million inhabitants.
426 deaths per year for every million vehicles
10. Russia - 235 deaths per year for every million inhabitants. 939
deaths per year for every million vehicles
United Kingdom
So despite what you might think about the UK’s roads and RTAs, Britain
doesn’t make it into the top ten and in fact is consistently proven to
be one of the safest countries in the world to drive in – alongside
Sweden and The Netherlands.
http://www.safetravel.co.uk/dangerous-countries-drive-in.html
gpsman
> In article
> <039cb905-bddc-4a6f-aa8a-4dff7b6b9...@l18g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 29, 3:00 pm, N8N <njna...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > you imply that exceeding the posted speed limit is a widespread
> > > problem. I agree that it is widespread, I disagree that it is a
> > > problem.
>
> > Your speeding tickets weren't problems...?
>
> > Have you never sat waiting to enter a roadway and waited for speeding
> > traffic?
>
> Nope. Not ever where the problem would have been ameliorated by them not
> exceeding the speed limit.
Are you sure you're not just the most unobservant nitwit on the
planet...?
If they had not been speeding, by what other method would they arrive -
there- at -that- moment...?
> > Have you never waited to turn R upstream of a red signal as speeding
> > traffic approached, where you could have got out had they not been
> > speeding...and watched them get nothing for their speeding, except to
> > make you wait for the green, and then all the speeders to get out of
> > your way...?
>
> That one's really false. If they'd not been speeding, you could just
> have easily encountered a blockage from a different part of the traffic
> stream.
Don't be so shy about moving the goalpost, you might lose your
proficiency.
> > > Most incidents are not the result of someone exceeding the
> > > posted speed limit, but they are the result of the driver doing
> > > something stupid (that isn't caught by the camera.)
>
> > False premise. Single cause fallacy.
>
> LOL
Single cause fallacy is a specific kind of false dilemma where
conjoint possibilities are ignored.
Do you agree with Nate that if only 50% of "incidents" were solely
attributable to exceeding the posted SL, that wouldn't even suggest it
might be a problem...?
-----
- gpsman
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
> Do you agree with Nate that if only 50% of "incidents" were solely
> attributable to exceeding the posted SL, that wouldn't even suggest it
> might be a problem...?
> -----
Yes, it is a problem but more in an URBAN ENVIRONMENT, in combination
with MULTITASKING & ZIGZAGGING around cars, a result of the lack of a
fast lane.
We really need to implement this fast lane in an environment where's
safer --not unlike the Autobahn-- while we crack down on speeding and
multitasking in city streets. We could probably pay the deficit with
that. ;)
It would also make sense --a compromise here-- that the right lane's
speed is reduced to 25mph (to make room for bicycles, scooters and
alternative vehicles) while the outer lanes' speed is increased to
35mph. I hope everybody is happy now.
Alan Baker
<cdaaf579-b2ca-4510...@s9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 29, 5:13 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <039cb905-bddc-4a6f-aa8a-4dff7b6b9...@l18g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Apr 29, 3:00 pm, N8N <njna...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > you imply that exceeding the posted speed limit is a widespread
> > > > problem. I agree that it is widespread, I disagree that it is a
> > > > problem.
> >
> > > Your speeding tickets weren't problems...?
> >
> > > Have you never sat waiting to enter a roadway and waited for speeding
> > > traffic?
> >
> > Nope. Not ever where the problem would have been ameliorated by them not
> > exceeding the speed limit.
>
> Are you sure you're not just the most unobservant nitwit on the
> planet...?
>
> If they had not been speeding, by what other method would they arrive -
> there- at -that- moment...?
Do you really not see the fallacy in that?
gpsman
>
>
>
> gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 29, 5:13 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <039cb905-bddc-4a6f-aa8a-4dff7b6b9...@l18g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Apr 29, 3:00 pm, N8N <njna...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > you imply that exceeding the posted speed limit is a widespread
> > > > > problem. I agree that it is widespread, I disagree that it is a
> > > > > problem.
>
> > > > Your speeding tickets weren't problems...?
>
> > > > Have you never sat waiting to enter a roadway and waited for speeding
> > > > traffic?
>
> > > Nope. Not ever where the problem would have been ameliorated by them not
> > > exceeding the speed limit.
>
> > Are you sure you're not just the most unobservant nitwit on the
> > planet...?
>
> > If they had not been speeding, by what other method would they arrive -
> > there- at -that- moment...?
>
> Do you really not see the fallacy in that?
C'mon, Alan, I know you have better nyuh-uhs than this.
-----
- gpsman
Alan Baker
<70f98957-d245-4418...@j26g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> On May 1, 2:56 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <cdaaf579-b2ca-4510-9755-6a5065ed3...@s9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> > gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Apr 29, 5:13 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <039cb905-bddc-4a6f-aa8a-4dff7b6b9...@l18g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Apr 29, 3:00 pm, N8N <njna...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > you imply that exceeding the posted speed limit is a widespread
> > > > > > problem. I agree that it is widespread, I disagree that it is a
> > > > > > problem.
> >
> > > > > Your speeding tickets weren't problems...?
> >
> > > > > Have you never sat waiting to enter a roadway and waited for speeding
> > > > > traffic?
> >
> > > > Nope. Not ever where the problem would have been ameliorated by them not
> > > > exceeding the speed limit.
> >
> > > Are you sure you're not just the most unobservant nitwit on the
> > > planet...?
> >
> > > If they had not been speeding, by what other method would they arrive -
> > > there- at -that- moment...?
> >
> > Do you really not see the fallacy in that?
>
> C'mon, Alan, I know you have better nyuh-uhs than this.
I'm quite serious.
Can you not see the huge hole in your argument?
gpsman
Usenet rule:
You make a claim: you provide the support.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/f1a57c971f489570?hl=en&dmode=source
-----
- gpsman
Alan Baker
<de9972b7-49a0-4bdb...@j13g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
Your claim would seem to be that if there is traffic in your way at
moment X because it is speeding that somehow that means that speeding as
to blame...
...as opposed to just simply the moment traffic just happened to be
there.
If the initial moment that that traffic had happened to leave had been a
little different, then traveling at the speed limit or below it could
have caused them to be in your way at that moment you wanted to enter
the road.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
gpsman
Appeal to probability.
Have someone look up and explain fallacy to you.
-----
- gpsman
Alan Baker
<b82edf77-3a59-49ee...@s16g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
No. You are attempting to suggest that speeding is what causes cars *in
general* to be in your way because a car *in specific* may have happened
to reach your location at a specific moment. In truth, the speed of the
vehicle is not the causal factor.
gpsman
> gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > C'mon, Alan, I know you have better nyuh-uhs than this.
>
> > > > > I'm quite serious.
>
> > > > > Can you not see the huge hole in your argument?
>
> > > > Usenet rule:
>
> > > > You make a claim: you provide the support.
>
> > > Your claim would seem to be that if there is traffic in your way at
> > > moment X because it is speeding that somehow that means that speeding as
> > > to blame...
>
> > > ...as opposed to just simply the moment traffic just happened to be
> > > there.
>
> > > If the initial moment that that traffic had happened to leave had been a
> > > little different, then traveling at the speed limit or below it could
> > > have caused them to be in your way at that moment you wanted to enter
> > > the road.
>
> > Appeal to probability.
>
> vehicle is not the causal factor.
Usenet rule:
You make a claim: you provide the support.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/f1a57c971f489570?hl=en&dmode=source
-----
- gpsman
Alan Baker
<1cdc6b1f-3066-46e0...@j31g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> On May 2, 4:06 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > C'mon, Alan, I know you have better nyuh-uhs than this.
> >
> > > > > > I'm quite serious.
> >
> > > > > > Can you not see the huge hole in your argument?
> >
> > > > > Usenet rule:
> >
> > > > > You make a claim: you provide the support.
> >
> > > > Your claim would seem to be that if there is traffic in your way at
> > > > moment X because it is speeding that somehow that means that speeding
> > > > as
> > > > to blame...
> >
> > > > ...as opposed to just simply the moment traffic just happened to be
> > > > there.
> >
> > > > If the initial moment that that traffic had happened to leave had been
> > > > a
> > > > little different, then traveling at the speed limit or below it could
> > > > have caused them to be in your way at that moment you wanted to enter
> > > > the road.
> >
> > > Appeal to probability.
> >
> > In truth, the speed of the
> > vehicle is not the causal factor.
>
> Usenet rule:
>
> You make a claim: you provide the support.
It's simple logic.
A road occupied with an uneven stream of vehicles when you attempt to
enter it. The chance that there is a gap in the stream for you to use is
not dependent on the speed of the flow. Trying to claim that if the
stream had been moving at a different speed (but only slower!) there
would have been a space is ridiculous on its face.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
gpsman
> In article
> <1cdc6b1f-3066-46e0-955f-12e8510df...@j31g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
You don't understand, at all. It might be the stream, it might be a
single vehicle leading a SL compliant stream.
Here's a simple example. Jump to ~1:30 and watch a combination of 2
speeding vehicles (and then the 1 at the SL) block the RoR of the
vehicle at 4:44... in practically non-existent traffic.
Only 1 (moving) vehicle has a legal right to their headway. Can you
tell which?
The premise that speed doesn't determine where you are when is false.
Space, time, etc.
-----
- gpsman
Alan Baker
<405cce8c-26a8-4eb4...@v10g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> > A road occupied with an uneven stream of vehicles when you attempt to
> > enter it. The chance that there is a gap in the stream for you to use is
> > not dependent on the speed of the flow. Trying to claim that if the
> > stream had been moving at a different speed (but only slower!) there
> > would have been a space is ridiculous on its face.
>
> You don't understand, at all. It might be the stream, it might be a
> single vehicle leading a SL compliant stream.
>
> Here's a simple example. Jump to ~1:30 and watch a combination of 2
> speeding vehicles (and then the 1 at the SL) block the RoR of the
> vehicle at 4:44... in practically non-existent traffic.
>
> Only 1 (moving) vehicle has a legal right to their headway. Can you
> tell which?
>
> The premise that speed doesn't determine where you are when is false.
> Space, time, etc.
Speed *alone* does not determine where you are when.
That is a fact.
Your argument against speeders on this basis is as easily applied to a
situation where a car is only in your way because it wasn't traveling
above the speed limit.
gpsman
>
> Here's a simple example. Jump to ~1:30 and watch a combination of 2
> speeding vehicles (and then the 1 at the SL) block the RoR of the
> vehicle at 4:44... in practically non-existent traffic.
Heh. Forgot the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9w-QkHuAZrQ
-----
- gpsman
gpsman
>
>
>
> gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> > > A road occupied with an uneven stream of vehicles when you attempt to
> > > enter it. The chance that there is a gap in the stream for you to use is
> > > not dependent on the speed of the flow. Trying to claim that if the
> > > stream had been moving at a different speed (but only slower!) there
> > > would have been a space is ridiculous on its face.
>
> > You don't understand, at all. It might be the stream, it might be a
> > single vehicle leading a SL compliant stream.
>
> > Here's a simple example. Jump to ~1:30 and watch a combination of 2
> > speeding vehicles (and then the 1 at the SL) block the RoR of the
> > vehicle at 4:44... in practically non-existent traffic.
>
> > Only 1 (moving) vehicle has a legal right to their headway. Can you
> > tell which?
>
> > The premise that speed doesn't determine where you are when is false.
> > Space, time, etc.
>
> Speed *alone* does not determine where you are when.
>
> That is a fact.
>
> Your argument against speeders
I'm not arguing against speeders, or speeding. I'm pointing out the
fallacies that comprise their denial that they can't or don't "get in
anyone's way".
> on this basis is as easily applied to a
> situation where a car is only in your way because it wasn't traveling
> above the speed limit.
Are you fucking retarded?
That motorist has a legal right to be there, then.
-----
- gpsman
Alan Baker
<5adaceb5-7598-4658...@e35g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
By suggesting that they are somehow unique in getting in the way by
virtue of the fact that they spent less time to happen to be where you
want to go is idiotic.
>
> > on this basis is as easily applied to a
> > situation where a car is only in your way because it wasn't traveling
> > above the speed limit.
>
> Are you fucking retarded?
>
> That motorist has a legal right to be there, then.
And that is a ridiculous argument. A speeder doesn't lose the basic
right of way because he happens to be over the posted limited.
You're pathetic.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
The problem with speeders is:
a) they take shorter to stop,
b) they crash harder,
c) the intimidate other users, ie. cyclists, small EVs (golf carts)
and scooters.
So they should pay for the National Debt.
Alan Baker
<fd940771-cfde-4d99...@s2g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
"His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
Just plain wrong.
>
> b) they crash harder,
But the goal is not crashing at all...
>
> c) the intimidate other users, ie. cyclists, small EVs (golf carts)
> and scooters.
Any car does that.
>
> So they should pay for the National Debt.
--
gpsman
> gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm not arguing against speeders, or speeding. I'm pointing out the
> > fallacies that comprise their denial that they can't or don't "get in
> > anyone's way".
>
> By suggesting that they are somehow unique in getting in the way by
> virtue of the fact that they spent less time to happen to be where you
> want to go is idiotic.
Straw man. It's because they violated the law. Had they not, they
would not be there, then.
> > > on this basis is as easily applied to a
> > > situation where a car is only in your way because it wasn't traveling
> > > above the speed limit.
>
> > Are you fucking retarded?
>
> > That motorist has a legal right to be there, then.
>
> And that is a ridiculous argument.
So sayeth the speeder. There can be no rational arguments for
complying with speed limits, can there...?
> A speeder doesn't lose the basic
> right of way because he happens to be over the posted limited.
Straw man. Speeding is abuse of the ROW. Greater speed occupies
greater headway. That greater headway often delays other motorists
from entering the roadway.
There is no rational argument to refute that.
> You're pathetic.
So I read. My only consolation is who thinks so.
-----
- gpsman
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
Obviously I used the wrong word. They take LONGER to stop. Dodge that.
>
>
>
> > b) they crash harder,
>
> But the goal is not crashing at all...
PREVENTION you mean. Right, lower speeds, lane discipline AND no
multitasking are the first lines of prevention.
>
>
>
> > c) the intimidate other users, ie. cyclists, small EVs (golf carts)
> > and scooters.
>
> Any car does that.
The faster and more chaotic the worse. Zigzagging AND speeding are
deadly combination that often see around.
Scary and driving you into ever bigger vehicles.
Alan Baker
<cf577eca-13e6-4864...@u16g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> On May 2, 9:11 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> > gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm not arguing against speeders, or speeding. I'm pointing out the
> > > fallacies that comprise their denial that they can't or don't "get in
> > > anyone's way".
> >
> > By suggesting that they are somehow unique in getting in the way by
> > virtue of the fact that they spent less time to happen to be where you
> > want to go is idiotic.
>
> Straw man. It's because they violated the law. Had they not, they
> would not be there, then.
Then another car could as easily been there.
>
> > > > on this basis is as easily applied to a
> > > > situation where a car is only in your way because it wasn't traveling
> > > > above the speed limit.
> >
> > > Are you fucking retarded?
> >
> > > That motorist has a legal right to be there, then.
> >
> > And that is a ridiculous argument.
>
> So sayeth the speeder. There can be no rational arguments for
> complying with speed limits, can there...?
This one is not a rational argument.
>
> > A speeder doesn't lose the basic
> > right of way because he happens to be over the posted limited.
>
> Straw man. Speeding is abuse of the ROW. Greater speed occupies
> greater headway. That greater headway often delays other motorists
> from entering the roadway.
>
> There is no rational argument to refute that.
People have no problems entering the road due to speeding.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
You are not only challenging the rules of common sense but the laws of
physics...
Speed kills!
gpsman
> In article
> <cf577eca-13e6-4864-b689-9dfdf2da6...@u16g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
>
> gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Straw man. It's because they violated the law. Had they not, they
> > would not be there, then.
>
> Then another car could as easily been there.
That remains appeal to probability fallacy, Nostradamus, and no change
is expected in the foreseeable future.
> > > > That motorist has a legal right to be there, then.
>
> > > And that is a ridiculous argument.
>
> > So sayeth the speeder. There can be no rational arguments for
> > complying with speed limits, can there...?
>
> This one is not a rational argument.
Usenet rule:
You make a claim: you provide the support.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/f1a57c971f489570?hl=en&dmode=source
> > > A speeder doesn't lose the basic
> > > right of way because he happens to be over the posted limited.
>
> > Straw man. Speeding is abuse of the ROW. Greater speed occupies
> > greater headway. That greater headway often delays other motorists
> > from entering the roadway.
>
> > There is no rational argument to refute that.
>
> People have no problems entering the road due to speeding.
Usenet rule:
You make a claim: you provide the support.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/f1a57c971f489570?hl=en&dmode=source
-----
- gpsman
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
> On May 3, 12:56 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <cf577eca-13e6-4864-b689-9dfdf2da6...@u16g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Straw man. It's because they violated the law. Had they not, they
> > > would not be there, then.
>
> > Then another car could as easily been there.
>
> That remains appeal to probability fallacy, Nostradamus, and no change
> is expected in the foreseeable future.
>
> > > > > That motorist has a legal right to be there, then.
>
> > > > And that is a ridiculous argument.
>
> > > So sayeth the speeder. There can be no rational arguments for
> > > complying with speed limits, can there...?
>
> > This one is not a rational argument.
>
> Usenet rule:
>
> You make a claim: you provide the support.
>
> --
> Alan Baker
>
> > > > A speeder doesn't lose the basic
> > > > right of way because he happens to be over the posted limited.
>
> > > Straw man. Speeding is abuse of the ROW. Greater speed occupies
> > > greater headway. That greater headway often delays other motorists
> > > from entering the roadway.
>
> > > There is no rational argument to refute that.
>
> > People have no problems entering the road due to speeding.
>
> Usenet rule:
>
> You make a claim: you provide the support.
In America and Canada we don't have a clue how to drive. Go to Germany
for inspiration:
Traffic Laws
Don't let the high speeds on German roads fool you into believing that
there are no reduced speed zones. There are, in fact, many sections of
the German Autobahns that have speed limits. The speed limits are
prominently posted in heavily traveled sections of Autobahns around
cities. You'll also see speed limit signs on other seemingly open
parts of the Autobahns in the countryside. So, keep an eye open for
them. Usually, speeders will not be stopped at the time of the offense
but will get a speeding ticket through the mail. This may be as long
as two or three months after the incident. The German police use
special cameras to catch speeders. Persons exceeding the limits by
more than 30 kilometers an hour can count on losing licenses for a
period of up to three months, plus a stiff fine.
http://www.howtogermany.com/pages/driving.html
***
To begin with we drive dumb oversized vehicles and don't give a damn
about lane discipline. I'm OK with high speeds on freeways --special
cars and drivers license required-- but not in urban areas. Get it?
His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
> Just Communist crap, thank goodness I live in Tennessee,
> especially the middle area, by the drones voters have voted
> the redlightcameras OUT of existance, their pesky, inacurate
> and convict the wrong ones almost everytime.
Well, we disagree here:
Regarding the accident on Krome Ave, where a British lady lost her
life...
(posted comment)
Are we drawing lessons for the future? None of course! Every analysis
concentrates on the merits of the victim or the recklessness of some
predatory driver. In another recent accident a guy doing 80mph on city
streets hit a pedestrian who was partially dismembered. No thought
whatsoever into placing SPEED CAMERAS, commonplace in the UK.
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2011/05/08/one-person-killed-in-krome-avenue-crash/#comment-43286
When we are able to issue a BAZOOKA to pedestrians and cyclists we may
not need speed cameras. ;)