Just think how smooth freeway driving would be if the SL was 55 and strictly enforced

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 20:11:27 GMT, Alan Baker >
wrote:

>In article >,
> laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE > wrote:
>
>> If it was 55 then practically no one would do less than that and if
>> speeding got you some jail time and a DL suspension then no one would
>> do more. It would be highway heaven with everyone driving the same
>> speed. No jams and no crashes.
>
>And why wouldn't that work just as well at 80 mph?


well, some of the leftists can't afford cars that go faster than 55
MPH.

--

Steve

nevermore wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 20:11:27 GMT, Alan Baker >
> wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE > wrote:
> >
> >> If it was 55 then practically no one would do less than that and if
> >> speeding got you some jail time and a DL suspension then no one would
> >> do more. It would be highway heaven with everyone driving the same
> >> speed. No jams and no crashes.
> >
> >And why wouldn't that work just as well at 80 mph?
>
>
> well, some of the leftists can't afford cars that go faster than 55
> MPH.

Odd, that - I've bought cars for less than $2K that could easily and
safely travel at super-legal speeds... I think I paid something like
$1200 for my '84 GTI and $900 (plus a new halfshaft) for the Scirocco
that replaced it.

nate

Alan Baker wrote:
> In article >,
> laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE > wrote:
>
> > If it was 55 then practically no one would do less than that and if
> > speeding got you some jail time and a DL suspension then no one would
> > do more. It would be highway heaven with everyone driving the same
> > speed. No jams and no crashes.
>
> And why wouldn't that work just as well at 80 mph?

Because those doing 50 -60 now would still be doing that and you're
back to the problems of different speeds.

N8N wrote:
>
> Odd, that - I've bought cars for less than $2K that could easily and
> safely travel at super-legal speeds...

So you say. And no doubt you also claim you drive safely with a BAC of
..3. All criminals think laws shouldn't apply to them.

In article .com>,
"Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" > wrote:

> Alan Baker wrote:
> > In article >,
> > laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE > wrote:
> >
> > > If it was 55 then practically no one would do less than that and if
> > > speeding got you some jail time and a DL suspension then no one would
> > > do more. It would be highway heaven with everyone driving the same
> > > speed. No jams and no crashes.
> >
> > And why wouldn't that work just as well at 80 mph?
>
> Because those doing 50 -60 now would still be doing that and you're
> back to the problems of different speeds.

Who's doing 50 - 60 now? Almost nobody, that's who.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

On 29 Nov 2005 14:41:00 -0800, "N8N" > wrote:

>
>nevermore wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 20:11:27 GMT, Alan Baker >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article >,
>> > laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE > wrote:
>> >
>> >> If it was 55 then practically no one would do less than that and if
>> >> speeding got you some jail time and a DL suspension then no one would
>> >> do more. It would be highway heaven with everyone driving the same
>> >> speed. No jams and no crashes.
>> >
>> >And why wouldn't that work just as well at 80 mph?
>>
>>
>> well, some of the leftists can't afford cars that go faster than 55
>> MPH.
>
>Odd, that - I've bought cars for less than $2K that could easily and
>safely travel at super-legal speeds... I think I paid something like
>$1200 for my '84 GTI and $900 (plus a new halfshaft) for the Scirocco
>that replaced it.
>
>nate

Well, I did say "some" of you..... But really, would "super-legal
speeds" really be safe in those bumper-draggers?


--

Steve

Laura Bush murdered her boy friend, > was motivated
to relax its anal sphincter and spew forth the following all over
rec.autos.driving on 29 Nov 2005 18:28:06 -0800:

> So you say. And no doubt you also claim you drive safely with a BAC of
> .3. All criminals think laws shouldn't apply to them.

So you say. And no doubt you claim that you drive safely through
schoolzones at 16MPH over the limit.

Hey, Hey, P-O-A!
How many kids did you kill today?


--
--
"> Have you ever driven a car faster than the legal speed limit?

Yes, but never deliberately. In fact i got a speeding ticket about 5
years ago for doing 41 in a 25. I just about kicked the cops teeth in
cause i was sure he was lying. No way the SL on this wide open
stretch could be 25, i thought."

Pride of America (c.k.a. "laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMOCIDE), 10/3/2002
Message-ID: >
http://tinyurl.com/5u4wg

Connecting POA to LBMHB/lbVH:
See the following: http://tinyurl.com/ahphj

laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:
> If it was 55 then practically no one would do less than that and if
> speeding got you some jail time and a DL suspension then no one would
> do more. It would be highway heaven with everyone driving the same
> speed. No jams and no crashes.

You'd have MORE traffic jams because you'd have more cars on the
freeway at any one time.

Traffic jams are cause by traffic load, nothing more, nothing less. A
freeway can accomodate a certain number of cars at any one time.
Almost literally 1 more car than that load, and you get the accordion
effect.

But don't let facts get in your way.

On 1 Dec 2005 06:09:03 -0800, "Larry Bud" >
wrote:

>
>laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:
>> If it was 55 then practically no one would do less than that and if
>> speeding got you some jail time and a DL suspension then no one would
>> do more. It would be highway heaven with everyone driving the same
>> speed. No jams and no crashes.
>
>You'd have MORE traffic jams because you'd have more cars on the
>freeway at any one time.
>
>Traffic jams are cause by traffic load, nothing more, nothing less. A
>freeway can accomodate a certain number of cars at any one time.
>Almost literally 1 more car than that load, and you get the accordion
>effect.
>
>But don't let facts get in your way.

So based on what you said, why not force people to do NO LESS than 100
mph on the highway? Then the chance of wrecks and traffic jams would
be near zero, right?

Are you also one of those people I hear saying that selt belts cut
people's heads off in high speed crashes?

Do you also believe in the "thrown clear" theory that it's better to
not wear a seatbelt so you can be "thrown clear" and avoid injury?

I've heard people say this is why I ask.

************************************
http://www.dubyareport.net/
New and Improved...No More Sillyness

On 1 Dec 2005 06:09:03 -0800, "Larry Bud" >
wrote:

>
>laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:
>> If it was 55 then practically no one would do less than that and if
>> speeding got you some jail time and a DL suspension then no one would
>> do more. It would be highway heaven with everyone driving the same
>> speed. No jams and no crashes.
>
>You'd have MORE traffic jams because you'd have more cars on the
>freeway at any one time.
>
>Traffic jams are cause by traffic load, nothing more, nothing less.

Now that's really stupid, even for you. So if a semi jacknifes on any
icy road, that won't cause a jam???????????????????????