More power to the police in high speed pursuit

In article >, Spike wrote:

> You continue to ignore human nature. No matter where you set the speed
> limit, people will, as they already have shown, exceed it. When speed
> limts were 55, people drove 60-65. When they were raised to suit the
> roads (70 on interstates for example) the people began driving 75-80.
> If you set the speed at 125, you'd find people doing 150.

Wrong and proven wrong by the studies cited. Unless severely underposted
and coupled with heavy enforcement, travel speeds do not change much with
the posted speed limit. What is seen with a properly set speed limit is a
tighter distribution where the faster drivers slow down to be legal and
the slower drivers speed up because they can now do so legally. I would
also add that I have found that lane discipline increases as well,
although studies on speed limits don't typically comment on lane
discipline.

> It's a combination of those who think that extra 5 or 10mph will
> really get them to their destination well ahead of sticking to the
> speed limit, coupled with what I believe is a subconscious resistance
> to authotrity of the state.

No, it's an artifact of underposted speed limits and speed taxation.
Studies have shown time and time again that raising the speed limit above
the 85th percentile causes no significant increase in travel speeds.

If you are really interested read the book "American Autobahn".

> Even in places where the speed limts were essentially non-existant (ID
> and NV) there was still the basic law of conditions. You could be
> doing 50 and if the roadconditions were bad, it was, and is, a
> citeable offense. And, just like the Autobahn you so frequently point
> to, if you have an accident you get hammered whether it's your fault,
> their fault, nobody's fault. And, as far as I know, the Autobahn is
> the only stretch of roadway in the world which allows those kinds of
> speeds. By the way, even the Autobahn has a law concerning the road
> conditions and speed.

Your babble and mis information aside... Of course one slows for poor
road conditions, are you trying to suggest that speed limits aren't upper
bounds but some sort of one-size-fits-all recommendation? They aren't
supposed to be. If you need government guidence to choose a safe speed
for the conditions you are presented with you shouldn't be behind the
wheel in the first place. There are laws in the USA about unsafe speed for
conditions etc and so forth anyway.

(Brent P) wrote in
:

<big snip>

In summary, Brent, you're a freakin' idiot.

In article >, Joe wrote:
> (Brent P) wrote in
> :
>
><big snip>
>
> In summary, Brent, you're a freakin' idiot.

So, you can fling an insult. Where is your well supported argument? Oh
that's right, you're just another moron who accepts things the way they
are and anything new that comes along.

It's people like you that remind me the US people as a whole are
deserving of this nation is changing into.

(Brent P) wrote in news:BP-
:

> In article >, Joe wrote:
>> (Brent P) wrote in
>> :
>>
>><big snip>
>>
>> In summary, Brent, you're a freakin' idiot.
>
> So, you can fling an insult. Where is your well supported argument?

There's no argument in telling you you're a freakin' idiot.

> Oh
> that's right, you're just another moron who accepts things the way
they
> are and anything new that comes along.

BIG (and incorrect) presumption on your part with nothing whatsoever to
back it up.

> It's people like you

People like me? And you know me how? I called you a freakin' idiot
because of the nonsense you posted. Unless you start googling my past
posts, your only frame of reference is that I called you an idiot.

> that remind me the US people as a whole are
> deserving of this nation is changing into.

Can you explain what you just tried to say? It's really not a cohesive
sentence. Guess I was right...

In article >, Joe wrote:
> (Brent P) wrote in news:BP-
> :
>
>> In article >, Joe wrote:
>>> (Brent P) wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>><big snip>
>>>
>>> In summary, Brent, you're a freakin' idiot.
>>
>> So, you can fling an insult. Where is your well supported argument?
>
> There's no argument in telling you you're a freakin' idiot.

>> Oh
>> that's right, you're just another moron who accepts things the way they
>> are and anything new that comes along.

> BIG (and incorrect) presumption on your part with nothing whatsoever to
> back it up.

Maybe you should have presented an argument instead of flinging insults.

>> It's people like you

> People like me? And you know me how? I called you a freakin' idiot
> because of the nonsense you posted. Unless you start googling my past
> posts, your only frame of reference is that I called you an idiot.

Nonsense? You mean law, accepted engineering practice, engineering
studies, the federal manual on uniform traffic control devices?

>> that remind me the US people as a whole are
>> deserving of this nation is changing into.

> Can you explain what you just tried to say? It's really not a cohesive
> sentence. Guess I was right...

Don't worry, you'll find out soon enough. And it was before you cut it
up.

In article >, Brent P
> wrote:

>
> Nonsense? You mean law, accepted engineering practice, engineering
> studies, the federal manual on uniform traffic control devices?

Funny thing, Brent. For all your Big Brother whining, you seem to
take Federal studies as bible. Hmm.

Ya know, I could give a rat's differential housing about nationwide
statistics and ****. I look at the goings-on where I drive daily,
develop my own "style", and that's pretty much it. No arguments. No
stress. No countless hours regurgitating the same impotent tripe over
and over. You should try it.

--
CobraJet

In article >, CobraJet wrote:
> In article >, Brent P
> wrote:

>> Nonsense? You mean law, accepted engineering practice, engineering
>> studies, the federal manual on uniform traffic control devices?

> Funny thing, Brent. For all your Big Brother whining, you seem to
> take Federal studies as bible. Hmm.

The MUTCD isn't a study. The studies that are federally funded often
have their findings 'softened' for the status quo. However I am not
taking them as bible nor do you have any such evidence. I prefer to use
government sources in debates where people are arguing 'you just want to
disobey the law and drive fast' as their counter argument. the reason
should be obvious to even a dead cat, and that reason is it cuts off
attacking those behind the study.

> Ya know, I could give a rat's differential housing about nationwide
> statistics and ****. I look at the goings-on where I drive daily,
> develop my own "style", and that's pretty much it. No arguments. No
> stress. No countless hours regurgitating the same impotent tripe over
> and over. You should try it.

Far better a futile effort trying to inform people with my inbetween time
than trying to act tough from behind a keyboard like a certain person
does....

In article >, Brent P
> wrote:

> In article >, CobraJet wrote:
> > In article >, Brent P
> > wrote:
>
> >> Nonsense? You mean law, accepted engineering practice, engineering
> >> studies, the federal manual on uniform traffic control devices?
>
> > Funny thing, Brent. For all your Big Brother whining, you seem to
> > take Federal studies as bible. Hmm.
>
> The MUTCD isn't a study. The studies that are federally funded often
> have their findings 'softened' for the status quo. However I am not
> taking them as bible nor do you have any such evidence. I prefer to use
> government sources in debates where people are arguing 'you just want to
> disobey the law and drive fast' as their counter argument. the reason
> should be obvious to even a dead cat, and that reason is it cuts off
> attacking those behind the study.
>
> > Ya know, I could give a rat's differential housing about nationwide
> > statistics and ****. I look at the goings-on where I drive daily,
> > develop my own "style", and that's pretty much it. No arguments. No
> > stress. No countless hours regurgitating the same impotent tripe over
> > and over. You should try it.
>
> Far better a futile effort trying to inform people with my inbetween time
> than trying to act tough from behind a keyboard like a certain person
> does....
>
>

Oh yeah, that makes really good sense. Guess that playground
scenario really got to you, huh? LOL!

--
CobraJet

On Wed, 09 May 2007 14:14:02 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

>In article >, CobraJet wrote:
>> In article >, Brent P
> wrote:
>
>>> Nonsense? You mean law, accepted engineering practice, engineering
>>> studies, the federal manual on uniform traffic control devices?
>
>> Funny thing, Brent. For all your Big Brother whining, you seem to
>> take Federal studies as bible. Hmm.
>
>The MUTCD isn't a study. The studies that are federally funded often
>have their findings 'softened' for the status quo. However I am not
>taking them as bible nor do you have any such evidence. I prefer to use
>government sources in debates where people are arguing 'you just want to
>disobey the law and drive fast' as their counter argument. the reason
>should be obvious to even a dead cat, and that reason is it cuts off
>attacking those behind the study.
>
Is this the same government you disdain for it's traffic enforcement
and arbitrary establishment of lowered speeds?

>> Ya know, I could give a rat's differential housing about nationwide
>> statistics and ****. I look at the goings-on where I drive daily,
>> develop my own "style", and that's pretty much it. No arguments. No
>> stress. No countless hours regurgitating the same impotent tripe over
>> and over. You should try it.
>
>Far better a futile effort trying to inform people with my inbetween time
>than trying to act tough from behind a keyboard like a certain person
>does....
>
Good luck Brent. Guess the world just isn't ready to change just for
you.

On Wed, 09 May 2007 19:19:36 GMT, CobraJet > wrote:

>In article >, Brent P
> wrote:
>
>> In article >, CobraJet wrote:
>> > In article >, Brent P
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> Nonsense? You mean law, accepted engineering practice, engineering
>> >> studies, the federal manual on uniform traffic control devices?
>>
>> > Funny thing, Brent. For all your Big Brother whining, you seem to
>> > take Federal studies as bible. Hmm.
>>
>> The MUTCD isn't a study. The studies that are federally funded often
>> have their findings 'softened' for the status quo. However I am not
>> taking them as bible nor do you have any such evidence. I prefer to use
>> government sources in debates where people are arguing 'you just want to
>> disobey the law and drive fast' as their counter argument. the reason
>> should be obvious to even a dead cat, and that reason is it cuts off
>> attacking those behind the study.
>>
>> > Ya know, I could give a rat's differential housing about nationwide
>> > statistics and ****. I look at the goings-on where I drive daily,
>> > develop my own "style", and that's pretty much it. No arguments. No
>> > stress. No countless hours regurgitating the same impotent tripe over
>> > and over. You should try it.
>>
>> Far better a futile effort trying to inform people with my inbetween time
>> than trying to act tough from behind a keyboard like a certain person
>> does....
>>
>>
>
> Oh yeah, that makes really good sense. Guess that playground
>scenario really got to you, huh? LOL!

CJ Did you kick sand in his face with your keyboard? Look out. He may
just sign up for a muscle building course for his fingers. Next he'll
want the marbles he lost back. Hope you kept count so he doesn't try
to take some of yours.