A question about speeding & fines
pob...@ix.netcom.com
What actually deters YOU from speeding in your vehicle, if anything?
a) the fines
b) the points on your record
c) the danger involved
My biggest fear is the points. They affect the insurance rates.
No thanks! My second biggest fear is probably safety. Once you
get above 65 or 70 its nearly impossible to stop quickly enough
to prevent serious injury or even death.
(ken)
Bob Ward
How about the lack of a compelling reason to speed? I'm rarely in
that much of a hurry, so I feel no need to speed or to determain an
excuse or an explanation as to why I choose not to speed.
Nordlicht
European country which has "Autobahnen [c]" ] 90-100mph here in the US, even
though there are of nice stretches of freeway, is the INCOMPETENCE
of say 90% of the MORONS i have to share a road with.
ARROGANCE, SELF-RIGHTOUSNESS, the "I-Pay-Taxes-So-I-Can-Do-What-I-Want"
Types, STUPIDITY and also the roads themselves here and there, esp. the
curves, where the road surface is more than often either flat or tilted,
for some cheap reason, to the outer edge of the curve instead of the inner
edge.
Then there is the State Inspection Joke. Have you actually SEEN the JUNK
that is allowed on the roads here, with VALID / FRESH inspection stickers on
the windshield/plate? Have you also noticed how many exhaust pipes, bumpers,
mufflers, wheels, shredded tires etc are lying around on the shoulders of
roads here? I have to share the ROAD with these MORONS. You too...Imagine
cruising along with a nice, relaxing 90mph and one of those financially
retentive DIPSHITS starts unloading his exhaust system...with 60-70mph i may
just have enough time to evade, not with 90mph.
Then there is the (as mildly mentioned above) Drivers Education Joke.
Drivers ed in the US is, if you would put an extremely censored label on it,
"Laughable".
I had to do it since my..um..."D" license is only good for a year here. What
a joke. Get a book from the DMV, skim through it, then go to DMV again, take
written test [allow about 5 mins for this], get your pic taken and you get
a Learners Permit and can go learn driving with Mommy, Daddy, Granny,
Gramps, Sissy, Brother - EVERYONE of whom has the same POOR driving
education ["Educational Incest"]. Then, after you have aquired the
neccessary skills to hold the car on the road or in close vicinity to it, go
to DMV again and get appointment for the BYOC [Bring Your Own Car] Road
Test. You get there, the DMV Idiot gets in your car with his clipboard, you
drive around the block once, pull loosely over to the curb [forward, no
parked cars within 50ft ahead or behind you], obviously to see if we`re
able to park the car in a "decent" manner. Then back to where you started
and you`re done [Time elapsed: ca. 10 mins].
Voila! You get a US Drivers License! You can drive 5 [five] ton SUVs or 5
Liter, V8 Mustangs or some such junk right away, legally!
Then there is the Communist Insurance Shit playing a role too. I get a
speeding ticket, my insurance rates go up. Who came up with that? The same
idiot who invented four-way stop intersections? Or the other one. The one
who came up with combined On/Off-ramps measuring a grand total of about
150ft during which you have to a.] Let people cut in front of you trying to
slow down from 65 to 15mph b.] try to accelerate from 20 to 65mph so as to
avoid getting rearended when forced to merge left when the 150 feet of
On/Off-Ramp are used up.
Who are these FUCKERS to tell me that i have to pay more because i got
caught doing 75 instead of 65 and that im a safety risk / unsafe driver. I
will even go so far as to say that i can drive as good as the average cop.
Why? Well, if the average US drivers ed for John/Jane Doe is any reference,
then US Cop Drivers Training can`t be better than the average "Autobahn
Country" Drivers Ed.
Plus i have driven in excess of 120mph on a daily basis back home, SAFELY.
Sure, speed alone is not the point...as we`ve all learned from watching COPS
[Motto: ""We`re *screech* in *screeeech* EXCESS *swerve* of 100mph
*screeeeeeeeeech* right now !!!"" Yeah, big fucking deal 100mph] and so
on, every drugged up subhuman reject can nail the pedal to the metal and
reach speeds in the neighborhood of Warp One. Being aware of the possible
dangers, knowing how the car will react IF, for example, a tire blows up at
speed [Speed defined as "over 80mph"] and what to do to get the car safely
over to the shoulder without causing an 80-car pile-up,
or WHEN it is safe to go FAST, WHAT to do if car starts hydroplaning
and WHEN it will start hydroplaning and so forth,
that comes from EDUCATION....
Here it is in a nutshell:
1.] Too much "Me First, Fuck You" attitude. [Directly related to no. 2]
2.] Lack of Driving Education.
3.] Lack of strict safety standards for vehicles used on public roads or, if
present [yeah, right], enforcement of these standards.
4.] Illogical construction and/or poor condition of freeways resulting in
unsafe driving condition if speeds exceed set National Pretend Speed Limit
by more than 20mph. [Ever wonder WHY there are so many dangerous stretches
of freeway WITHOUT steel barriers/planks on the sides?]
<pob...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3AC6CCD8...@ix.netcom.com...
CaptainKrunch
"Nordlicht" <ple...@spam.me> wrote in message
news:1tCx6.5201$l5.46...@newsfeed1.thebiz.net...
Dave C.
road test is too easy to get licensed in the U.S., my road test was a bit
more challenging than your post would seem to indicate. For parking, I
actually did have to parallel park between two rather new and expensive
looking vehicles that were parked VERY close together. In fact, I remember
thinking at the time that the guy who was testing me was pretty gutsy
asking a barely 14-year-old (SD, legal) to handle such a (relatively)
complicated maneuver. This was not a test track . . . just a side street .
. . so he was risking someone's privately owned vehicles on my ability to
complete the maneuver safely. I did fine, obviously. It would seem that
-some- testers actually want to see if you can handle the car before they
sign off on your license. Or maybe I got the only strict tester in this
country? It wasn't a quick test. From memory, it was about a half hour of
driving.
But even my behind-the-wheel driving test was WAY too easy, IMHO.
As to the original post . . . well I speed anyway, but I'd drive a LOT
faster if I didn't want to keep my driver's insurance cheap. So it's the
points on the license. -Dave (MA, step 9 . . . maximum insurance
discount)
Nordlicht wrote:
--
On linuxfreemail dot com, I am user "spamfilter".
ameijers
drive whatever the flow of traffic is, or what I feel is safe for the
vehicle and road conditions, whichever is lower. Other than in known speed
traps, I seldom bother to look at the limit signs. In general, safest speed
is the flow of traffic. Traffic is a fluid, and anything (too slow, too
fast, weaving) that disrupts that flow increases risk. And on a more
pragmatic level, anything that makes you stand out from traffic is what
makes the cops notice you. So, no bright-red boy racers with useless
appendeges. Blend in, and you are less likely to be a target.
aem sends...
Bob Kaplow
> I have a question. It would be interesting to compare the results.
>
> What actually deters YOU from speeding in your vehicle, if anything?
>
> a) the fines
>
> b) the points on your record
>
> c) the danger involved
None of the above. The interstates I drive to and from work are posted 55
MPH. Traffic moves 75-80 except at toll booth and other backups, subject of
courst to weather. Go with the flow.
It would be more dangerous for me to drive 55 than 80 under those
circumstances. It's all a con game run by the local gestapo to enhance their
revenue.
Bob Kaplow
> Here it is in a nutshell:
0.5 Drunk drivers. Capital punishment is called for here.
> 1.] Too much "Me First, Fuck You" attitude. [Directly related to no. 2]
>
> 2.] Lack of Driving Education.
>
> 3.] Lack of strict safety standards for vehicles used on public roads or, if
> present [yeah, right], enforcement of these standards.
>
> 4.] Illogical construction and/or poor condition of freeways resulting in
> unsafe driving condition if speeds exceed set National Pretend Speed Limit
> by more than 20mph. [Ever wonder WHY there are so many dangerous stretches
> of freeway WITHOUT steel barriers/planks on the sides?]
5) Distracted drivers. Be it cell phones, smoking, the stereo, kids in the
back, talking to the person next to you and looking at them instead of the
road, eating a big mac, gawking at an accident onthe side of the road, or
other ways of not paying attention to what you're doing.
6) Graduated drivers licenses. They should not be one size fits all. A
seperate class should be require at least for interstates. And for SUVs and
other monsters. And for bad weather (especially snow, sleet, ice, etc),
night, etc. I still maintain that my dog had a better understanding of the
laws of physics than 90% of the drivers I see on the road daily.
7) Visibility. I always see drivers who are either so short, or so tilted
back that their line of vision is BETWEEN the dashboard and the wheel. How
can you see the road in front of you. How can you judge distances to
obstacles like my car. There needs to be some sort of visual test FROM THE
DRIVING POSITION, that requirs you to be able to see an object on the ground
some specified distance in front of the vehicle.
Nathan J. Nagel
regional.
First, poor condition of vehicles. That depends on where you live -
here in MI, or in OH you don't ever need to have your vehicle
inspected. in VA, MD, or PA however, inspection is a thing to be
feared. It's very inconsistend state to state. Also condition of roads
- again, most places I've lived the roads would be perfectly safe for
90-100MPH travel except for the other factors that you mention. One
exception again is here in MI, some of the freeways are so old and
chuckholed that you can't even safely go the limit if you have a stiff
suspension (I broke the mirror off of my Scirocco merely by going down
the Southfield Freeway towards the airport...) although most would be
fine, and indeed in some places the 85th percentile seems to be between
80 and 85 MPH (70 MPH limits)
Other than that, sadly, I think you're right on. Doesn't say a whole
lot for our system of driver training, or our collective attitude as
Americans.
nate
nmoberg
(Bob Kaplow) wrote:
No kidding.. I think people that claim not to speed either live in a
very non urban area or are totally oblivious of the cars streaming
around them.
Joseph Huesmann
>Voila! You get a US Drivers License! You can drive 5 [five] ton SUVs or 5
>Liter, V8 Mustangs or some such junk right away, legally!
I'm not aware that there's a US drivers license...
Marc
>And while I agree the
>road test is too easy to get licensed in the U.S., my road test was a bit
>more challenging than your post would seem to indicate.
When I went for my motorcycle license, it was the first day I had ever
ridden a motorcycle. If it weren't for my love of life, I could have
killed myself rather quickly. Anyway, I was already car licensed, but
it is treated as a completely seperate license, so I had to take a
written test as well as the riding test. The written test took me the
indicated 5 minutes. The riding test was:
Pull out of the parking lot. Execute 4 right turns. Pull into the
parking lot. Pass. Total elapsed time was close to two minutes.
This was supposet to be a full test, but the tester didn't feel like
it. Also, it helped that I brought useful friend. When you test for
a motorcycle license, you have to bring a car, a motorcycle, and a
person that is licensed for a car (I don't remember if they have to be
licensed for a motorcycle, but he was). Steve was very talkative and
talked me into a license while driving the tester around in the chase
vehicle.
Of course, I did very little riding until after I took the MSF course
to actually learn how to ride...
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
SteveR
>STUPIDITY
Right-on post.
I'd like to add two things: 1) morons that have to eat and drink in
their cars. Cupholders should be banned. NO ONE has to have a drink
that badly that they need to do it while swerving across two lanes of
traffic. Same goes for dippy females applying makeup while driving,
(I can't begin to count how many times I've seen *that* happen.), cell
phones, and everything else. JUST DRIVE THE DAMN CAR! And 2)
Geezers. I know we're all gonna get old sooner or later, but pops and
granny cruising along at 35 in a 60 zone is a lot less safe than
everyone doing 80. And, my personal favorite, having been twice hit
by them... they blithely cruise through stop signs and red lights.
SteveR
s.r.r.2 a.t w.i.n.s.o.c.k.e.t d.o.t c.o.m
C. P. Zilliacus
>I'll agree with you, with a few exceptions, and I think these are
>regional.
>
>First, poor condition of vehicles. That depends on where you live -
>here in MI, or in OH you don't ever need to have your vehicle
>inspected. in VA, MD, or PA however, inspection is a thing to be
>feared. It's very inconsistend state to state.
Hmm, I have lived in Maryland for all of my driving life, and the state
has NEVER had a systematic inspection of safety equipment like tires,
brakes and lights. It does have a system of inspections for vehicle
emissions in the urbanized counties (and some of the rural ones, too),
but the only time that a car gets a detailed inspection for safety
equipment is when it changes ownership. At that point, a very
comprehensive inspection is required by a mechanic with appropriate
credentials (issued by the state). Maryland does have a provision in
its Transportation Article that allows police to stop vehicles with
obvious, visible defective equipment and issue them a Safety
Equipment Repair Order (SERO), which requires the owner to have
the problems checked on the order repaired, but that's about it,
and is, IMO, a poor substitute for a recurring safety inspection
like Virginia, Pennsylvania and D.C. (yes, even D.C.) have.
Interestingly, Maryland does have an aggressive program of
roadside CVSA inspections for commercial vehicles over 10,000
pounds GVW.
John David Galt
> How about the lack of a compelling reason to speed? I'm rarely in
> that much of a hurry, so I feel no need to speed or to determain an
> excuse or an explanation as to why I choose not to speed.
You're still wasting other people's time if you don't, so you do need
an excuse.
cama...@my-deja.com
> I have a question. It would be interesting to compare the results.
>
> What actually deters YOU from speeding in your vehicle, if anything?
>
> a) the fines
To some extent.
> b) the points on your record
Since they don't affect my insurance around here that's not a problem.
> c) the danger involved
What danger? If I feel it's getting too dangerous I slow down.
d) getting your license suspended (added by me)
Yup. This is the real problem, if it wasn't for this I'd be going much
faster.
> My biggest fear is the points. They affect the insurance rates.
> No thanks! My second biggest fear is probably safety. Once you
> get above 65 or 70 its nearly impossible to stop quickly enough
> to prevent serious injury or even death.
Maybe if you're going 70 in a school zone, on the freeway you can safely
go 100 mph if there's not much traffic, sometimes more.
>
>
> (ken)
Bob Ward
Only those who choose to ride with me. All others are free to select
a lane other than the one I am in, and drive at whatever speed they
wish.
Jonny Hodgson
> In article <3AC6CCD8...@ix.netcom.com>, pob...@ix.netcom.com
writes:
> > I have a question. It would be interesting to compare the results.
> >
> > What actually deters YOU from speeding in your vehicle, if anything?
> >
> > a) the fines
> >
> > b) the points on your record
> >
> > c) the danger involved
A combination of b) (I rather like my clean licence!) and fuel consumption.
I've settled down to just under 70 (the UK limit) on motorways mostly
because my car drinks fuel nice and slowly at that speed, while still being
fast enough to prevent *total* boredom - my 6-CD changer and multi-
-preset radio help with that a lot!
On that subject, I've noticed that at 68-70 I listen to every word of every
song on my stereo; if I'm in a hurry and doing 80-85, I barely notice
which songs are playing.
I also cruise faster with passengers (especially if I'm in a minibus) than
I would on my own, on the basis that they're likely to be less comfortable
and more bored than I am. Note that's "faster" not "more aggressively"
- my style is smoothed out considerably as the number of passengers
increases!
Jonny
Nathan J. Nagel
the inspection is far more rigorous than any other I know of (including
VA and PA.) I've lived in all three states and MD was the only one I've
ever failed (I'm not making this up - my horn wasn't loud enough, my
headlights weren't aimed right, and the joint between the muffler and
tailpipe was "leaking" - the weld had pinholes in it.) If you buy new
cars and/or keep your cars for a long time you probably don't fear it,
but for someone like me who enjoys buying "pre-enjoyed" cars and fixing
them up as I drive them, it's quite a PITA. Not that I mean to imply
that it's not a good thing - I'd rather they be thorough than not. Not
everyone has the ability to immediately detect a safety related problem
with their vehicle just by driving it, so having it inspected is
something I'm all in favor of, no matter how personally inconvenient it
is for me.
At least the areas I lived in in MD nobody ever kept a car more than 5
years anyway (I was the odd man out, driving my 15 year old VW's),
although I'm sure that's not true for the whole state. So the lack of a
periodic inspection wasn't a big deal, you probably didn't even go
through a set of brakes in that time.
nate
Nathan J. Nagel
tickets - only place I've ever had that happen to me. First was right
when I moved to the state, I had my license plate in the windshield
because I had never put a plate in the front plate holder, which the
previous owner had mangled and bent. The second was for a burned out
taillight (that really wasn't burned out, the cop just used that as an
excuse to pull me over) and a cracked windshield, which really was badly
cracked, but I could hardly afford to fix it (had no choice after the
ticket though) this is all on a car that passed inspection less than a
year earlier
nate
Brent Peterson
>
> I have a question. It would be interesting to compare the results.
>
> What actually deters YOU from speeding in your vehicle, if anything?
I will work with speeding = exceeding the number on the sign.
> a) the fines
A little.
> b) the points on your record
Somewhat.
> c) the danger involved
I find it more dangerous to be at or below the limit as I
get tailgated, cut off, etc. It encourages others to do things
that endanger me. So, no.
> My biggest fear is the points. They affect the insurance rates.
> No thanks! My second biggest fear is probably safety. Once you
> get above 65 or 70 its nearly impossible to stop quickly enough
> to prevent serious injury or even death.
I guess you've never driven a car with decent brakes.
Of course since things are more about money than safety, its easier
to put low speed limits on roads so automakers can justify having
poor (cheap) brake systems on their products.
Brent Peterson
<snip long post>
That was simply beautiful.....
Nathan J. Nagel
Ain't that the truth! I know a guy who's an engineer for a major auto
mfgr. who was recently involved in a rear end collision on the freeway -
he came around a curve and traffic was stopped. He claimed that even
slamming on the brakes hard the ABS never activated on dry pavement,
i.e. the brakes weren't strong enough to force a departure of the wheels
(i.e. lock them up.) Doesn't inspire much confidence, does it?
nate
Rich B
>I have a question. It would be interesting to compare the results.
>What actually deters YOU from speeding in your vehicle, if anything?
>a) the fines
>b) the points on your record
>c) the danger involved
The points, then fines, then danger. A $200 fine with 3 or 4 points
is compounded greatly by my insurance (19 year old male in NYC).
I'm more scared of driving slower. A few weeks ago my tire blew out
on the expressway (I was only going about 65mph, 10 miles over the
limit). I pulled over and put the donut on. I drove home the other
25 miles at about 50-55mph. I was in the right lane and I counted 3
times when someone came up behind me quickly then had to jam on
their brakes. This happened on a 8-10 lane highway (it changes a
few times) where I've gone over 85mph. 70mph is the speed most
people drive, even during rush hour (assuming no traffic jams).
-strat81
*****************************************
"And I don't need your sympathy to get me
through the day. Seasons change and so can I."
Proud Disc Jockey at 89.5 FM WSOU- Seton Hall's PIRATE Radio
Proud Craftsman at MRP Custom Drums www.mrpdrums.com
*****************************************
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
ConsumerBot
> Traffic is a fluid, and anything (too slow, too
>fast, weaving) that disrupts that flow increases risk.
Speaking of the flow. I just read a very interesting article about
dynamics of traffic which was talking about a recent finding. There's
a text book (forgot the name of it) which is considered a bible of
traffic engineering. It states that on the congested highways the
highest capacity (most number of vehicles per hour) is achieved at
45mph. Two studies just found that in LA the highest capacity is
achieved at significantly higher speed - 60mph. They have also
discovered some bizarre new traffic behavior there, such as fixed
formations of multiple cars going pretty much bumper-to-bumper at
speeds well in excess of 60mph for prolonged periods of time. These
studies are possible thanks to tens of thousands of copper loops
imbedded in highway surfaces there sending signals to a satellite.
A finding about the cell phones and accidents that was mentioned in
the article is that most cell phone related accidents occur not
because of dialing or talking on the phone, but when you answer the
phone. This, of course, makes perfect sense since you don't get to
chose when to receive the call. But they site a different reason -
cognitive distraction when you are considering who could be calling.
Me
pob...@ix.netcom.com wrote on 4/1/01 2:38 AM:
> I have a question. It would be interesting to compare the results.
>
> What actually deters YOU from speeding in your vehicle, if anything?
>
> a) the fines
>
> b) the points on your record
>
> c) the danger involved
All of the above. I value my life and the lives of others so I try to be
sensible when I drive. I live in NJ. Getting points in NJ generally causes
auto insurance premiums to skyrocket like in few other states. I am none too
thrilled about adding to some community's revenue stream either so I simply
do not speed. If traffic is light, I simply use cruise control and put on an
interesting CD to pass the time while I am taking a long drive.
Matthew T. Russotto
}I have a question. It would be interesting to compare the results.
}
}What actually deters YOU from speeding in your vehicle, if anything?
}
}a) the fines
}
}b) the points on your record
}
}c) the danger involved
Considering I was travelling around an indicated 80mph for the better part of
2 hours today, on roads with a limit ranging from 55 to 65, I'd have
to say "nothing".
--
Matthew T. Russotto russ...@pond.com
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."
Matthew T. Russotto
ConsumerBot <consu...@yahoo.com> wrote:
}
}Speaking of the flow. I just read a very interesting article about
}dynamics of traffic which was talking about a recent finding. There's
}a text book (forgot the name of it) which is considered a bible of
}traffic engineering. It states that on the congested highways the
}highest capacity (most number of vehicles per hour) is achieved at
}45mph. Two studies just found that in LA the highest capacity is
}achieved at significantly higher speed - 60mph. They have also
}discovered some bizarre new traffic behavior there, such as fixed
}formations of multiple cars going pretty much bumper-to-bumper at
}speeds well in excess of 60mph for prolonged periods of time.
Yep, these compressed formations definitely exist -- I used to drive
in them on I-270 near DC often enough. It's very high capacity, but
it isn't stable; that is, it can convert to stop and go in no time,
just because someone tapped the brakes. And at the point in space
where it falls apart, you had better be ready to do 60-0 in a very
short time.
The Real Bev
>
> In article <3AC6CCD8...@ix.netcom.com>, <pob...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> }I have a question. It would be interesting to compare the results.
> }
> }What actually deters YOU from speeding in your vehicle, if anything?
> }
> }a) the fines
> }
> }b) the points on your record
> }
> }c) the danger involved
>
> Considering I was travelling around an indicated 80mph for the better part of
> 2 hours today, on roads with a limit ranging from 55 to 65, I'd have
> to say "nothing".
How about wear and tear on your vehicle?
--
Cheers,
Bev
***************************************************************
When your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a thumb.
nmoberg
wrote:
>"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
>>
>> In article <3AC6CCD8...@ix.netcom.com>, <pob...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> }I have a question. It would be interesting to compare the results.
>> }
>> }What actually deters YOU from speeding in your vehicle, if anything?
>> }
>> }a) the fines
>> }
>> }b) the points on your record
>> }
>> }c) the danger involved
>>
>> Considering I was travelling around an indicated 80mph for the better part of
>> 2 hours today, on roads with a limit ranging from 55 to 65, I'd have
>> to say "nothing".
>
>How about wear and tear on your vehicle?
Sure have but the above wouldn't cause any...
Marc
>On Sun, 01 Apr 2001 11:31:28 -0700, John David Galt
><j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
>
>time.
No. By definition, if someone is going the speed limit, he is not
exceeding the speed indicated by the signs along the road. Nothing
more.
>Of course, this means he's in the right lane of the Interstate
>except to pass someone going under the limit.
Generally true, given our exceedingly underposted roads.
>If he's on a typical New England road, then most times there's no room
>to pull over to let the traffic pass, so those behind him have to be
>patient until and unless there's an opportunity to pass.
That's one of the good things about TX. It is legal to drive on the
shoulder to allow faster traffic to pass. Though places like CA and
AK have laws that require the blocking vehicle to pull over,
regardelss of their speed, to allow backed up traffic to pass.
Brandon Sommerville
>"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
>>
>> In article <3AC6CCD8...@ix.netcom.com>, <pob...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> }I have a question. It would be interesting to compare the results.
>> }
>> }What actually deters YOU from speeding in your vehicle, if anything?
>> }
>> }a) the fines
>> }
>> }b) the points on your record
>> }
>> }c) the danger involved
>>
>> Considering I was travelling around an indicated 80mph for the better part of
>> 2 hours today, on roads with a limit ranging from 55 to 65, I'd have
>> to say "nothing".
>
>How about wear and tear on your vehicle?
What makes you think that 80 mph provides significant wear vs 55 or 65
mph?
--
Brandon
Before I criticize a man, I walk a mile in his shoes. That
way, if he gets angry, he's a mile away and barefoot.
Remove ".gov" to e-mail
Nathan J. Nagel
Depends on the car. Most German cars shrug off speeds like 80 MPH, but,
say, an early 80's American car was proibably designed for a max travel
speed of about 70 MPH (sure it will go faster, but this was in the days
of the 55MPH NMSL) and engine life might be reduced some.
nate
Matthew T. Russotto
}>
}> In article <3AC6CCD8...@ix.netcom.com>, <pob...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
}> }I have a question. It would be interesting to compare the results.
}> }
}> }What actually deters YOU from speeding in your vehicle, if anything?
}> Considering I was travelling around an indicated 80mph for the better part of
}> 2 hours today, on roads with a limit ranging from 55 to 65, I'd have
}> to say "nothing".
}
}How about wear and tear on your vehicle?
How about it? If I wanted it to last forever, I'd give up commuting
in it (stop and go traffic is nasty on a car) before I'd reduce speeds
under less congested conditions.
Nordlicht
Chamber of Commerce here, if you get my drift...
> 5) Distracted drivers. Be it cell phones, smoking, the stereo, kids in the
> back, talking to the person next to you and looking at them instead of the
> road, eating a big mac, gawking at an accident onthe side of the road, or
> other ways of not paying attention to what you're doing.
Yes. Is covered under Lack of Driving Education.
> 6) Graduated drivers licenses. They should not be one size fits all. A
> seperate class should be require at least for interstates. And for SUVs
and
> other monsters. And for bad weather (especially snow, sleet, ice, etc),
> night, etc. I still maintain that my dog had a better understanding of the
> laws of physics than 90% of the drivers I see on the road daily.
Graduated licenses as far as the weight of the vehicle empty. If a car
weights 4500lbs+ empty, extra license required, esp. if it has a
body-on-frame construction. Course, licenses in general should be more
expensive too in the first place. The rest, ie. sleet, ice, snow and
"Fahrphysik" - literally: driving physics - are covered under Lack of
Driving Education.
> 7) Visibility. I always see drivers who are either so short, or so tilted
> back that their line of vision is BETWEEN the dashboard and the wheel. How
> can you see the road in front of you. How can you judge distances to
> obstacles like my car. There needs to be some sort of visual test FROM THE
> DRIVING POSITION, that requirs you to be able to see an object on the
ground
> some specified distance in front of the vehicle.
What are you gonna do about the short drivers. The beauty of living in the
US is that EVERYONE has the right to drive the vehicle he is licensed to
drive, no matter how short he is or if he can be classified as legally dead
/ blind / deaf / missing major limbs etc. otherwise it would be
Discrimination and lawsuits and all the civil rights pissheads would come
out and so forth....or did i miss anything here? But anyway, yes, they are
scary...esp. if you combine being short with extremely old age. I`m passing
an old lady every morning on my way to work. She`s driving a Ford Pinto
which she probably bought NEW, she is about close to 90 years old and can
barely see over the dashboard - through the steering wheel - down the road.
Bob Kaplow <kapl...@eisner.encompasserve.org.mars> wrote in message
news:VRrIxn...@eisner.encompasserve.org...
> In article <1tCx6.5201$l5.46...@newsfeed1.thebiz.net>, "Nordlicht"
<ple...@spam.me> writes:
> > Here it is in a nutshell:
>
> 0.5 Drunk drivers. Capital punishment is called for here.
>
> > 1.] Too much "Me First, Fuck You" attitude. [Directly related to no. 2]
> >
> > 2.] Lack of Driving Education.
> >
> > 3.] Lack of strict safety standards for vehicles used on public roads
or, if
> > present [yeah, right], enforcement of these standards.
> >
> > 4.] Illogical construction and/or poor condition of freeways resulting
in
> > unsafe driving condition if speeds exceed set National Pretend Speed
Limit
> > by more than 20mph. [Ever wonder WHY there are so many dangerous
stretches
> > of freeway WITHOUT steel barriers/planks on the sides?]
>
> 5) Distracted drivers. Be it cell phones, smoking, the stereo, kids in the
> back, talking to the person next to you and looking at them instead of the
> road, eating a big mac, gawking at an accident onthe side of the road, or
> other ways of not paying attention to what you're doing.
>
> 6) Graduated drivers licenses. They should not be one size fits all. A
> seperate class should be require at least for interstates. And for SUVs
and
> other monsters. And for bad weather (especially snow, sleet, ice, etc),
> night, etc. I still maintain that my dog had a better understanding of the
> laws of physics than 90% of the drivers I see on the road daily.
>
> 7) Visibility. I always see drivers who are either so short, or so tilted
> back that their line of vision is BETWEEN the dashboard and the wheel. How
> can you see the road in front of you. How can you judge distances to
> obstacles like my car. There needs to be some sort of visual test FROM THE
> DRIVING POSITION, that requirs you to be able to see an object on the
ground
> some specified distance in front of the vehicle.
Nordlicht
Eating; drinking; applying make-up; reading the newspapers, and i dont CARE
if it is the WSJ or Weekly World News and how "important" or "special" you
are; shaving; partying; doing homework; breast feeding your baby (seen twice
so far!)...while driving.
SteveR <ple...@see.sig> wrote in message
news:qgkectodg7rh8iune...@4ax.com...
Brian Paulsen
>I have a question. It would be interesting to compare the results.
>
>What actually deters YOU from speeding in your vehicle, if anything?
The fear of spilling my drink in my lap?
The fear that hitting a bump in the road will really hurt my knees as they
slam into the steering wheel?
The fear that hitting a bump will cause me to cut myself while I'm shaving?
The fear of losing my concentration and dialing a wrong number which will
cause me to dial a number in Paraguay?
The fear of losing my concentration and tuning to the 'All disco - all the
time' station?
The fear that all of the above will happen at the same time?
:)
--
Brian
Alex Rodriguez
>I have a question. It would be interesting to compare the results.
>What actually deters YOU from speeding in your vehicle, if anything?
>b) the points on your record
>c) the danger involved
>No thanks! My second biggest fear is probably safety. Once you
>get above 65 or 70 its nearly impossible to stop quickly enough
>to prevent serious injury or even death.
Depends on what you mean by speeding. If you mean going faster than the
speed limit, then on many interstates, I am not detered. I drive at the
speed that feels the most comfortable.
--
-----------------
Alex __O
_-\<,_
(_)/ (_)
John David Galt
> By definition, if one is going the speed limit, he is wasting no-one's
> time. Of course, this means he's in the right lane of the Interstate
> except to pass someone going under the limit.
The speed limit has nothing to do with right and wrong. If the guy
behind you wants to go faster, you must let him. Otherwise you ARE
wasting his time and deserve whatever happens to you.
ameijers
describe falls in the class of basing your speed on local conditions. If
there are blind curves and traffic entering from side roads, of course you
should go slower than on a limited-access interstate. I've been on Mass
hiway 2 and 2a several times, I know whereof you speak. We have several
roads like that in southern Indiana, too. Indiana 46 through Brown county,
in leaf season, is much the same way. What is normally a pleasant 40-minute
commute takes several hours. You can tell the flatlanders by how they risk
life and limb to pass, only to be stuck behind another bolus of traffic half
a mile ahead. Locals know to plan their schedules and transit times
accordingly. The road is damn fun at 0200, when you can open things up.
Like I've said umpteen times on here, the safe speed is the flow of traffic,
or whateever local conditions dictate, whichever is lower.
aem sends...
X Metro Man <pdc...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1sbictkn7aplfpdir...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 02 Apr 2001 17:51:01 -0700, John David Galt
> <j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
>
> >The speed limit has nothing to do with right and wrong. If the guy
> >behind you wants to go faster, you must let him. Otherwise you ARE
> >wasting his time and deserve whatever happens to you.
>
> Like I said, it's a no-brainer on the Interstate - chug along at 65 in
> the right lane, except to pass (even though there are those who even
> oppose that).
>
> However, on a typical Mass. or R.I. two-lane winding country road,
> there is NO room to pull over. Why should I speed, risking the lives
> of kids who may be beyond the next curve, or risk a ticket from the
> radar trap beyond the next curve, just because the guy behind me wants
> to go faster than the speed limit?
Bob Kaplow
> On Sun, 01 Apr 2001 09:24:23 GMT, "Nordlicht" <ple...@spam.me> wrote:
>
>>STUPIDITY
>
> Right-on post.
>
> I'd like to add two things: 1) morons that have to eat and drink in
> their cars. Cupholders should be banned. NO ONE has to have a drink
Naah, just put them in the back for the kids where they belong. I use cup
holders too, but not when driving down the highway at warp 7.
> that badly that they need to do it while swerving across two lanes of
> traffic. Same goes for dippy females applying makeup while driving,
> (I can't begin to count how many times I've seen *that* happen.), cell
> phones, and everything else. JUST DRIVE THE DAMN CAR! And 2)
Well, yes, but you don't have to be sexist. I've seen guys shaving while
driving. I gave that bad habbit up 23 years ago...
(shaving, not shaving while driving)
> Geezers. I know we're all gonna get old sooner or later, but pops and
> granny cruising along at 35 in a 60 zone is a lot less safe than
> everyone doing 80. And, my personal favorite, having been twice hit
let them drive to the store to pick up their medication, but PLEASE, keep
them off the highways if they can't keep up with trafic.
> by them... they blithely cruise through stop signs and red lights.
Get those folks off the road regardless of age.
turnkey
John David Galt wrote:
I am sure others will answer that piece of horse hockey better than I but I
can't let it pass. The speed limit may not have anything to to with right
and wrong, but it certainly has everything to do with what is legal or
illegal. By your reasoning, if you want to rape my wife I must let you or I
deserve whatever happens to me.
The fact that you want to go faster than I has *nothing* to do with what I
*must* do.
Harry K
The Real Bev
>
> In article <3AC80036...@my-deja.com>,
> The Real Bev <bas...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> }"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
> }>
> }> In article <3AC6CCD8...@ix.netcom.com>, <pob...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> }> }I have a question. It would be interesting to compare the results.
> }> }
> }> }What actually deters YOU from speeding in your vehicle, if anything?
> [...]
> }> Considering I was travelling around an indicated 80mph for the better part of
> }> 2 hours today, on roads with a limit ranging from 55 to 65, I'd have
> }> to say "nothing".
> }
> }How about wear and tear on your vehicle?
>
> How about it? If I wanted it to last forever, I'd give up commuting
> in it (stop and go traffic is nasty on a car) before I'd reduce speeds
> under less congested conditions.
We don't commute in our 70 Dodge pickup and we do want it to last forever.
--
Cheers,
Bev
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I don't need instructions, I have a hammer."
-- T.W. Wier
SG
screw the kids !!!!
put the pedal to the metal man, go as fast as you can :-)
as long as you use your common sense, then you should be fine
i'm not saying driving like a maniac is ok, but going to the speed limit is
a lot worse
"X Metro Man" <pdc...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1sbictkn7aplfpdir...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 02 Apr 2001 17:51:01 -0700, John David Galt
> <j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
>
> >The speed limit has nothing to do with right and wrong. If the guy
> >behind you wants to go faster, you must let him. Otherwise you ARE
> >wasting his time and deserve whatever happens to you.
>
Nathan J. Nagel
road you must "keep right except to pass" and you can get a ticket if
someone is behind you while you're riding the left lane.
nate
bear...@cruller.invalid
John David Galt <j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
> The speed limit has nothing to do with right and wrong.
Everyone *seems* to be talking about highways/freeways/rural road in
this thread.
So, I'm curious if the same philosophy of "screw the limit" holds true
when you drive arterials or residential streets. You know, is 35-40 MPH
"efficient" while driving down a quiet, tree-lined residential street
with cars parked along either side? How about 50-60 down wide arterials
through business sections?
Or is there something inherently "unsafe" about that?
Brandon Sommerville
Depends entirely on the road.
If it's a narrow residential street with cars on either side, 30 to 40
km/h is reasonable. As the streets get wider and visibility goes up,
speeds can increase.
If it's a four lane one way major street, then 80 km/h isn't
unreasonable as long as you're in the middle lanes. The major streets
here are synchronized though, so you end up doing about 55 to 60 km/h
and just catching each light.
Alex Rodriguez
>I am sure others will answer that piece of horse hockey better than I but I
>can't let it pass. The speed limit may not have anything to to with right
>and wrong, but it certainly has everything to do with what is legal or
>illegal. By your reasoning, if you want to rape my wife I must let you or I
>deserve whatever happens to me.
>The fact that you want to go faster than I has *nothing* to do with what I
>*must* do.
You can also say that the speed limits are supposed to be set by the 85th
percentile speed, but they are not. So they are not being properly set.
So called "speeding" hurts no one, and is often the safe way to drive, so you
can't compare it to a violent crime like rape.
Brandon Sommerville
Technically if you are following the limit you don't *have* to do
anything, but you *should* yield at your first safe opportunity.
If someone wants to travel faster than you, how are you harmed? Do
you really think it is akin to rape?
Michael A. Stone Jr
> I have a question. It would be interesting to compare the results.
>
> What actually deters YOU from speeding in your vehicle, if anything?
Depends on how you define "speeding".
If by speeding you mean, exceeding the 85th percentile... then it is
"C".
If by speeding you mean, exceeding the posted limit... then it is
"none... I exceed up to the point of the 85th percentile".
If by speeding you mean, driving under the posted limit... then it is
"none... I will not exceed the 85th percentile by over 5 MPH".
The fines and points are not a deterent. Possibly because in the last 12
tickets I have received in the past 2 years, only 3 resulted in a
conviction, and two of those included a "no points" clause. And one of
those I paid to MADD, so I also was able to claim in off my taxes for
this last year. None of the tickets I have ever received resulted in an
increase in my insurance, which is nearly half what most people pay.
I've never had to pay more than $125 in fines. And, my point total, even
after all tickets, is completely blank.
Tickets are no worry at all to me. At worst, they are a hassle. At best,
they safe someone else from getting one, and hopefully help to remove
enforcement of unsafe laws that might get someone killed. My only
concern with speed is that I maintain the speed which gives me the
greatest degree of safety. Posted limit be damned.
> a) the fines
> b) the points on your record
> c) the danger involved
>
> My biggest fear is the points. They affect the insurance rates.
> No thanks! My second biggest fear is probably safety. Once you
> get above 65 or 70 its nearly impossible to stop quickly enough
> to prevent serious injury or even death.
>
> (ken)
--
Michael A. Stone Jr.
------------------------------------------
The Definitive Guide to Speeding Tickets
http://home.att.net/~speeding
------------------------------------------
"low speed drivers are more likely to be involved in accidents than
relatively high speed drivers." - Cirillo (1968)
(from http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/speed/speed.htm )
Michael A. Stone Jr
> What deters me from driving at a normal [for me, since i`m from a well known
> European country which has "Autobahnen [c]" ] 90-100mph here in the US, even
> though there are of nice stretches of freeway, is the INCOMPETENCE
> of say 90% of the MORONS i have to share a road with.
>
> ARROGANCE, SELF-RIGHTOUSNESS, the "I-Pay-Taxes-So-I-Can-Do-What-I-Want"
> Types, STUPIDITY and also the roads themselves here and there, esp. the
> curves, where the road surface is more than often either flat or tilted,
> for some cheap reason, to the outer edge of the curve instead of the inner
> edge.
>
> Then there is the State Inspection Joke. Have you actually SEEN the JUNK
> that is allowed on the roads here, with VALID / FRESH inspection stickers on
> the windshield/plate? Have you also noticed how many exhaust pipes, bumpers,
> mufflers, wheels, shredded tires etc are lying around on the shoulders of
> roads here? I have to share the ROAD with these MORONS. You too...Imagine
> cruising along with a nice, relaxing 90mph and one of those financially
> retentive DIPSHITS starts unloading his exhaust system...with 60-70mph i may
> just have enough time to evade, not with 90mph.
Amen. A $120 sticker makes that wirehanger holding the exhaust up "okay". And
the black plume of smoke out the back is suddenly no longer enviromentally
harmfully.
> Then there is the (as mildly mentioned above) Drivers Education Joke.
> Drivers ed in the US is, if you would put an extremely censored label on it,
> "Laughable".
You can use a four letter word.. it's okay...
> I had to do it since my..um..."D" license is only good for a year here. What
> a joke. Get a book from the DMV, skim through it, then go to DMV again, take
> written test [allow about 5 mins for this], get your pic taken and you get
> a Learners Permit and can go learn driving with Mommy, Daddy, Granny,
> Gramps, Sissy, Brother - EVERYONE of whom has the same POOR driving
> education ["Educational Incest"]. Then, after you have aquired the
> neccessary skills to hold the car on the road or in close vicinity to it, go
> to DMV again and get appointment for the BYOC [Bring Your Own Car] Road
> Test. You get there, the DMV Idiot gets in your car with his clipboard, you
> drive around the block once, pull loosely over to the curb [forward, no
> parked cars within 50ft ahead or behind you], obviously to see if we`re
> able to park the car in a "decent" manner. Then back to where you started
> and you`re done [Time elapsed: ca. 10 mins].
Damn. You actually had to PARK the car. That's a tough test. ;)
Just be sure to answer "yes" to the question 'Does speed kill?'....
> Voila! You get a US Drivers License! You can drive 5 [five] ton SUVs or 5
> Liter, V8 Mustangs or some such junk right away, legally!
>
> Then there is the Communist Insurance Shit playing a role too. I get a
> speeding ticket, my insurance rates go up. Who came up with that? The same
> idiot who invented four-way stop intersections? Or the other one. The one
> who came up with combined On/Off-ramps measuring a grand total of about
> 150ft during which you have to a.] Let people cut in front of you trying to
> slow down from 65 to 15mph b.] try to accelerate from 20 to 65mph so as to
> avoid getting rearended when forced to merge left when the 150 feet of
> On/Off-Ramp are used up.
And let's not forget how kind and safety conscious these idiots are when they
come up with ideas like placing "Baby" in the front seat because air bags are
safer than seat belts. Or how they bailed out a company so they could complete
the Geico gun....
> Who are these FUCKERS to tell me that i have to pay more because i got
> caught doing 75 instead of 65 and that im a safety risk / unsafe driver. I
> will even go so far as to say that i can drive as good as the average cop.
> Why? Well, if the average US drivers ed for John/Jane Doe is any reference,
> then US Cop Drivers Training can`t be better than the average "Autobahn
> Country" Drivers Ed.
Well... the "average" cop gets 55 hours of traffic education (according to
Steve). that's 55 hours for everything. EVOC, speed detection, traffic law..
everything. So, the EVOC training is basically... "Here's a long thin petal.
Push it until it won't go farther. Here's a switch for some neato red lights and
a cool siren thingy. Try not to hit anything."
> Plus i have driven in excess of 120mph on a daily basis back home, SAFELY.
> Sure, speed alone is not the point...as we`ve all learned from watching COPS
> [Motto: ""We`re *screech* in *screeeech* EXCESS *swerve* of 100mph
> *screeeeeeeeeech* right now !!!"" Yeah, big fucking deal 100mph] and so
> on, every drugged up subhuman reject can nail the pedal to the metal and
> reach speeds in the neighborhood of Warp One. Being aware of the possible
> dangers, knowing how the car will react IF, for example, a tire blows up at
> speed [Speed defined as "over 80mph"] and what to do to get the car safely
> over to the shoulder without causing an 80-car pile-up,
> or WHEN it is safe to go FAST, WHAT to do if car starts hydroplaning
> and WHEN it will start hydroplaning and so forth,
> that comes from EDUCATION....
Holy shit. You just lost Steve's vote. No cop or insurance company support for
you... AKA.. it won't happen because money talks and.... well... nevermind..
they only care about the money anyways. Screw safety.
> Here it is in a nutshell:
>
> 1.] Too much "Me First, Fuck You" attitude. [Directly related to no. 2]
>
> 2.] Lack of Driving Education.
>
> 3.] Lack of strict safety standards for vehicles used on public roads or, if
> present [yeah, right], enforcement of these standards.
>
> 4.] Illogical construction and/or poor condition of freeways resulting in
> unsafe driving condition if speeds exceed set National Pretend Speed Limit
> by more than 20mph. [Ever wonder WHY there are so many dangerous stretches
> of freeway WITHOUT steel barriers/planks on the sides?]
Sorry. This makes far to much sense to be something Americans would concider.
Where's the profit in such an undertaking? How would the insurance agents and
the government make any money? What... WORK (damn... that four letter word...)
for it? Please. Government employees do not "work". It is beneath them. And
edcaution. Crap... that could lead to well informed voters. And that means lots
of government "work"ers would be out of jobs. Think they want to listen to the
voice of the voters? Or just keep collecing their paychecks...
>
>
> <pob...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:3AC6CCD8...@ix.netcom.com...
> > I have a question. It would be interesting to compare the results.
> >
> > What actually deters YOU from speeding in your vehicle, if anything?
> >
Bob Ward
<ma.s...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Depends on how you define "speeding".
>If by speeding you mean, exceeding the 85th percentile... then it is
>"C".
>If by speeding you mean, exceeding the posted limit... then it is
>"none... I exceed up to the point of the 85th percentile".
>If by speeding you mean, driving under the posted limit... then it is
>"none... I will not exceed the 85th percentile by over 5 MPH".
>
>
And how do you, as an individual driver, determine the "85th
percentile" for any particular stretch of roadway?
Brandon Sommerville
>And how do you, as an individual driver, determine the "85th
>percentile" for any particular stretch of roadway?
Stone is an idiot. An individual driver cannot know the 85th
percentile of a given road without having access to governmental
studies of every road traveled. Not only that, but the 85th
percentile shifts constantly based on how many people are on the road,
the time of day and the weather conditions.
nmoberg
<g...@null.net.gov> wrote:
>Bob Ward wrote:
>
>>And how do you, as an individual driver, determine the "85th
>>percentile" for any particular stretch of roadway?
>
>Stone is an idiot. An individual driver cannot know the 85th
>percentile of a given road without having access to governmental
>studies of every road traveled. Not only that, but the 85th
>percentile shifts constantly based on how many people are on the road,
>the time of day and the weather conditions.
Michael the Spew (sm) can't be an idiot he invented the
Percentileometer.
E. Faubion
>Stone is an idiot. An individual driver cannot know the 85th
>percentile of a given road without having access to governmental
>studies of every road traveled. Not only that, but the 85th
>percentile shifts constantly based on how many people are on the road,
>the time of day and the weather conditions.
Brandon, I hope you don't mind if I archive this post for posterity.
Just when I begin to think you are beyond hope you go and say
something intelligent like this.
Way to go.
Nathan J. Nagel
your pants, assuming that there's enough traffic that you have other
cars around you. That said, it's still pretty hard to nail down an
"instant" 85th percentile to an actual number. I'd be willing to bet
that 85% of the people on this NG drive safely though :)
nate
John David Galt
> John David Galt wrote:
>> The speed limit has nothing to do with right and wrong. If the guy
>> behind you wants to go faster, you must let him. Otherwise you ARE
>> wasting his time and deserve whatever happens to you.
>
> I am sure others will answer that piece of horse hockey better than I but I
> can't let it pass. The speed limit may not have anything to to with right
> and wrong, but it certainly has everything to do with what is legal or
> illegal. By your reasoning, if you want to rape my wife I must let you or I
> deserve whatever happens to me.
Horse hockey yourself. Rape is aggression. Speeding isn't.
Enforcing speeding laws is. Blocking the road is.
If something is wrong/aggression, it shouldn't be done. But if something
is "illegal" it merely means that the local protection racket has issued
threats against it, so one has to look out for enforcement efforts and
evade their notice. Which isn't difficult, if you use your head.
John David Galt
> And how do you, as an individual driver, determine the "85th
> percentile" for any particular stretch of roadway?
Easily. Watch what other people are doing.
Brent Peterson
> when you drive arterials or residential streets. You know, is
> 35-40 MPH "efficient" while driving down a quiet, tree-lined
> residential street with cars parked along either side? How about
> 50-60 down wide arterials
> through business sections?
I drive the speed limit on all city and village streets. It
just isn't worth being pulled over to go 5 - 15mph extra when
the roads are under posted. It's also my form of speed limit
protest in a way.
If everyone obeyed the speed limit for a change, traffic would
become such a hopeless entangled mess around here that might
force change.
> Or is there something inherently "unsafe" about that?
In many cases its more dangerous to follow the speed limit.
Tonight I was driving home from work through a suburban down-town
area on a 4 lane road posted at 30mph. (it probably should be 35)
Anyway as I go along at 30mph in the right lane I nearly get rear
ended by a black pickup doing 50mph or so. He starts tail gating
me. A light jab to the brakes got him to change lanes.
turnkey
Brandon Sommerville wrote:
Okay, I see that I needed to be more specific. As long as I am proceeding
-legally-, i.e., at the proper speed and in correct lane, I do not *have* to let
you pass. That said, I do not block traffic. My passing speed (on milti lane)
is always at least 5 above the overtaken. On 2 lane it is whatever is required.
I then move back to the right as soon as possible. I too have been more than
ticked at some moron LLB passing at a booming .05 mph. Again, if I am passing at
a reasonable rate, you charging up to try to force me faster is only going to
surface the thought in my mind "Jeez, look at that moron".
Harry K.
Nordlicht
Michael A. Stone Jr <ma.s...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3ACA1E23...@worldnet.att.net...
> Nordlicht wrote:
> > Who are these FUCKERS to tell me that i have to pay more because i got
> > caught doing 75 instead of 65 and that im a safety risk / unsafe driver.
I
> > will even go so far as to say that i can drive as good as the average
cop.
> > Why? Well, if the average US drivers ed for John/Jane Doe is any
reference,
> > then US Cop Drivers Training can`t be better than the average "Autobahn
> > Country" Drivers Ed.
>
> Well... the "average" cop gets 55 hours of traffic education (according to
> Steve). that's 55 hours for everything. EVOC, speed detection, traffic
law..
> everything. So, the EVOC training is basically... "Here's a long thin
petal.
> Push it until it won't go farther. Here's a switch for some neato red
lights and
> a cool siren thingy. Try not to hit anything."
55 hours? For everything? All right......lets see here
I spent 30 Hours in driving school classroom lessons + 20 hours behind the
wheel with teacher for a grand total of 50 hours of Driving Education +
eight
hours first aid course (required for license).
The written test, you get a form with questions/traffic situations and
multiple choice answers. Every question has an "error" point value and in
the written test you can't have more than eight .."error points" total,
which
means, usually, one question out of 30 wrong and you lose. Of course,
the forms are randomly chosen out of..uh..i think it was 60 4-page forms
+ energy conservation forms.
The road test is not easy either. It includes city driving, rural roads,
autobahn, parking (curb and supermarket parking lot style, BACKWARDS and
between cars), three-point u-turn etc. all the while you get interrupted by
the DMV Tester with questions here and there as to why you do this and that
and what that sign means and so forth (did i mention you learn on cars
equipped with manual trannys? Screw up one or two shifts or, god forbid,
STALL the engine, you lose!). The road test takes about 45-60 mins and takes
place on public roads (duh, not some closed course or so). Come too close to
the curb while backing the car into a parking spot, you lose. Be more than
30cm (1 foot ) off the curb, you lose. Forget to look over your shoulder
when making a right turn or changing lanes, you lose. Forget to use your
blinker once, you lose. Come too close to another car during a parking
maneuver or while driving, you lose. Failure to maintain proper distance
between you and the car in front twice, you lose. Don`t pay attention to
whats going on behind you via the mirrors every so often, you lose. Failure
to reach and maintain a speed of AT LEAST 80mph on the Autobahn and you
lose! etcetcetc..............
Combine ^^^ that with a $30 pricetag for one driving lesson (behind the
wheel), $300-$500 in fees for books and written test and road test fees and
you reach $1000+ fast and it is also enough deterrent to try and NOT get
your license revoked through stupid stunts plus you are on probation for the
first two years anyway.
Profit? PROFIT? That all they can think about? Duh, yeah...USA man...course
it is...
Somehow the Pentagon has to finance those T-386 M1A2 Tactical Field Latrine
Combined Seat Covers/Shower Caps for $9000 a piece, right? =)
Brandon Sommerville
>Okay, I see that I needed to be more specific. As long as I am proceeding
>-legally-, i.e., at the proper speed and in correct lane, I do not *have* to let
>you pass. That said, I do not block traffic. My passing speed (on milti lane)
>is always at least 5 above the overtaken. On 2 lane it is whatever is required.
>I then move back to the right as soon as possible. I too have been more than
>ticked at some moron LLB passing at a booming .05 mph. Again, if I am passing at
>a reasonable rate, you charging up to try to force me faster is only going to
>surface the thought in my mind "Jeez, look at that moron".
Makes sense. For the record, I hate tailgaters as much as you do.
Brandon Sommerville
It's what I've been saying all along, there's nothing new here.
Michael A. Stone Jr
Nordlicht wrote:
> Michael A. Stone Jr <ma.s...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:3ACA1E23...@worldnet.att.net...
> > Nordlicht wrote:
> > > Who are these FUCKERS to tell me that i have to pay more because i got
> > > caught doing 75 instead of 65 and that im a safety risk / unsafe driver.
> I
> > > will even go so far as to say that i can drive as good as the average
> cop.
> > > Why? Well, if the average US drivers ed for John/Jane Doe is any
> reference,
> > > then US Cop Drivers Training can`t be better than the average "Autobahn
> > > Country" Drivers Ed.
> >
> > Well... the "average" cop gets 55 hours of traffic education (according to
> > Steve). that's 55 hours for everything. EVOC, speed detection, traffic
> law..
> > everything. So, the EVOC training is basically... "Here's a long thin
> petal.
> > Push it until it won't go farther. Here's a switch for some neato red
> lights and
> > a cool siren thingy. Try not to hit anything."
>
> 55 hours? For everything? All right......lets see here
Yep. But that's for police officers. They are "trained" so much better than
"normal" drivers that "normal" drivers could never hope to match the "cruise to
the coffee shop" speeds that police officers have to maintain every day.
> I spent 30 Hours in driving school classroom lessons + 20 hours behind the
> wheel with teacher for a grand total of 50 hours of Driving Education +
> eight hours first aid course (required for license).
I had the same training in high school. Except for the first aid course. Which I
would have had a far better use for than the idiotic 'consumer spending' course
I was forced to take.
> The written test, you get a form with questions/traffic situations and
> multiple choice answers. Every question has an "error" point value and in
> the written test you can't have more than eight .."error points" total,
> which
> means, usually, one question out of 30 wrong and you lose. Of course,
> the forms are randomly chosen out of..uh..i think it was 60 4-page forms
> + energy conservation forms.
Well... that is a big difference. "had" to take a written test printed on the
same generic form that all tests are printed on. It does not change, so if I
fail seven times, by time number eight, I'd likely have all the questions
memorized. Plus, if I can not read, someone will assist me in taking the test.
Mostly, it is shapes and colors. "What does this color (green) mean". all
multiple choice, by the way. A: Toxic, do not drink (yes... green is also the
color taught to 2 year olds as "bad") B: Attention, K-Mart shoppers, there is a
sale in isle 5 C: Proceed with Caution. Oh... all questions are C. C stands
for correct. If you are illiterate, please ask an instructor to help you in
choosing C. The last time a change was proposed... it was blasted down. It
would be "unfair and prejudicial" to test people on skill or ability.
> The road test is not easy either. It includes city driving, rural roads,
> autobahn, parking (curb and supermarket parking lot style, BACKWARDS and
> between cars), three-point u-turn etc. all the while you get interrupted by
> the DMV Tester with questions here and there as to why you do this and that
> and what that sign means and so forth (did i mention you learn on cars
> equipped with manual trannys? Screw up one or two shifts or, god forbid,
> STALL the engine, you lose!). The road test takes about 45-60 mins and takes
> place on public roads (duh, not some closed course or so). Come too close to
> the curb while backing the car into a parking spot, you lose. Be more than
> 30cm (1 foot ) off the curb, you lose. Forget to look over your shoulder
> when making a right turn or changing lanes, you lose. Forget to use your
> blinker once, you lose. Come too close to another car during a parking
> maneuver or while driving, you lose. Failure to maintain proper distance
> between you and the car in front twice, you lose. Don`t pay attention to
> whats going on behind you via the mirrors every so often, you lose. Failure
> to reach and maintain a speed of AT LEAST 80mph on the Autobahn and you
> lose! etcetcetc..............
Well... American testing certainly doesn't include testing on an Autobahn.
Unless it's the LA Freeway, maybe. ;) No U-turn. No questions (that would be
prejudical) No manual. Just three basic things. First, put on the seat belt.
Forget to do that and you fail. Period. If you can not buckle up, they will fail
you on the spot. It's the one bit of testing that is actually a serious
challenge to some people. Start the car. Place car in "D". Press long thin
petal. Make turn to right out of parking lot. Stop at stop sign. Make right turn
onto street. Park next to curb. (if you stop in the middle of the road or hit
the curb, you might have to try again) (note... no gear shift...) Press long
thin petal again and turn on right blinker. (some instructors might fal you for
forgeting a signal, too) Turn into parking lot. Stop car (hopefully in a parking
space). Place car in Park. Shut off engine. Remove seat belt. (again, taking off
the seat belt too soon results in automatic failure. With a test this rigorous,
I can understand why seat belts are so important ;p ) Enter building. Stand in
line and gripe about idiot playing solitare. Wait for idiot to call your name.
Sign your name on line. If you can not read, an instructor can assist you in
signing your name. Sit on chair. Wait for flash. Look at picture of hair out of
place. Wait 60 seconds for lamination machine. Tell idiot to place red 6 on
black 7. Watch him finish current game. Place license into pocket, get in car,
hopefully not kill anyone on first day of license.
Ta Da.
Police training is more rigorous. It includes... place coffee in lap. Secure
lid. Make sure lid is secure.
And a reminder from the Sarge. Be damn carfeul. That coffee is hot and it might
stain the seat too!
> Combine ^^^ that with a $30 pricetag for one driving lesson (behind the
> wheel), $300-$500 in fees for books and written test and road test fees and
> you reach $1000+ fast and it is also enough deterrent to try and NOT get
> your license revoked through stupid stunts plus you are on probation for the
> first two years anyway.
Fees. Holy shit!?! What the hell are you guys paying your government for!? Over
here, the government pays for everything but your personal car. If you are on
public assistance, they pay for that too. Of course, that's if you are in high
school. If you aren't then you actually have to go to Sears or some other
shopping mall to get lessons. Then you pay about $3,000 for a book that says
"speed kills... and don't forget your seat belt." And 2 hours of "speed kills"
movies, where they show various photos of people killed while speeding (my
favorite is the guy that had his face ripped off by a shredder. But, no car was
involved. See how "speed kills". Be careful.. Ohhohohoho.)
Ta da... you are now a "trained driver".
Of course, you could learn like some Southern Boys do... just hop into a beat up
Ford and drive like a banshee all over the dirt trails running 'shine for the
family still. You even learn evasive tactics as you'll likely be dodging the
cops that get the "special" training. Most of them (that survive) end up as
professional race drivers, though... so that might not be the ideal training.
But it beats the hell outa Sears.
And two year probation. Crap. That would never stand up in the U.S. Hell... most
cops aren't out of high school a year before they are getting their "special
training".
Yep. Mo money... Mo money... Mo money...
> Somehow the Pentagon has to finance those T-386 M1A2 Tactical Field Latrine
> Combined Seat Covers/Shower Caps for $9000 a piece, right? =)
No, silly. It's those $500 hammers. The toilet seat is for planes and the
shuttle and such. They have to be special. The hammer is a $500 hammer bought at
the local Home Depot. (where the rest of us pay $7.) Of course, the $493 left
over is likely paying the salary of someone that "offically" died about three
years ago. And he's likely over in some third world country starting a war or
something.
> > Michael A. Stone Jr.
> > ------------------------------------------
> > The Definitive Guide to Speeding Tickets
> > http://home.att.net/~speeding
> > ------------------------------------------
> > "low speed drivers are more likely to be involved in accidents than
> relatively
> > high speed drivers." - Cirillo (1968)
> > (from http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/speed/speed.htm )
> >
> >
--
Jonny Hodgson
Brandon Sommerville <g...@null.net.gov> wrote in message
news:6jgmctsa963iuc9a7...@4ax.com...
> turnkey wrote:
>
> >Okay, I see that I needed to be more specific. As long as I am
proceeding
> >-legally-, i.e., at the proper speed and in correct lane, I do not *have*
to let
> >you pass. That said, I do not block traffic. My passing speed (on milti
lane)
> >is always at least 5 above the overtaken. On 2 lane it is whatever is
required.
> >I then move back to the right as soon as possible. I too have been more
than
> >ticked at some moron LLB passing at a booming .05 mph. Again, if I am
passing at
> >a reasonable rate, you charging up to try to force me faster is only
going to
> >surface the thought in my mind "Jeez, look at that moron".
>
> Makes sense. For the record, I hate tailgaters as much as you do.
Agreed, however if someone's merely approaching rapidly in my mirrors
(i.e. hasn't actually pissed me off yet) then I'll follow the line in the
Highway
Code which says "You must not attempt to prevent another driver from
overtaking you", or something similar to that.
I particularly make space for (white) vans or large commercials, since I
know how underpowered they are and how much it costs if you're
forced to lift.
Jonny
Barry Gold
John David Galt <j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
>X Metro Man wrote:
>
>> By definition, if one is going the speed limit, he is wasting no-one's
>> time. Of course, this means he's in the right lane of the Interstate
>> except to pass someone going under the limit.
>
>The speed limit has nothing to do with right and wrong. If the guy
>behind you wants to go faster, you must let him. Otherwise you ARE
>wasting his time and deserve whatever happens to you.
That's approximately the rule in most of Europe (or was when I last
looked in the 70s), but not in most of the US.
The rule in Europe is (was) that you are expected to get out of the
way of faster traffic if you are in the any but the rightmost lane.
The car approaching from behind would signal by flashing his high beams
and would pretty much count on your being out of the way when he gets
there. You needed to react fast because he might be approaching at over
100 MPH. He wouldn't deliberately hit you, but he might not be able
to slow down in time if you don't do what's expected.
In the US the rule is you can move left to pass another car. Even if
you're only moving 1 MPH faster than the car you're passing, you're
probably still legal.
And ya know something? When the freeway is moving well, a difference
in speed to make any real difference, you either have to be going *real*
fast, or going a real long distance. Going 75 instead of 60 saves a
whole 14 minutes between LA and San Diego.
The real problem isn't the difference in speed, it's people who are
perpetually angry and think that anyone going slower when _I_ want to
go faster are a legitimate target for that anger.
I should know. I used to be in that category, and I still go 70+ on
long drives when I think I can get away with it. I just don't get my
bowels in an uproar if I find myself going 65 or 60 or even 55. It's
not worth it. The anger takes more time off my life than I could
possibly save by trying to force the slower driver out of my way, to
say nothing of the risks to life and limb.
--
Finger bg...@nyx10.nyx.net for public key
Michael A. Stone Jr
Well, Mr Knownothingberg, moron that you are.. I can't really expect you to
handle such a difficult concept... but there are two ways to determine the
85th percentile. One is perhaps a bit better than the second. Both work
fairly nicely.
#1: Ask. Send a request to the State DOT. They will tell you what the last
known 85th percentile speed was for the road in question.
#2: Now... for a more complex solution. One a trolling buffoon such as
yourself will no doubt never understand....
Install sensors in the road. The sensors can then detect the speed of
traffic up ahead and adjust speed limit signs accordingly. It's in use in
Germany. t's also in the testing and design phase in England, although with
a sinister twist. There, it would record your speed and then display it on
a sign. If you do not slow down, a camera records your plate and you get an
automatic fine. The English seem rather overjoyed about it. Not.
Now, for the solution you (and the "speed kills" nuts) certainly missed. It
could show, continuously and updated and averaged constantly, the prevaling
85th percentile speed. It would be able to update the sign as needed to
show what the current speed limit should be. Based on the MUTCD, this would
be the easiest way to ensure that the 85th percentile is used as a speed
limit. It would work for every road type. It could even be used for roads
where a minimum speed limit would be desired. And it would make compliance
with posted limits a foregone conclusion for most all drivers.
And.. I was not the inventor. You can read an article about some of the
various devices here:
http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/2195/speedtrap_notatrap.html
And you can read about the inventor of such a device here
http://www.trafficmaster.co.uk/
That, of course, assumes you are doing anything more than just trolling. If
not, this should be enough to feed you for a few days.
nmoberg
<ma.s...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>nmoberg wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 22:17:21 GMT, Brandon Sommerville
>> <g...@null.net.gov> wrote:
>>
>> >Bob Ward wrote:
>> >
>> >>And how do you, as an individual driver, determine the "85th
>> >>percentile" for any particular stretch of roadway?
>> >
>> >Stone is an idiot. An individual driver cannot know the 85th
>> >percentile of a given road without having access to governmental
>> >studies of every road traveled. Not only that, but the 85th
>> >percentile shifts constantly based on how many people are on the road,
>> >the time of day and the weather conditions.
>>
>> Michael the Spew (sm) can't be an idiot he invented the
>> Percentileometer.
>
>Well, Mr Knownothingberg, moron that you are.. I can't really expect you to
>handle such a difficult concept... but there are two ways to determine the
>85th percentile. One is perhaps a bit better than the second. Both work
>fairly nicely.
>
>#1: Ask. Send a request to the State DOT. They will tell you what the last
>known 85th percentile speed was for the road in question.
So you have this data for EVERY road you drive for EVERY condition?
Obviously you don't, and even if you did static data means nothing.
>#2: Now... for a more complex solution. One a trolling buffoon such as
>yourself will no doubt never understand....
You really are feeling uncomfortable with your own B.S. aren't you?
>Install sensors in the road. The sensors can then detect the speed of
>traffic up ahead and adjust speed limit signs accordingly. It's in use in
>Germany. t's also in the testing and design phase in England, although with
>a sinister twist. There, it would record your speed and then display it on
>a sign. If you do not slow down, a camera records your plate and you get an
>automatic fine. The English seem rather overjoyed about it. Not.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with your claim that you ALWAYS
drive at the 85th percentile does it? This is really weak... even for
you!
>Now, for the solution you (and the "speed kills" nuts) certainly missed. It
>could show, continuously and updated and averaged constantly, the prevaling
>85th percentile speed. It would be able to update the sign as needed to
>show what the current speed limit should be. Based on the MUTCD, this would
>be the easiest way to ensure that the 85th percentile is used as a speed
>limit. It would work for every road type. It could even be used for roads
>where a minimum speed limit would be desired. And it would make compliance
>with posted limits a foregone conclusion for most all drivers.
>And.. I was not the inventor. You can read an article about some of the
>various devices here:
No kidding... now tell us again how this relates to your claim? Have
these been installed in the area you ALWAYS drive in?
>http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/2195/speedtrap_notatrap.html
Well this sight has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
>And you can read about the inventor of such a device here
>http://www.trafficmaster.co.uk/
>
Just throwing more stuff on the wall and hoping it will stick aren't
you?
>That, of course, assumes you are doing anything more than just trolling. If
>not, this should be enough to feed you for a few days.
None of the above has anything to do with what you claimed.
Brandon is right.
Bob Kaplow
>> 7) Visibility. I always see drivers who are either so short, or so tilted
>> back that their line of vision is BETWEEN the dashboard and the wheel. How
>> can you see the road in front of you. How can you judge distances to
>> obstacles like my car. There needs to be some sort of visual test FROM THE
>> DRIVING POSITION, that requirs you to be able to see an object on the
> ground
>> some specified distance in front of the vehicle.
>
> What are you gonna do about the short drivers. The beauty of living in the
> US is that EVERYONE has the right to drive the vehicle he is licensed to
> drive, no matter how short he is or if he can be classified as legally dead
> / blind / deaf / missing major limbs etc. otherwise it would be
> Discrimination and lawsuits and all the civil rights pissheads would come
> out and so forth....or did i miss anything here? But anyway, yes, they are
> scary...esp. if you combine being short with extremely old age. I`m passing
> an old lady every morning on my way to work. She`s driving a Ford Pinto
> which she probably bought NEW, she is about close to 90 years old and can
> barely see over the dashboard - through the steering wheel - down the road.
Tha't easy. Raise their seat so they can see what the hell they're running
into or over!
Joseph Idoni
>Well, Mr Knownothingberg, moron that you are.. I can't really expect you to
>handle such a difficult concept... but there are two ways to determine the
>85th percentile. One is perhaps a bit better than the second. Both work
>fairly nicely.
Siete il collega che più ignaro ho sentito parlare mai. La vostra base
li
conosce sta utilizzando il suo calcolatore? Il vostro padre lo conosce
ha
un figlio? La vostra sorella si preoccupa? Leggete l' italiano? Chiunque
si preoccupa qualche cosa circa che cosa la pietra del Michael scrive?
-Joe Idoni
turnkey
This from the self-styled expert on how to drive "in the last 12
tickets..." WTH! I have gotten 2 tickets (moving) in my entire life. Have
driven every state of the union to include lots of the east coast, plus 6
years germany on both local and autobahn..oops, make that 3 tickets. No, I
don't just plod along and have been driving since 14 yoa in both beaters and
semi performance vehicles. If someone has 12 "last tickets" (implying
more), he needs to re-examine his driving style.
Harry K
Bob Ward
<ma.s...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Now, for the solution you (and the "speed kills" nuts) certainly missed. It
>could show, continuously and updated and averaged constantly, the prevaling
>85th percentile speed. It would be able to update the sign as needed to
>show what the current speed limit should be. Based on the MUTCD, this would
>be the easiest way to ensure that the 85th percentile is used as a speed
>limit. It would work for every road type. It could even be used for roads
>where a minimum speed limit would be desired. And it would make compliance
>with posted limits a foregone conclusion for most all drivers.
Interesting concept - by speeding, you raise the limit, allowing you
to drive even faster?
Why not just admit that your mouth wrote a check your ass can't cash,
and move on?
Jeff Novell
On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 05:52:51 GMT, "SG" <sia...@home.com> wrote:
>3 words for you
>
>screw the kids !!!!
>
>put the pedal to the metal man, go as fast as you can :-)
>as long as you use your common sense, then you should be fine
>
>i'm not saying driving like a maniac is ok, but going to the speed limit is
>a lot worse
>
>"X Metro Man" <pdc...@excite.com> wrote in message
>news:1sbictkn7aplfpdir...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 02 Apr 2001 17:51:01 -0700, John David Galt
>> <j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
>>
>> >The speed limit has nothing to do with right and wrong. If the guy
>> >behind you wants to go faster, you must let him. Otherwise you ARE
>> >wasting his time and deserve whatever happens to you.
>>
>> Like I said, it's a no-brainer on the Interstate - chug along at 65 in
>> the right lane, except to pass (even though there are those who even
>> oppose that).
>>
>> However, on a typical Mass. or R.I. two-lane winding country road,
>> there is NO room to pull over. Why should I speed, risking the lives
>> of kids who may be beyond the next curve, or risk a ticket from the
>> radar trap beyond the next curve, just because the guy behind me wants
>> to go faster than the speed limit?
>
>
"Agree, for the law is costly." -- William Camden, 1605
Anthony Giorgianni
We live together in a society with rules to govern our behavior simply
because there are many different views on how we should conduct ourselves,
including the speeds at which we should drive. When we avail ourselves of
the license to drive a motor vehicle (it is NOT a right), we agree to follow
these rules.
It is unfair to everyone for some to exceed the speed limit (or to go far
below it). It creates a hazard, and at high speeds, it also is bad for the
environment. I always tell people, being late is the WORST reason to speed.
The bottom line is that you have a responsibility to everyone on the road,
and you should take that seriously or DON'T DRIVE. Don't put me in danger;
don't put some young child in danger who is in their parents' car. This is
not a matter of opinion. If you disagree with me, you are WRONG and you need
to think about it. There is no place you need be that's so important. It's
very easy to slam one's foot down on the accelerator and point the hood in
the right direction. Pea brains do it every minute of every day. The REAL
art to driving is trying to follow all the rules, being aware of every
danger and taking evasive actions. Drive with the assumption that the other
guy is NOT going to stop at the red light or that your brakes won't work
when you step on the pedal.
I drive my Explorer at no more than five miles over the speed limit - and I
almost always use cruise control, so I'm sure. The exception is on the
interstates, where I will max at 65 if the speed limit is 65. However, when
possible, I always move over to let others pass. If someone tailgates me on
a two-lane highway, I try to pull over as soon as it's safe. Until then, I
increase the distance between me and the car ahead of me so the guy behind
me won't slam into my rear if the car ahead brakes abruptly. (Normally I
stay three secs behind the vehicle ahead, 1-1000, 2-1000, 3-1000)
But I have an idea to settle it once and for all: We equip all vehicles with
radio electronics that pick up a signal from sensors in the road. The signal
limits the vehicle speed for the given roadway, and that's that. If someone
defeats the sensor and is caught speeding, they forfeit their vehicle!!!
This would not only prevent speeding, but is would eliminate most police
chases. The police would easily be able to outrun everyone else.
That would take care of the whole issue.
Regards,
Tony Giorgianni
<pob...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3AC6CCD8...@ix.netcom.com...
> I have a question. It would be interesting to compare the results.
>
> What actually deters YOU from speeding in your vehicle, if anything?
>
Brandon Sommerville
Now that's a brilliant idea, I wonder if you've put as much thought
into it as you did passion? Let's think about how we implement it,
shall we?
What happens when the transmitter fails? Does no one move until it
gets repaired? What happens if my car is getting interference from
some source? Do I not move until someone comes to help?
How do you make sure that all cars have them? Do you retrofit them to
all cars or just apply them to new cars? If you're going to retrofit
them, who's paying for this? The owner of the vehicle? The
government? You? If you aren't going to retrofit them, it makes for
a huge boost in the used car market.
How long do you think till people develop ways around your little
speed limiter concept? Automotive tuners are already defeating
electronic speed limiters, what makes you think that people would
hesitate to defeat an idea as controlling as what you're proposing?
Now I've got a counter suggestion: Instead of preaching about
controlling how people drive, why not teach them to drive properly?
Sure, you follow the speed limit religiously and never tailgate, but
do you know how to recover from understeer or oversteer? Do you even
know what those terms mean?
Anthony Giorgianni
Actually you are exactly right! These types of driving techniques are VERY
important, and people should be trained in them.
Thanks for posting.
Regards,
Tony Giorgianni
"Brandon Sommerville" <g...@null.net.gov> wrote in message
news:ftutdt06cudermdhd...@4ax.com...
Brandon Sommerville
>Hello Brandon
>
>Actually you are exactly right! These types of driving techniques are VERY
>important, and people should be trained in them.
>
>Thanks for posting.
You neglected to suggest work arounds for the demonstrated
implementation problems, you also neglected to mention whether or not
you had been trained in these basic techniques.
George Jefferson
:But I have an idea to settle it once and for all: We equip all vehicles with
Matthew T. Russotto
Anthony Giorgianni <giorg...@my-deja.com> wrote:
}Hello All
}
}We live together in a society with rules to govern our behavior simply
}because there are many different views on how we should conduct ourselves,
}including the speeds at which we should drive. When we avail ourselves of
}the license to drive a motor vehicle (it is NOT a right), we agree to follow
}these rules.
My agreement was neither given, nor sought, nor required. For the
record, I do _NOT_ agree to follow the rules.
}danger and taking evasive actions. Drive with the assumption that the other
}guy is NOT going to stop at the red light or that your brakes won't work
}when you step on the pedal.
The first assumption is workable. The second is not.
}I drive my Explorer at no more than five miles over the speed limit
Criminal!
}This would not only prevent speeding, but is would eliminate most police
}chases. The police would easily be able to outrun everyone else.
}
}That would take care of the whole issue.
Doubleplus good.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russ...@pond.com
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."
Genna M
but it will probably lower police enforcement.
--
Genna M.
gen...@eXrXoXlXs.com
'01 S4
'98 VTR1000
Remove X to reply.
"Brandon Sommerville" <g...@null.net.gov> wrote in message
news:ftutdt06cudermdhd...@4ax.com...
Genna M
at Britain, they have cameras everywhere!!! Ever wonder why all the "bad
drivers" programs are mostly with British clips.
There are enough US public consensus, or apathy, or stupidity to now
implement driving cameras for either red lights or speed traps. Yeah, it is
all safer... I guess the old "give me freedom or give me death" is now
"give me safety or I sue"
--
Genna M.
gen...@eXrXoXlXs.com
'01 S4
'98 VTR1000
Remove X to reply.
" George Jefferson " <gj...@one.net> wrote in message
news:tdu0j2k...@corp.supernews.com...
Arif Khokar
>
> Hello All
>
> We live together in a society with rules to govern our behavior simply
> because there are many different views on how we should conduct ourselves,
> including the speeds at which we should drive. When we avail ourselves of
> the license to drive a motor vehicle (it is NOT a right), we agree to follow
> these rules.
<snip>
The question is...why is everyone hung up on following the speed limit when
all the other rules of driving are routinely ignored. For example,
signaling lane changes, checking your mirrors and yielding to faster traffic
before initiating a lane change, driving in any other lane other than the
right most lane and not passing any other vehicles, taking more than 10
seconds to pass a vehicle and having a long line of vehicles behind you
causing a traffic backup, etc.
There are so many traffic laws broken every day but all anyone seems to talk
about is speed. Why is that? Many of these other violations that I listed
above are much more conducive to accidents and/or lead to a traffic pattern
that is more likely to result in an accident.
Bob Kaplow
Franklin.
>>>>> Boycot Yahoo's censorship! <<<<<
The only thing truly indecent or offensive on the Internet is censorship.
Chris
> go read "1984" will you..
Ha! My thoughts exactly! My first thought was, "Oh,
brother.. <sigh>". And then I thought "Big Brother.." :)
Chris Schooley
add .edu to reply privately
David Phillips
>He who surrenders liberty in the name of security will have neither. Ben
>Franklin.
Actually, the quote is:
"They that can give up an essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety". -- Benjamin Franklin (1759)
--
David Phillips sas...@unx.sas.com SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC
If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much room.
RKBA! DVC 35* 46.53'N 078* 48.89' W
John David Galt
> We live together in a society with rules to govern our behavior simply
> because there are many different views on how we should conduct ourselves,
Only behaviors that constitute aggression can validly be banned. All
other choices rightfully belong to each person, not any group process.
> including the speeds at which we should drive. When we avail ourselves of
> the license to drive a motor vehicle (it is NOT a right),
Bull shit.
> we agree to follow these rules.
"Agreement" under threat of having a right denied is not binding.
> The bottom line is that you have a responsibility to everyone on the road,
> and you should take that seriously or DON'T DRIVE. Don't put me in danger;
That much, I agree with. But that doesn't imply the kind of paranoid
overcaution that obeying today's speed limits would imply.
> ... This is
> not a matter of opinion. If you disagree with me, you are WRONG and you need
> to think about it. There is no place you need be that's so important.
Horse shit.
> But I have an idea to settle it once and for all: We equip all vehicles with
> radio electronics that pick up a signal from sensors in the road. The signal
> limits the vehicle speed for the given roadway, and that's that. If someone
> defeats the sensor and is caught speeding, they forfeit their vehicle!!!
How about, anyone who tries to impose a max speed on someone else forfeits his
vehicle instead?
Alex Rodriguez
says...
>
>Hello All
>
>We live together in a society with rules to govern our behavior simply
>because there are many different views on how we should conduct ourselves,
>including the speeds at which we should drive. When we avail ourselves of
>the license to drive a motor vehicle (it is NOT a right), we agree to follow
>these rules.
This assumes the people setting the rules are following the guidelines
they are supposed to use. Not that they are setting the laws on a whim
to raise revenue.
>It is unfair to everyone for some to exceed the speed limit (or to go far
>below it). It creates a hazard, and at high speeds, it also is bad for the
>environment. always tell people, being late is the WORST reason to speed.
>The bottom line is that you have a responsibility to everyone on the road,
>and you should take that seriously or DON'T DRIVE. Don't put me in danger;
>don't put some young child in danger who is in their parents' car. This is
>not a matter of opinion.
>If you disagree with me, you are WRONG and you need
>to think about it.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. You must be god. What would we do without
you to tell us what is right and wrong?
>There is no place you need be that's so important.
If that's the way YOU think, then stay home and save yourself, and the
rest of us, alot of grief.
>It's
>very easy to slam one's foot down on the accelerator and point the hood in
>the right direction.
That's your problem. It is not that easy. Keeping the car going in the
right direction takes a lot more skill than you imagine. Unfortunately
not everyone has enough skill and we end up with many problem drivers on
the road.
>Pea brains do it every minute of every day.
More like pea brains think it is easy and try to do it.
>The REAL
>art to driving is trying to follow all the rules, being aware of every
>danger and taking evasive actions. Drive with the assumption that the other
>guy is NOT going to stop at the red light or that your brakes won't work
>when you step on the pedal.
It is impossible to drive the way you describe. If one were to assume
every other driver is not going to stop at a red light, your average speed
would only be marginally faster than walking, and even slower if you assume
your brakes don't work.
>I drive my Explorer at no more than five miles over the speed limit - and I
>almost always use cruise control, so I'm sure. The exception is on the
>interstates, where I will max at 65 if the speed limit is 65. However, when
>possible, I always move over to let others pass.
So basically you have limited driving skills, and are smart enough to recognize
them, but are not smart enough to recognize that other driver/car combinations
are capable of safely driving faster than you and your car. Most cars,
because of a lower center of gravity, are safer to drive at highway speeds than
your explorer.
>If someone tailgates me on
>a two-lane highway, I try to pull over as soon as it's safe. Until then, I
>increase the distance between me and the car ahead of me so the guy behind
>me won't slam into my rear if the car ahead brakes abruptly. (Normally I
>stay three secs behind the vehicle ahead, 1-1000, 2-1000, 3-1000)
>
>But I have an idea to settle it once and for all: We equip all vehicles with
>radio electronics that pick up a signal from sensors in the road. The signal
>limits the vehicle speed for the given roadway, and that's that. If someone
>defeats the sensor and is caught speeding, they forfeit their vehicle!!!
I know that if I had an accident because my cars engine cut back when I needed
the power, I would sue the manufacturer.
>This would not only prevent speeding, but is would eliminate most police
>chases. The police would easily be able to outrun everyone else.
No, because the bad guys would easily by pass the system. Since they are
probably in a stolen car, they don't care about vehicle forfeiture.
-----------------
Alex __O
_-\<,_
(_)/ (_)
Izzy...
Matthew T. Russotto <russ...@wanda.vf.pond.com> wrote in message
news:BGDD6.3775$Uu6.3...@monger.newsread.com...
> In article <9bmtkp$a6lja$1...@ID-62110.news.dfncis.de>,
> Anthony Giorgianni <giorg...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> }Hello All
> }
> }We live together in a society with rules to govern our behavior simply
> }because there are many different views on how we should conduct
ourselves,
> }including the speeds at which we should drive. When we avail ourselves of
> }the license to drive a motor vehicle (it is NOT a right), we agree to
follow
> }these rules.
>
> My agreement was neither given, nor sought, nor required. For the
> record, I do _NOT_ agree to follow the rules.
This country was formed specifically by and for people who
didn't want to follow the established rules. To desire living in
a highly restrictive society is patently un-American.
> }I drive my Explorer at no more than five miles over the speed limit
>
> Criminal!
Put him up against the wall - he's a SPEEDER!
> }This would not only prevent speeding, but is would eliminate most police
> }chases. The police would easily be able to outrun everyone else.
> }
> }That would take care of the whole issue.
>
> Doubleplus good.
Until someone steals a police car...
Monkeywrench the system!
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety.
- Benjamin Franklin
Izzy...
Bob Kaplow <kapl...@eisner.encompasserve.org.mars> wrote in message
news:43jVLF...@eisner.encompasserve.org...
> He who surrenders liberty in the name of security will have neither. Ben
> Franklin.
>
Damn, he beat me to it.
Chuck Tomlinson
>
>We live together in a society with rules to govern our behavior simply
>because there are many different views on how we should conduct ourselves,
>including the speeds at which we should drive. When we avail ourselves of
>the license to drive a motor vehicle (it is NOT a right), we agree to follow
>these rules.
Speak for yourself, please. When I drive, my intent is to
avoid endangering other people (and generally myself). I
will break any traffic law if, in a particular circumstance,
it will enhance people's safety, or have no negative impact
on their safety.
>[...] The REAL
>art to driving is trying to follow all the rules, being aware of every
>danger and taking evasive actions. Drive with the assumption that the other
>guy is NOT going to stop at the red light or that your brakes won't work
>when you step on the pedal.
IMHO, the art of normal driving is operating the vehicle
safely and courteously *regardless* of the rules. Traffic
rules are necessarily simplistic, which makes it possible to
break some of them safely (sometimes), or drive dangerously
while operating entirely within the explicit rules.
If explicit traffic rules were sufficient, there would be no
need for violations like "reckless driving" or "driving too
fast for conditions". In the specific case of speed
relative to the posted limit, obedience does not guarantee
safety, nor does disobedience guarantee recklessness.
>I drive my Explorer at no more than five miles over the speed limit - and I
>almost always use cruise control, so I'm sure. The exception is on the
>interstates, where I will max at 65 if the speed limit is 65. [...]
In many (common and favorable) driving conditions, the
primary result of your speed practices is to waste time,
your own and that of anyone who is stuck behind you.
>But I have an idea to settle it once and for all: We equip all vehicles with
>radio electronics that pick up a signal from sensors in the road. The signal
>limits the vehicle speed for the given roadway, and that's that. If someone
>defeats the sensor and is caught speeding, they forfeit their vehicle!!!
LOL! That device would simply waste time in good conditions
and waste money in bad conditions (when the speed limit is
too fast for safety and the device is irrelevant).
Since the driver and vehicle are important safety elements,
your limiter could (in conditions where traffic now flows
above and below the posted limit) simultaneously waste some
drivers' time and all drivers' money.
As Brandon suggested, it would be far more valuable to apply
the tremendous expense of the device and its supporting
infrastructure to actually *teaching people how to drive*.
Without good driver judgement, your speed limiters have no
useful purpose, since people can (and often do) drive
dangerously below the posted limit.
With good driver judgement, a static speed limit (electronic
or otherwise) becomes superfluous. If all the speed limit
signs vanished tomorrow, could you set your speed safely?
--
Chuck Tomlinson
Izzy...
Chuck Tomlinson <v8c...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:IQND6.27921$uh5.8...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net...
>
> LOL! That device would simply waste time in good conditions
> and waste money in bad conditions (when the speed limit is
> too fast for safety and the device is irrelevant).
>
Looking at human nature, it could be worse than that.
Human nature works like electricity - takes the path of least
resistance. I have no doubt that, given the opportunity to
allow a device to do their thinking, they will take it.
With a simple ignition-cut system, it'd be awfully jerky to
drive on the limiter. With a soft-cut fuel delivery cut system
or simple programming in the throttle-by-wire systems already
in place in many vehicles, there would be little or no penalty
in driveability or fuel economy. (Can you imagine how BAD
the emissions would be if everybody was driving along,
engines stuttering on an ignition cut system?)
So, people would just floor it wherever they go. Let the car do
the thinking and choose the correct speed. Less brain needed.
What if there's a traffic clog ahead? Will they see it, or will they
not even be paying attention because there's no real need to
look that far ahead? Remember, everybody is going the same
speed, which is an ideal safety situation. Being so safe, and being
so safe without putting any thought to it, attention will be turned
to other things. Cell phone. Book. 'Net connecttion. Whatever.
Suddenly they're going way too fast for conditions and they don't
even know it yet!
Or what if it starts to rain, or snow - they'll do OK for a little
while, as in many cases it's quite possible to drive safely at the
posted speed in inclement weather. But they won't do OK for long!
Take away a person's need to think, and the person will forget how
to think. Ask anyone with speed-dial on their telephone.
Michael A. Stone Jr.
>
> Hello All
>
> We live together in a society with rules to govern our behavior simply
> because there are many different views on how we should conduct ourselves,
> including the speeds at which we should drive. When we avail ourselves of
> the license to drive a motor vehicle (it is NOT a right), we agree to follow
> these rules.
Well.. Driving is not a right, not a privledge. It's a interest. Or so
the Supreme Court has stated. We do agree to follow the rules, of
course. But, we also expect the rules to make sense and to serve some
purpose of value to society. We will willingly follow rules that make
sense and support their enforcement. On the whole, you won't see too
many people protesting rules and laws they basically agree with. Nor
will a majority of the members of a society violate a law they agree
with.
Where you will see contention is when a large segment of society has
some disagreement with the need, use, or application of some rule or
law. For example, the contention about the use of alcohol. There was a
large group of society, with the U.S., that felt prohibition was a law
unneeded and unwanted. So much so that the only way to get such a law
passed in the first place was a Constitutional amendment. No one
supported a law for it. And, violation of the rule was rather open,
flagrant, and rampant. Not all rules and laws are made in support of...
or even in the interests of... society.
> It is unfair to everyone for some to exceed the speed limit (or to go far
> below it). It creates a hazard, and at high speeds, it also is bad for the
> environment. I always tell people, being late is the WORST reason to speed.
> The bottom line is that you have a responsibility to everyone on the road,
> and you should take that seriously or DON'T DRIVE. Don't put me in danger;
> don't put some young child in danger who is in their parents' car. This is
> not a matter of opinion. If you disagree with me, you are WRONG and you need
> to think about it. There is no place you need be that's so important. It's
> very easy to slam one's foot down on the accelerator and point the hood in
> the right direction. Pea brains do it every minute of every day. The REAL
> art to driving is trying to follow all the rules, being aware of every
> danger and taking evasive actions. Drive with the assumption that the other
> guy is NOT going to stop at the red light or that your brakes won't work
> when you step on the pedal.
I'd say that this is more an opinion. But.. that's just my opinion. ;)
I'd have to disagree that it is "unfair" for some to exceed the speed
limit. Mainly because the speed limit is not a safe limit. Following a
speed limit without actually using judgement to determine if the limit
is actually safe or not could be dangerous. For an example, driving at
the posted limit of 55 MPH would likely be a bad idea if the roads are
covered with a nice smooth sheet of fresh ice. It would be just as
dangerous to drive at the posted limit 55 MPH when the median traffic
speed is 75 MPH. Not all rules and laws are made in support of, or the
interest of, society.
> I drive my Explorer at no more than five miles over the speed limit - and I
> almost always use cruise control, so I'm sure. The exception is on the
> interstates, where I will max at 65 if the speed limit is 65. However, when
> possible, I always move over to let others pass. If someone tailgates me on
> a two-lane highway, I try to pull over as soon as it's safe. Until then, I
> increase the distance between me and the car ahead of me so the guy behind
> me won't slam into my rear if the car ahead brakes abruptly. (Normally I
> stay three secs behind the vehicle ahead, 1-1000, 2-1000, 3-1000)
See. You yourself have recognized that some laws need not be obeyed.
Some should not be obeyed. You use your judgement to decide when a law
is in or not your best interests. IF laws were created by society, then
all laws would be followed by society. But such is not the case. A
select group of individuals make law. They sometimes concider the
interests of society. Sometimes they do not. When a group of individuals
make laws that are not in the best interests of society, there is a
strong likelyhood such laws will be met with resistance. And such
resistance will be dealt with some type of force. In the case of speed
enforcement, it involves fines. In some societies, it involves whips...
guns... even tanks. But, in all cases, society finds some means of
"revolt" against the rules and laws which are disagreeable to society.
Then again... not all rules and laws (or governments) are made in
support of, or in the interest of, society.
> But I have an idea to settle it once and for all: We equip all vehicles with
> radio electronics that pick up a signal from sensors in the road. The signal
> limits the vehicle speed for the given roadway, and that's that. If someone
> defeats the sensor and is caught speeding, they forfeit their vehicle!!!
Computer controled? At what point do you stop the government from
entering into your private life and taking your control from you? Where
do you decide that the government is no longer supposed to control your
thoughts and actions?
Put another way... would you be so quick to allow such an intrusion if I
was the person in control? Would you allow me to set the limits and
decide how much control I am allowed to have to run your life?
> This would not only prevent speeding, but is would eliminate most police
> chases. The police would easily be able to outrun everyone else.
Even better. Now, not only are you under my control... but I am now free
to do whatever I want. Put me in control. I'd like that.
> That would take care of the whole issue.
Yes. Yes, it would. Goodby United States of America... hello People's
Republic of China. It was people that thought such as this that decided
allowing Hitler to have control.... Stilin to have control... Mao to
have control... was acceptable. Then again, those that argued against
such notions were shot.
> Regards,
> Tony Giorgianni
All I can say is that in such a world... I really hope I'm the one in
control. Being absolute ruler would be rather nice. I just can't fathom
people accepting such control.
Michael A. Stone Jr.
>
> Hello All
>
> We live together in a society with rules to govern our behavior simply
> because there are many different views on how we should conduct ourselves,
> including the speeds at which we should drive. When we avail ourselves of
> the license to drive a motor vehicle (it is NOT a right), we agree to follow
> these rules.
PS:.... We do NOT live in a society with rules to govern our behavior.
(at least most governments don't do that)
We live in a society with rules to govern how your behavior is your own
personal business and right, provided it does not cause harm to others.
The rules define what is concidered to be harmful to others.
We do not view, as a society, how individuals should conduct themselves.
We view how individuals should interact with others. Society does not
care what you do in your own private world. Only what you do when you
interact with the rest of society.
Alex Rodriguez
says...
>This country was formed specifically by and for people who
>didn't want to follow the established rules. To desire living in
>a highly restrictive society is patently un-American.
This is very true. But unfortunately so many people conveniently
wish to forget this and try to limit everything you can, and cannot do.
Alex Rodriguez
meow@NOO_SPAMFORMElightmeaphatty.org says...
>Move to the UK, they're proposing a satelite system to monitor and
>forcibly slow down speeding cars, using GPS, and other Star Warz crap.
It's not that difficult to block an antenna in a car. Then what?
John Timmons
Digital camera reads your number plate. Another camera several miles down
the road reads your number plate. Central computer checks distance traveled
versus time and issues tickets accordingly.
Can be used to check insurance and car tax.
Can also be cross checked against driver details to see if driver is
eligible for motorway driving.
Can establish driving patterns.
system doesn't use radar or inductive loops. Every car is ID'd.
Scary stuff
JWT
"Alex Rodriguez" <ad...@columbia.edu> wrote in message
news:9bpjuo$shg$7...@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu...
Brandon Sommerville
>Try the specs system
>
>Digital camera reads your number plate. Another camera several miles down
>the road reads your number plate. Central computer checks distance traveled
>versus time and issues tickets accordingly.
>
>Can be used to check insurance and car tax.
>
>Can also be cross checked against driver details to see if driver is
>eligible for motorway driving.
>
>Can establish driving patterns.
>
>system doesn't use radar or inductive loops. Every car is ID'd.
The government is your friend.
John Timmons
JWT
"Brandon Sommerville" <g...@null.net.gov> wrote in message
news:67m0etkspgue7n5qn...@4ax.com...
John Timmons wrote:
>Try the specs system
>
Snip
Alex Rodriguez
says...
>Try the specs system
>Digital camera reads your number plate. Another camera several miles down
>the road reads your number plate. Central computer checks distance traveled
>versus time and issues tickets accordingly.
Plates get dirty quite easily. Plate covers are a very popluar item in places
that have photoradar.
Marc
>Anthony Giorgianni wrote:
>> we agree to follow these rules.
>
>"Agreement" under threat of having a right denied is not binding.
There is no right to drive.
However, there is no agreement to follow the rules. There is an
agreement that if you get caught violating the rules there are
specific punishments that could be applied.
As a soccer coach, it confuses the kids to explain that I want them to
break the rules. It is better to get a penalty called against you
than to allow someone to make an uncontested run on the goal (as long
as you make sure that you take them down outside the penalty box).
The rules don't say "don't break the rules or else." The rules say,
"we will outline punishments for violating the rules." Whether it is
worth it to violate the rules is up to the individual.
No one agreed to not break the rules. They just agreed to accept the
punishment if found guilty of breaking the rules.
Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"