$4 gas is here yet idiot americans still oppose lower speed limits

In article >, B1ackwater wrote:

> We went through all this crap in the 70s ... and everybody
> found every possible way to drive *95* instead of the 75
> they HAD been driving. Laws THAT unpopular promote massive
> disrespect for the law ... which is worse for the State
> than buying a little extra gas.

Rampant law breaking is good for the health of the state. The state can
then expand, do crack downs, etc. Why do you think the state makes so
many laws that vast number of people aren't going to follow?

"Brent P" > wrote in
message
> In article >,
> B1ackwater wrote:
>
>> We went through all this crap in the 70s ... and
>> everybody found every possible way to drive *95*
>> instead of the 75 they HAD been driving. Laws THAT
>> unpopular promote massive disrespect for the law ...
>> which is worse for the State than buying a little
>> extra gas.
>
> Rampant law breaking is good for the health of the state.
> The state can then expand, do crack downs, etc. Why do
> you think the state makes so many laws that vast number
> of people aren't going to follow?

It's called a police state where at any given time you are always breaking
one law or another. Speed limits are the most obvious example when all that
is needed is a trap to catch the violators that are known to exist all of
the time. The same with drug dealing. The police know who and where they are
but claim the system is on overload and they have better things to do.

Studemania wrote:

> Please correct grammer and repost.

Please correct spelling and repost.

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:10:28 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

>In article >, B1ackwater wrote:
>
>> We went through all this crap in the 70s ... and everybody
>> found every possible way to drive *95* instead of the 75
>> they HAD been driving. Laws THAT unpopular promote massive
>> disrespect for the law ... which is worse for the State
>> than buying a little extra gas.
>
>Rampant law breaking is good for the health of the state. The state can
>then expand, do crack downs, etc. Why do you think the state makes so
>many laws that vast number of people aren't going to follow?

They're following Ayn Rands advice (or Ayn spotted their plan,
depending). It is vital that the State make sure that EVERYBODY
is a criminal - or at least THINKS they might be - because the
system has little leverage over the innocent. PLENTY of leverage
over the paranoid and guilty-feeling however.

All those laws millions will never follow - they ARE meant to
be broken. It IS the plan.

However ... there's ONE instance where this sort of thinking can
backfire on the State - and that's when lawbreaking becomes a sort
of mass sport or crusade. When the feeling is that "everyone is
doing it" and you're "sticking it to The Man" the equation changes
into something BAD for the State. The lawbreakers think of
themselves as "heros".

This happened with the Prohibition and also with the 55 MPH
speed limit. Odd as it seems "Smokey and the Bandit" was the
death-knell for "Drive 55" - the widely-embraced cultural
event that focused people on the same idea ... that cheating
the speed limit made you a heroic figure - and a martyr if
caught.

It sort-of happened in the 1960s with "drugs" but there was
never quite enough sense of communal revolution or number of
people involved.

Anyway, as such, THIS particular sort of law HURTS the State
and undermines its authority. They'd be insane to bring back
55 MPH limits.

In article >, B1ackwater wrote:

> This happened with the Prohibition and also with the 55 MPH
> speed limit. Odd as it seems "Smokey and the Bandit" was the
> death-knell for "Drive 55" - the widely-embraced cultural
> event that focused people on the same idea ... that cheating
> the speed limit made you a heroic figure - and a martyr if
> caught.

Yes. The NMSL and the rest of the underposted speed limits are the
reason so much of the vehicle code is ignored by so many today.
Unreasonable laws can backfire and cause people not to follow the ones
that are reasonable. But instead of the state backing off and trying to
restore respect for the law by making the law respectable it decides to
add red light camera scams with shortened yellow signals and other
nonsense.

> It sort-of happened in the 1960s with "drugs" but there was
> never quite enough sense of communal revolution or number of
> people involved.

Drugs are always going to be used by a minority of people. Of those who
don't use them only a few will stand up for the right of other people to
use them.

> Anyway, as such, THIS particular sort of law HURTS the State
> and undermines its authority. They'd be insane to bring back
> 55 MPH limits.

Considering I am in a state where 55/65 NMSL never went away, I don't
see it quite that way. More and more however the authority is coming
from the barrel of a gun. It always did, but with the loss of rights,
the expense of court cases, charging someone with 15 different counts
for even the smallest single violation, and the various physical
tortures such as tasering the state is no longer relying on people's
respect, only their fear. This is an era of fear based enforcement
rather than respect based compliance.

Smirnoff wrote:
> "Steven L." > wrote in message
> m
>> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
>>> Not only would lower speeds save money by giving better
>>> gas mileage, but crash rates on highways would drop too
>>> meaning lower insurance and taxes.
>> That wouldn't be much help here in Massachusetts.
>>
>> During the rush hour, it's so bumper-to-bumper that
>> nobody can drive anywhere close to the speed limit
>> anyway. I'm lucky if I can hit 40 mph. It's stop-and-go
>> traffic on bumper-to-bumper congested roads that really
>> lowers your mileage.
>> And from what I've heard, the highways in L.A. are even
>> more crowded.
> All highways in Mass and the N.E. states are the same from one state to
> another. Going to work early can take 20 minutes while the drive home can
> take well over an hour. Mandating slower speeds is ridiculous. Money should
> be spent on better roads and bridges than on wars for lies which caused the
> higher oil prices.

It's not as easy to build new roads as you think. The area is so
overbuilt and congested that new construction ends up being fiercely
opposed by local residents. And construction above ground is virtually
impossible during the winter snows.

The Big Dig to depress I-93 ran about 500% over budget and took about 3
times longer to complete than anyone had originally planned. Even just
widening Route 3 north of Boston from 2 lanes to 3 lanes took two years.

Route 128 has been vastly overcrowded for decades, but there's just no
place to build another highway in that area--the real estate is all
built up.


--
Steven L.
Email:
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Stanley F. Nelson wrote:
> Too many America drivers (and Americans) are simply spoiled rotten.
> They want to do (and are going to do) what they want to do, the way they
> want to do it,

How about "they *have to* do it"???

A lot of folks today are holding down two jobs. Or a mom is holding
down a full time job while she's also driving her young kid back and
forth to the day-care center, and her older kids back and forth to
school or sports.

Americans are working harder; surveys show we work longer hours than any
Europeans do. And so nobody wants to spend any more time behind the
wheel of a car than necessary--there's just too many other things on the
agenda to take care of.


--
Steven L.
Email:
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

In article > ,
"Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" > wrote:

> Not only would lower speeds save money by giving better gas mileage...


Tried it, didn't work.

Too bad leftards are too stupid to learn from experience, but that's
what makes them leftards.


Snicker.

In article >,
dgs > wrote:

> Studemania wrote:
>
> > Please correct grammer and repost.
>
> Please correct spelling and repost.


LOL!!!

In article >,
(Brent P) wrote:

> In article >, Stanley F. Nelson
> wrote:
> >Too many America drivers (and Americans) are simply spoiled rotten. They
> >want to do (and are going to do) what they want to do, the way they want to
> >do it, when they want to do it, and any thought, any fact, any suggestion,
> >to the contrary, is likely to be ignored if not insulted and rejected. A
> >speed of 65 mph is sufficient to get anybody any place, safely and in a
> >reasonable length of time; 60 is better for mileage's sake. Cars with
> >optimum horsepower-to-weight ratios are better, too.


> The problem with many DemocRATs is that they are control freaks who
> think everyone should be forced into making the decisons they consider
> best.


There, corrected you post for you.