More power to the police in high speed pursuit

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

>>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?

Do you have ADD? I want the government to follow the law. State vehicle
codes usually demand following the MUTCD and even incorporate parts of it
directly into their vehicle code.

"Brent P" > wrote in message
. ..
> In article >, dwight wrote:
>
>>> The 85th precentile works wonderfully in reality. Actually, speed
>>> derestricted interstates work extremely well in reality. I've driven
>>> some
>>> of them.
>
>> Damn. I had hope, but you missed it again.
>
> No you're missing it.
>
>> I'm not arguing with you. Get it? All I'm saying is that WHERE speed
>> limits
>> are posted, then speed limits are posted. It's really that simple.
>
> And what I am telling you, is that often those speed limits are not
> correct, and many times not even legal under the law.

They're still there.

>>> Why don't you get on a plane to Germany, rent a car and drive around on
>>> /// autobahn and even speed limited autobahn and surface streets for
>>> awhile. After you do that excerise, get back to me about reality.
>
>> What does driving legal speeds in Germany have to do with this
>> discussion?
>> Reality. Reality = "what is".
>
> Oh, so you're just demanding others have the same apathy as you.

The sign still says 55.

>>> Reality... you mean the reality where people ignore the posted speed
>>> limit and drive an appropiate speed for the road anyway? What's wrong
>>> with making reality legal? It's the underposted speed limit that's
>>> denying reality.
>
>> Nope, you missed it again. The posted speed limit, NO MATTER WHAT YOU
>> THINK
>> OF IT, is the reality. I don't care if 100% of drivers speed, the posted
>> speed limit is STILL the posted speed limit.
>
> Then you're just preaching apathy.

I'm preaching reality. It's not that fine a distinction between reality and
fantasy. Most people understand that.

>> Question: when EVERYBODY on the highway is speeding, does the posted
>> speed
>> limit change? No, I didn't think so.
>
> Yep, preaching apathy.

The sign hasn't changed.

>>> So you accept the premise of the 'game'. A game of roadside taxation. It
>>> doesn't bother you that you have a choice of increasing your risk of a
>>> collision while decreasing your risk of a ticket or increasing your risk
>>> of a ticket but decreasing your risk of a collision. You just accept it.
>>> That's apathy.
>
>> Your experience is counter to my own. People who drive at the posted
>> speed
>> are not the problem. See if you can wrap your mind around that one.
>
> Come for a ride with me at the speed limit on chicago area expressways.
> I'll put plastic down on the passenger seat first though because I don't
> want the leather ruined.

Chicago. Wow. Been there, done that. Chicagoans drive like pansies. Come
drive in New York.

Oh, and guess what - even in New York there ARE people who drive at the
posted speed limit. And they have every right to do just that. If you want
to drive, you have to understand that they're out there and deal with it.
Just another bit of reality, y'know.

>>> The fact is, by defining nearly everyone as a violator, it creates more
>>> _SAFETY_ problems, not less, than just setting the speed limit
>>> appropiately. Of of those safety issues being pulling people over for
>>> road side taxation may cause someone to make poor decisions that
>>> otherwise wouldn't be made. It just turned someone who was driving in
>>> quite an ordinary and acceptably safe manner into a hazard.
>
>> Bull****. Sorry. Speed, relative or otherwise, does not in and of itself
>> cause safety issues. You know that. Are you a student of traffic, or not?
>> Speed, as the sole contributing factor, does not cause accidents. Think.
>
> Read what I wrote again. BY DEFINING NEARLY EVERYONE AS A VIOLATOR, IT
> (defining everyone as violator) CREATES MORE SAFETY PROBLEMS than SETTING
> THE SPEED LIMIT APPROPIATELY. Now read and comprehend. It's not the
> speed, but making normal, reasonable behavior a violation of the law.
> Let's say the law made some other normal, reasonable behavior illegal...
> say, drinking a cup of coffee while walking on the sidewalk. Do you think
> that when police tried to stop people for this 'crime' would some flee?
> Of course. That's the point. Not defining normal and reasonable behavior
> as a violation of the law means less police interaction with people and
> thusly fewer people fleeing police in non-controlled public settings. If
> you cannot read and comprehend a simple paragraph like the above, don't
> bother entering the discussion.

Coffee? C'mon. Speed (again) does not cause safety problems. It is the
UNSAFE DRIVER (no matter WHAT speed he's driving) that causes safety
problems. Personal responsibility in all things. Stop trying to blame
everyone and everything else. I don't give a crap what speed you drive at or
even what speed the vast majority drive, it's the unsafe behavior that
causes problems. Not the speed limit signs, not the state trooper waiting in
the bushes, but the individual driver.

And the sign still says 55.

>> No, I APPLAUD red light cameras. I'm one of those safety hazard types who
>> actually brakes on yellow, not floors it. I'm surprised that you'd bring
>> that up...
>
> Well, maybe you should read how governments place cameras on
> intersections instead of addressing easy and cheap underlying safety
> issues and how they actually will make intersections less safe to bring
> in more money. I'd have no problem with RLCs on intersections that
> complied with the MUTCD. Trouble is, local governments don't make money
> with cameras on intersections that comply with the law. There are too few
> people running the red at those intersections.
>
>>> They are preying upon your ignorance, the collective ignorance of the
>>> people. I am trying to give you an education... but no... you embrace
>>> the
>>> ignorance. You like being fleeced. Even if the RLC doesn't get you, when
>>> you slam on the brakes because of that short yellow and someon rear ends
>>> you, you're still fleeced.
>
>> Why would anyone rear-end me, when I'm braking for the yellow? That would
>> really be stupid. Maybe that's just the kind of person I DON'T WANT
>> driving.
>> As a matter of fact, ANYONE who rear-ends another car is almost always at
>> fault. I think the insurance companies agree with that.
>
> I've been rear ended braking for a yellow signal. The research on RLCs
> indicates that increases because of the need to stop harder for the
> decreased yellow signal time that makes the cameras profitable.

Waitaminute... Some guy rear-ends you, and you blame the traffic signal? Are
you KIDDING?!? The idiot that hit you was 100% at fault! It doesn't matter
if you stopped dead at a GREEN light - the idiot that hit you was 100% at
fault. Oh, man...

>> I guess I should also point out, again, that my driving record is clean.
>> The
>> only time I've been fleeced lately was last year, when I called a plumber
>> about a leaking pipe.
>
> My record is clean too... so what. It's irrelevant except to those of you
> with no information to back up your arguments so you've decided to make
> this some personal attack against the imagined way I drive despite
> stating otherwise several times.

Stop making stuff up. I didn't say anything about your driving, since I have
no idea how you drive. But I'll say this - I never assume that the "other
guy" knows what he's doing. That's probably a major reason why TFrog has
been untouched in over 200,000 miles.

So... what? You speed? Drive a little faster than reasonable at times? Push
the envelope once in a while? Big deal. That only leads me to one
conclusion:

If you speed but have never been ticketed for speeding, then shut the hell
up. What's all this blather about, if it has no personal effect on you?

>>> http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/04/430.asp
>
> Yep, just ignore it.
>
>> Here's the answer for you: take the driver away from the steering wheel.
>> Put
>> him in the back seat with a DVD player, and let computers handle the
>> traffic. Then we can all travel at 85+mph three feet apart without any
>> risk.
>> That would be great.
>
>> There is no personal responsibility. If I slam into some grey-hair doing
>> 55,
>> it's the grey-hair's fault. If I get ticketed for driving 20mph over the
>> speed limit, it's The Man's fault.
>
> That seems consistant with your apatahy.

Apatahy... What are YOU doing about any of this, other than preaching to a
Mustang group?

>>>> Come to think of it... how do I know that I want YOU going faster than
>>>> 55,
>>>> anyway? We all know what a joke drivers' tests are in this country.
>
>>> You don't get it either. Are you all trained like dogs? You just think
>>> the whole thing is about the 'system' and obedence to it? Are you that
>>> clueless? Why isn't the government following the law? Isn't there any
>>> outrage about the government not following the vehicle code that in many
>>> states mandates following the MUTCD or even goes a step further
>>> codifying
>>> speed studies and the 85th percentile method into the law itself rather
>>> than just relying on it from the MUTCD? Why is that we must obey the law
>>> but the government doesn't?
>
>> What does it say on the speed limit sign?
>
> Who cares if that's illegal... obey your rulers. Back to the rule of
> Kings and doomsmen.

I was watching a little Tucker tonight, a little Lou Dobbs... Seems that
several of the clergy are reinstituting a Sanctuary program. They don't
agree with the current immigration laws, so they choose to go around them.

Tucker asked, well, what if I don't believe that bank robbery is a crime.
Would I be justified in harboring bank robbers? What about me? I get to
ignore laws I don't agree with, too. So do you. And the next guy. And the
next. Let's all just ignore whatever laws we want.

Meanwhile, someone out there is actually trying to do something about it. I
know this, because you keep dropping links to these other people who are
actually doing something.

Every great change came about not because people groused about the law in a
newsgroup, but because someone went out, broke the law, and paid the
penalty. Jesus, Rosa Parks, Ghandi, King... the list is endless. The
martyrs.

The whole time you've been tippy-tappin' on your keyboard, that sign has
said 55. It said 55 yesterday, 55 today, and will in all likelihood say 55
tomorrow. You want to ignore that law? Go ahead, break it. But be prepared
to pay your penalty. Tell the judge all about how that speed limit is
illegal, I'm sure he'll listen. Tell the press. See if you can convince your
congressman to take your side. Get the ball rolling.

Your constant whining about this in this newsgroup accomplishes nothing.

The sign still says 55.

>>> Is that another point of your apathy? Where you just accept a lawless
>>> government because that's reality? How much lawlessness are you going to
>>> accept? How long are you going to just sit there before you have some
>>> degree of outrage at something? The violations of the vehicle code is
>>> just
>>> the tip of this iceberg of the things governments in the USA do that are
>>> against the law and probably some of the most minor. So, since you
>>> accept
>>> that, where's your limit?
>
>> The number painted on the speed limit sign.
>
> Who cares if that's illegal... obey your rulers. Back to the rule of
> Kings and doomsmen.

I was going to say that you were repeating yourself, but that's a given.

>>> Maybe some day you're off to buy to your dream mustang and the buyer
>>> only
>>> takes cash.... you get pulled over... maybe you didn't even do anything
>>> wrong... or maybe it's just one of those checkpoints. The cops want to
>>> search your car and since you're a good citizen with nothing to hide you
>>> let them. They find the cash and take it as illegal drug proceeds. They
>>> don't charge you with anything, they just take the cash. That's the law
>>> these days.... You can mount a legal fight to get your cash back and
>>> accept the costs as part of 'the game'... or do you just shrug your
>>> shoulders and go 'oh well, that's reality'?
>
>> The speed limit sign still has not changed.
>
> Who cares if that's illegal... obey your rulers. Back to the rule of
> Kings and doomsmen.
>
>> DAMN, you go off on some tangents. No wonder you don't understand the
>> reality at the heart of this thread. The numbers painted on the sign.
>
> No I understand the issues, you don't. You enjoy being a good little
> slave obeying your rulers. I believe in individual liberty and a
> restricted
> government that obeys the law.

I understand that the sign STILL says 55.

dwight

In article >, Spike
> wrote:

> On Wed, 09 May 2007 19:19:36 GMT, CobraJet > wrote:
>
> >In article >, Brent P
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> 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.

He's gonna need more than non-stop Itsy Bitsy Spider finger sessions
to get near *my* marbles.

However, it's not me he needs to worry about. As you know darn well,
attitudes like his will be picked up on by any cop with some
experience. I expect to see Brently on TV one night, bleeding from
newly formed orifices, begging, "Can't we all just get along?"

--
CobraJet

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> 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.

Nah, the insult was quite appropriate.

>>> 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?

The nonsense is your interpretation and explanation.

>>> 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.

Woo. I'm a-shakin' in me boots.

In article >, dwight wrote:

>> And what I am telling you, is that often those speed limits are not
>> correct, and many times not even legal under the law.

> They're still there.

So your point is that I should just shut the **** up? How about you use
your kill file instead?

>> Then you're just preaching apathy.

> I'm preaching reality. It's not that fine a distinction between reality and
> fantasy. Most people understand that.

Gee wally everything I stated is also reality. You just choose to insult
me because I brought it to your attention. Is the 'reality' you live in
so fragile that you can't take a little information without calling
people names?

> Chicago. Wow. Been there, done that. Chicagoans drive like pansies. Come
> drive in New York.

New york drivers are more competent while being rude. That's why chicago
is scarier.

> Oh, and guess what - even in New York there ARE people who drive at the
> posted speed limit. And they have every right to do just that. If you want
> to drive, you have to understand that they're out there and deal with it.
> Just another bit of reality, y'know.

Once again you've ingored what I've written in favor of your imgination.

>> Read what I wrote again. BY DEFINING NEARLY EVERYONE AS A VIOLATOR, IT
>> (defining everyone as violator) CREATES MORE SAFETY PROBLEMS than SETTING
>> THE SPEED LIMIT APPROPIATELY. Now read and comprehend. It's not the
>> speed, but making normal, reasonable behavior a violation of the law.
>> Let's say the law made some other normal, reasonable behavior illegal...
>> say, drinking a cup of coffee while walking on the sidewalk. Do you think
>> that when police tried to stop people for this 'crime' would some flee?
>> Of course. That's the point. Not defining normal and reasonable behavior
>> as a violation of the law means less police interaction with people and
>> thusly fewer people fleeing police in non-controlled public settings. If
>> you cannot read and comprehend a simple paragraph like the above, don't
>> bother entering the discussion.

> Coffee? C'mon. Speed (again) does not cause safety problems.

Obviously you're just stupid then. Because that's not what I wrote.

> It is the
> UNSAFE DRIVER (no matter WHAT speed he's driving) that causes safety
> problems. Personal responsibility in all things.

Thank you captain obvious.

> Stop trying to blame everyone and everything else.

I haven't try learning how to read. Check with your local high school,
they may have night classes to help with your reading comprehension.

> I don't give a crap what speed you drive at or
> even what speed the vast majority drive, it's the unsafe behavior that
> causes problems. Not the speed limit signs, not the state trooper waiting in
> the bushes, but the individual driver.

Defining the vast majority of safe, reasonable drivers as violators of
the law does not make things safer, if anything the opposite.
>>> No, I APPLAUD red light cameras. I'm one of those safety hazard types who
>>> actually brakes on yellow, not floors it. I'm surprised that you'd bring
>>> that up...

>>> Why would anyone rear-end me, when I'm braking for the yellow? That would
>>> really be stupid. Maybe that's just the kind of person I DON'T WANT
>>> driving.
>>> As a matter of fact, ANYONE who rear-ends another car is almost always at
>>> fault. I think the insurance companies agree with that.

>> I've been rear ended braking for a yellow signal. The research on RLCs
>> indicates that increases because of the need to stop harder for the
>> decreased yellow signal time that makes the cameras profitable.

> Waitaminute... Some guy rear-ends you, and you blame the traffic signal? Are
> you KIDDING?!? The idiot that hit you was 100% at fault! It doesn't matter
> if you stopped dead at a GREEN light - the idiot that hit you was 100% at
> fault. Oh, man...

I didn't blame the traffic signal, only stated that it occured. Studies
on RLCs show an increase in rear-end collisions. So what if they are at
fault? It's still my car that's damaged, it's still me that may be hurt.
I don't find any comfort in being able to blame the person who hit me, I
still have all the hassles. And if you think not being at fault matters,
it does matter to some insurance companies even if you are not fault.
Now, if I should encounter an RLC intersection with a short yellow where
I can stop safely but the SUV behind me can't with its ****ty undersized
brakes, how exactly has the RLC and the tweaking to bring in revenue been
a benefit?

>>> I guess I should also point out, again, that my driving record is clean.
>>> The
>>> only time I've been fleeced lately was last year, when I called a plumber
>>> about a leaking pipe.

>> My record is clean too... so what. It's irrelevant except to those of you
>> with no information to back up your arguments so you've decided to make
>> this some personal attack against the imagined way I drive despite
>> stating otherwise several times.

> Stop making stuff up. I didn't say anything about your driving, since I have
> no idea how you drive.

You made a number of implications in that direction along with others.

> But I'll say this - I never assume that the "other
> guy" knows what he's doing. That's probably a major reason why TFrog has
> been untouched in over 200,000 miles.

Good for you. I have to share the roads with bigger idiots than you have.

> So... what? You speed? Drive a little faster than reasonable at times? Push
> the envelope once in a while? Big deal. That only leads me to one
> conclusion:

So you deny doing this, then do it again....

> If you speed but have never been ticketed for speeding, then shut the hell
> up. What's all this blather about, if it has no personal effect on you?

Here it is again... don't disturb your idea of 'reality' with facts
you've been blissfully ignorant of. There is a thing called a kill file.
You don't want to read what I have to say, USE IT. Solve your own
problems.

>> That seems consistant with your apatahy.

> Apatahy... What are YOU doing about any of this, other than preaching to a
> Mustang group?

The usual things an ordinary person does. Inform people, get letters
published in newspapers, writes representives, that sort of thing. At
least one rep is willing to listen to these issues and thusly IL now has
a strong keep right to pass law for limited access highways. There have
been some attempts to fix the speed limit issues in this state one step
at a time, but with the current governor it's not going to happen.

>> Who cares if that's illegal... obey your rulers. Back to the rule of
>> Kings and doomsmen.

> I was watching a little Tucker tonight, a little Lou Dobbs... Seems that
> several of the clergy are reinstituting a Sanctuary program. They don't
> agree with the current immigration laws, so they choose to go around them.
>
> Tucker asked, well, what if I don't believe that bank robbery is a crime.
> Would I be justified in harboring bank robbers? What about me? I get to
> ignore laws I don't agree with, too. So do you. And the next guy. And the
> next. Let's all just ignore whatever laws we want.
>
> Meanwhile, someone out there is actually trying to do something about it. I
> know this, because you keep dropping links to these other people who are
> actually doing something.
>
> Every great change came about not because people groused about the law in a
> newsgroup, but because someone went out, broke the law, and paid the
> penalty. Jesus, Rosa Parks, Ghandi, King... the list is endless. The
> martyrs.

If you don't like my posts, use your kill file. Why waste your time
reading it if it disturbs you so.

> The whole time you've been tippy-tappin' on your keyboard, that sign has
> said 55. It said 55 yesterday, 55 today, and will in all likelihood say 55
> tomorrow. You want to ignore that law? Go ahead, break it. But be prepared
> to pay your penalty.

I already called it a tax on driving. Do try to keep up with things.

> Tell the judge all about how that speed limit is
> illegal, I'm sure he'll listen. Tell the press. See if you can convince your
> congressman to take your side. Get the ball rolling.

What would my congressman have to do with it? Constant complaining
already got the federal law repealed a decade ago. Try to keep up. Or is
that your special reality where the NMSL law is still in place?

> Your constant whining about this in this newsgroup accomplishes nothing.

Constant? Let's see... someone posts about a tragic result from a chase
that began for 'just speeding'. I post my response. Did I start a thread
on this? No. But there is this small group who wants to keep this
going... hell bent on attacking my character, my driving, my personal
life, everything their imginations can come up with but not addressing the
topic. Here's a big clue. You can solve your own complaint. Use your kill
file or if you don't reply, then guess what, it ends. All in your hands.

But you won't ignore me. I've disturbed your fraigle little reality with
facts, information. Beyond your ability to refute. So what do you do, go
after me.

>> No I understand the issues, you don't. You enjoy being a good little
>> slave obeying your rulers. I believe in individual liberty and a
>> restricted government that obeys the law.

> I understand that the sign STILL says 55.

Good for you. Now try to deepen your understanding instead of lashing out
at people who know more than you do.

In article >, Joe wrote:

> Nah, the insult was quite appropriate.

Considering your demonstrated level of intelligence, the fact that's all
you can present is not surprising.

>>> 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?

> The nonsense is your interpretation and explanation.

Read it yourself and present your own then. Oh wait, that would actually
require some brains... much easier to just fling insults instead.

In article >, Brent P
> wrote:

> In article >, Joe wrote:
>
> > Nah, the insult was quite appropriate.
>
> Considering your demonstrated level of intelligence, the fact that's all
> you can present is not surprising.
>
> >>> 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?
>
> > The nonsense is your interpretation and explanation.
>
> Read it yourself and present your own then. Oh wait, that would actually
> require some brains... much easier to just fling insults instead.
>

If everyone here has reading comprehension problems, and can do
little more than insult you, then why the hell are you here? Are you a
masochist?

C'mon, if anyone agreed with you you'd be neutered.

--
CobraJet

In article >, CobraJet wrote:

> If everyone here has reading comprehension problems, and can do
> little more than insult you, then why the hell are you here? Are you a
> masochist?

Good question. The terminally stupid should be left their fate.

> C'mon, if anyone agreed with you you'd be neutered.

Others have already tried to explain it to you as well.

In article >, Brent P
> wrote:

> In article >, CobraJet wrote:
>
> > If everyone here has reading comprehension problems, and can do
> > little more than insult you, then why the hell are you here? Are you a
> > masochist?
>
> Good question. The terminally stupid should be left their fate.
>
> > C'mon, if anyone agreed with you you'd be neutered.
>
> Others have already tried to explain it to you as well.
>

Well, others have pointed out that you're an idiot. I guess that's
what you mean.

Found that ice pick yet, Bret?

--
CobraJet

"Brent P" > wrote in message
. ..
> In article >, dwight wrote:
>
>>> And what I am telling you, is that often those speed limits are not
>>> correct, and many times not even legal under the law.
>
>> They're still there.
>
> So your point is that I should just shut the **** up? How about you use
> your kill file instead?

I'm going to try one more time.

Reality.
1. the state or quality of being real.
2. resemblance to what is real.
3. a real thing or fact.
4. real things, facts, or events taken as a whole
5. Philosophy.
a. something that exists independently of ideas concerning it.
b. something that exists independently of all other things and from which
all other things derive.
6. something that is real.
7. something that constitutes a real or actual thing, as distinguished from
something that is merely apparent.

You can obsess as much as you want about how a thing SHOULD be, but that
does not affect reality. Why are you having such a hard time with this?

>>> Then you're just preaching apathy.
>
>> I'm preaching reality. It's not that fine a distinction between reality
>> and
>> fantasy. Most people understand that.
>
> Gee wally everything I stated is also reality. You just choose to insult
> me because I brought it to your attention. Is the 'reality' you live in
> so fragile that you can't take a little information without calling
> people names?

Did I insult you? Did I call you names. Did I call you a "sheep", or, worse,
an "apathetic sheep"? No, all I've said is that the REALITY is exactly that
which you've been railing against for days. Years, by your own account.

>> Chicago. Wow. Been there, done that. Chicagoans drive like pansies. Come
>> drive in New York.
>
> New york drivers are more competent while being rude. That's why chicago
> is scarier.

New York drivers are competent? You've never driven in New York.

>> Oh, and guess what - even in New York there ARE people who drive at the
>> posted speed limit. And they have every right to do just that. If you
>> want
>> to drive, you have to understand that they're out there and deal with it.
>> Just another bit of reality, y'know.
>
> Once again you've ingored what I've written in favor of your imgination.

Hah! Look who's talking!

>>> Read what I wrote again. BY DEFINING NEARLY EVERYONE AS A VIOLATOR, IT
>>> (defining everyone as violator) CREATES MORE SAFETY PROBLEMS than
>>> SETTING
>>> THE SPEED LIMIT APPROPIATELY. Now read and comprehend. It's not the
>>> speed, but making normal, reasonable behavior a violation of the law.
>>> Let's say the law made some other normal, reasonable behavior illegal...
>>> say, drinking a cup of coffee while walking on the sidewalk. Do you
>>> think
>>> that when police tried to stop people for this 'crime' would some flee?
>>> Of course. That's the point. Not defining normal and reasonable behavior
>>> as a violation of the law means less police interaction with people and
>>> thusly fewer people fleeing police in non-controlled public settings. If
>>> you cannot read and comprehend a simple paragraph like the above, don't
>>> bother entering the discussion.
>
>> Coffee? C'mon. Speed (again) does not cause safety problems.
>
> Obviously you're just stupid then. Because that's not what I wrote.

Obviously, you're just stupid then. Fine, let's play.

You are without question THE most self-centered, self-absorbed,
self-inflating asshole I've ever conversed with, and I've conversed with
plenty. You believe that anyone who does not share your obsession with your
chosen subject matter is inferior, unthinking, crude, rude, or just a lout.
And obsession it very obviously is! You are so far into this one stupid
subject that you can't see everything that goes on around you.

The sign still says 55. Pull your head out of your ass and LOOK AT IT. That,
you obsessive, drooling moron, is reality. You can pull over to the side of
the road, get out of your car, walk right up to it and touch it. It's real.
All of your mindless drivel and endless pursuit of this windmill has had NO
effect on reality. You've wasted your time (years of it), my time, and the
time of so many others around here who have tried, exhaustively, to make you
see.

You obsess, endlessly obsess, about this ONE TOPIC, as if this were the
barometer of a nation's soul. You're a one-trick pony, and you're riding
this beast until it drops.

This world, this insane, troubled, dangerous world, is SO FULL of FAR
GREATER concerns, that your problem with speed limits is pathetic. Arbitrary
speed limits or the enforcement of same or the purpose behind these
arbitrary speed limits is SO FAR DOWN THE LIST OF SERIOUS CONCERNS as to be
laughable.

But you go ahead, keep railing against THE GOVERNMENT, keep preaching your
oh-so-enlightened philosophy, and the rest of us will just keep laughing at
you, poking you once in a while for entertainment.

Call you names? What's the point?

dwight