More power to the police in high speed pursuit

In article >, dwight wrote:

> I'm going to try one more time.

Does that mean you've learned to use your kill file?

> 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?

Everything I have brought up is reality. I am sorry it disturbs your
paradyne so much you have to lash out.

>> 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.

Insults aren't limited to name calling. But I do believe you've done that
a few times. Rallied against reality? No, that's your imgination again. I
have simply presented a supported argument. Instead of presenting one of
your own, you blather on with 'shut the **** up, the reality is the sign
says 55mph'. It's not my fault you're hold on what is true, what is
reality is so fraigle that you can't take in the information that what
you consider legal, safe, and right is quite illegitimate upon closer
examination. It might be imposed on us by force, but that doesn't make it
any more legitimate.

>>> 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.

The drivers I have encountered have been. especially rude, but at least
aware of their surroundings.

> You are without question THE most self-centered, self-absorbed,
> self-inflating asshole I've ever conversed with, and I've conversed with
> plenty.

More insults.

> 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.

No, I think people who have closed minds and refuse to even read the
material and instead go off into knee-jerk responses laden with personal
attack, insult, and argument by authority are. Now, should you have come
up with a reasoned, well supported response, that would be a different
story. But you did not.

> 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.

Then use your killfile. Who's the stupid ****er here? You don't like my
posts, kill file me. I don't nym-shift. Just use the ****ing kill file
your newsreader came with. Or have some restraint and don't reply. Guess
what happens when you drooling idiots don't reply? It goes away. Did you
idiots reply to Ashton when he posted the same material I did, but was
much more rude about it from the get go? No... you just ignored him and
it died out.

> 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.

Quite obviously not true. But hey, what's another lie?

> 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.

Then why didn't you just ignore it? No, you have to engage, guns blazing.
Why is that?

> 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.

Yet, you just ignore Ashton, ignored Bob, Gumby, My name is nobody, etc.
you and the others just ignore them. They all said one part or even all
of what I said... but you want to engage me for a long ass thread and
then complain the whole time. If it's entertainment, why the complaints?

It's quite obvious something just upsets your world view enough that you
are compelled to respond... compelled to go on the attack. You can't
control yourselves. Why is it that? What is so disturbing?

Probably something like this:
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being
self-evident."- Arthur Schopenhauer

> Call you names? What's the point?

What is your point? If that's really how you feel, you should have kill
filed me years ago and solved your problem.

In article >, Brent P
> wrote:

>
> Everything I have brought up is reality. I am sorry it disturbs your
> paradyne so much you have to lash out.
>

It's spelled "paradigm". Don't get snooty if you don't know where
the letters go.

--
CobraJet

In article >, CobraJet wrote:

> It's spelled "paradigm". Don't get snooty if you don't know where
> the letters go.

You've now hit the lowest level of trolling.

"Brent P" > wrote in message
. ..
> In article >, dwight wrote:
>
> Everything I have brought up is reality.

And yet... YET... the sign still says 55.

How is that possible?

dwight

In article >, dwight wrote:
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> In article >, dwight wrote:
>>
>> Everything I have brought up is reality.
>
> And yet... YET... the sign still says 55.
>
> How is that possible?

The sign doesn't reflect the reality of the road. The actual speed data
does.

This is why you should actually read the cites, they would do a great
deal to clear up your questions.

here is a plain language summary of what the research has shown from the
Maryland DOT:

-----------------------------------------
http://www.sha.state.md.us/safety/oo...eedlimits2.asp

Will crashes increase if the speed limit is raised?
Probably not. Research has shown that the posted speed limit has little
effect on the speeds at which most motorists drive. Raising the speed
limit does not significantly raise the speeds at which motorists drive,
and lowering the limit generally does not appreciably decrease their
speeds. However, the more motorists learn from their experiences that
speed limits are set at speeds that they consider safe and reasonable the
greater the chances that the motorists will heed them. Speed limits
significantly lower than the 85th percentile speed are ignored by many
drivers and difficult to enforced

In most instances, a speed limit based on the 85th percentile reflects
the expectations of the largest proportion of drivers; is found by most
to be

a safe and comfortable limit; facilitates speed enforcement; and offers
the greatest chance of achieving some uniformity in speeds on a given
road. When motorists drive at a relatively uniform speed, tailgating,
lane changing, and overtaking are reduced. As a result, collisions are
less likely to occur.

Those who drive much faster or slower than most of the drivers around
them place themselves and others at considerable risk of a collision.
When the posted limit is reasonable, enforcement can be targeted to the
relatively small percentage that exceeds the speed limit.

-------------------------

BTW: Today's article on revenue based traffic ticketing:

----------------------------
http://www.chicagotribune.com/classi...=1&cset=tru e

Road-trippers face added risk of ticket

Published May 7, 2007

Drivers traveling out of state might want to pay extra-close attention to
their speed to avoid getting a ticket in towns where voters recently
rejected proposals to increase property taxes.

<...>

The farther a driver lives from the courthouse where the ticket could be
challenged, the more likely it is that a ticket will be issued, the study
found. Also, the fines will probably be higher.

And drivers have a 28 percent higher chance of being fined when stopped
in municipalities where voters rejected property tax increases, the study
found. The amount of the fine is also likely to be higher when voters
defeated a tax referendum.

"The police are almost exclusively writing higher numbers of tickets to
out-of-town drivers in the year a referendum proposal fails. It's an
interesting way to export the tax to non-voters," said Michael Makowsky,
a PhD candidate in economics at George Mason University who conducted the
study with economics professor Thomas Stratmann.

<...>

"The data showed us that while it is the job of police officers to issue
tickets to violators, police also respond to incentives that are put out
there by their supervisors as well as by the elected officials responding
to economic issues in their communities," Makowsky said.

<...>

Police are less likely to write tickets in cities that depend on tourism
revenue, the study found. "In towns that want people to eat in their
restaurants and stay in their hotels, the police departments issue fewer
tickets," Makowsky said.

<...>

-----------------------------------

I expect none of it to be read and the usual spew to be issued in response.

(Brent P) wrote in
:

<huge snip>

OK, Brent, I'll play along. Exactly what is your point in 50 words or
less?

In article >, Joe wrote:
> (Brent P) wrote in
> :
>
><huge snip>
>
> OK, Brent, I'll play along. Exactly what is your point in 50 words or
> less?

Initially? That defining reasonable, normal, and safe behavior illegal has
negative consquences. One of those negative consquences with regard to
under posted speed limits is dangerous police chases that can result in
death or injury.

"Brent P" > wrote in message
. ..
> In article >, dwight wrote:
>> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> In article >, dwight wrote:
>>>
>>> Everything I have brought up is reality.
>>
>> And yet... YET... the sign still says 55.
>>
>> How is that possible?
>
> The sign doesn't reflect the reality of the road. The actual speed data
> does.
>
> This is why you should actually read the cites, they would do a great
> deal to clear up your questions.
>
> I expect none of it to be read and the usual spew to be issued in
> response.

I read all of it, and I repeat - yet again - that I am not arguing against
change. The ONLY point that I've ever made was that what you and I call
reality are wildly divergent.

I see the sign that says 55, I see the police pulling over seemingly random
speeders, and I see that as the reality.

You pull out all kinds of links to show that all of this is merely revenue
enhancement or links to show how the world SHOULD be, but that is not the
reality that I see with my own two little beady eyes.

I see the sign that says 55. That is my reality.

dwight

"Brent P" > wrote in message
. ..
> In article >, Joe wrote:
>> (Brent P) wrote in
>> :
>>
>><huge snip>
>>
>> OK, Brent, I'll play along. Exactly what is your point in 50 words or
>> less?
>
> Initially? That defining reasonable, normal, and safe behavior illegal has
> negative consquences. One of those negative consquences with regard to
> under posted speed limits is dangerous police chases that can result in
> death or injury.

The kid was doing 73 in a 55 zone. On a dark night.

Let's say, for argument, that the speed limit along that stretch was raised
to 70. My money says that this kid would THEN be doing 83, that the police
STILL would have attempted to pull him over, and the he STILL would have
taken off.

Your argument is moot, if only the numbers are changed. I repeat, speed was
not the mitigating factor here. Reckless driving, reckless endangerment of
those around him, compounded by his idiotic choices once the police lights
went on, all of these things made him a prime target for negative attention
by the authorities. Not purely his speed.

dwight

In article >, dwight wrote:

>> I expect none of it to be read and the usual spew to be issued in
>> response.

> I read all of it, and I repeat - yet again - that I am not arguing against
> change. The ONLY point that I've ever made was that what you and I call
> reality are wildly divergent.
>
> I see the sign that says 55, I see the police pulling over seemingly random
> speeders, and I see that as the reality.
>
> You pull out all kinds of links to show that all of this is merely revenue
> enhancement or links to show how the world SHOULD be, but that is not the
> reality that I see with my own two little beady eyes.

> I see the sign that says 55. That is my reality.
Some people like being ruled, others resign themselves to it. Slavery
isn't much different. Some slaves like being a slave, others resign
themselves to it. Those of these two mentalities often have negative
reactions to someone in the same situation but doesn't just accept his
lot in life.

What it comes down to is you don't like someone being uppity and saying
the emperor has no clothes.

It is this basic mentality goes way beyond speed limits. It goes into the
nature of government and wether or not a people remain free. Once you
start accepting rule outside the law, the rule of force, rule by color of
law, by doomsmen, freedom's days are numbered.

Where else do you just accept this rule by color of law? I am sure it
doesn't start or stop with driving related things.

Would you just shrug your shoulders and go off to fight and die in an
illegal war too?