More power to the police in high speed pursuit

"Spike" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 06 May 2007 15:26:52 -0500,
> (Brent P) wrote:

>>
> Sometimes it's nice to get into these discussions with you, but in the
> end, it becomes boring because you are right and the rest of the world
> is wrong. EVERY society needs structure and controls. Even the most
> basic society in the Amazon jungle has them.

BUT they do not get involved with how fast their members travel through the
jungle, for safety or any other thinly veiled reasons...

You are comparing apples to oranges. A primitive society in the Amazon is
not top heavy with a bunch of useless leaches, who waste their time and the
rest of their people's time with a bunch of useless meaningless "laws" with
at best "revenue generation" as their only reason for existence..

If you want to argue against a sound position, you might do well to
disengage your nose from that idiots (has he finally tired of all his
private lap dogs and their brown noses? Has his narcissistic need to bully
others finely driven him back from his drunken self indulgent stupor? I
guess everyone eventually does grow tired of his pathetic flapping around
attempting to flex his nonexistent intellectual prowess. Well that did last
longer than I expected) nether region and actually respond to the "opposing
position".

You may want to start here. "A Study for the Selection of Maximum Speed
Limits." October 1970. Four (4) volumes, prepared for the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S. Dept. of Transportation, by the
Indiana University's Institute for Research in Public Safety. IRPS report
number FH-11-7275; Volume II is also federally numbered as PB 197 374, and
DOD HS-800 379.

Did you actually have an argument for artificially low speed limits with
only 2 reasons for existence, revenue generation, and the opportunity for a
otherwise nonexistent excuse to stop citizens that would otherwise be
"unstoppable"? Because your 3 year old granddaughter aside, nothing you
have presented in you opposing posts has even actually addressed the topic
"ARTIFICIALLY LOW SPEED LIMITS" directly..


It's what makes it
> possible to get along with their neighbors. But you want no
> restrictions placed on anything which involves you. It's all about
> "you". I have a 3 year old granddaughter who is the same way. She even
> resorts to the same kind of response as the one you just gave (above).
> At 3 she knows it all and is smarter than everyone else. I think the
> difference is that she will grow up and see reality.

"Spike" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 06 May 2007 16:33:40 -0500,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>In article >, Spike wrote:
>>
>>> Sometimes it's nice to get into these discussions with you, but in the
>>> end, it becomes boring because you are right and the rest of the world
>>> is wrong.
>>
>>Strawman.
>>
>>> EVERY society needs structure and controls. Even the most
>>> basic society in the Amazon jungle has them. It's what makes it
>>> possible to get along with their neighbors.
>>
>>Strawman.
>>
>>> But you want no
>>> restrictions placed on anything which involves you.
>>
>>Strawman.
>>
>>> It's all about
>>> "you". I have a 3 year old granddaughter who is the same way. She even
>>> resorts to the same kind of response as the one you just gave (above).
>>> At 3 she knows it all and is smarter than everyone else. I think the
>>> difference is that she will grow up and see reality.
>>
>>Strawman.
>>
>>When you actually understand what I wrote, let me know.
>>
> Nobody understands what you wrote EXCEPT you... although a good shrink
> might be able to interpret your concepts. Might even make something
> out of the fact that your only responses were to repeatedly say
> "strawman". Might as well have said 'neener neener neener'... or like
> the kid on the playground... 'you... you... you... that's what you
> are!'. Considering that the world is not going to change for you, I
> hope the meds work for you.

I understand perfectly what he wrote, and you would too if you took a breath
and read it again.
He wrote about his opposition to artificially low speed limits, (a real live
issue/position based in fact and backed by actual studies, Google it) and
every one of your "opposing replies" has simply not addressed that topic.

Maybe it would serve you well to concentrate more on the actual topic
(again, ARTIFICIALLY LOW SPEED LIMITS) and a little less on the
One-upmanship.

"Spike" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 04 May 2007 20:53:20 GMT, CobraJet > wrote:
>>>
> To respond in a very concise manner.... :0) Good One!
>
> Seems that those who complain most about traffic enforcement are those
> who desire to violate the laws society installs without fear of
> punishment. And the best way to achieve that is to tie the hands of
> those whose job it is to enforce the laws. The same people who will
> scream the loudest when law enforcement doesn't protect them from
> those who would violate those same laws.

You really expect any police to "PROTECT" you from ANYTHING ever? Some are
quite good at investigating, but protecting? Even the US Supreme Court has
ruled that the police are NOT responsible for your "PROTECTION". Boy lets
just hope you are never actually put into a position to learn how misguided
that mistaken belief is...

"Ashton Crusher" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 04 May 2007 14:28:02 -0700, Spike >
> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 19:49:56 -0400, "dwight" >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Let's see if I have this right...
>>>
>>>Police take off after a black Caddy doing 73mph in a 55mph zone, which
>>>leads
>>>to a high speed pursuit in the black Georgia night. The 19 year old yahoo
>>>behind the wheel of the Caddy is obviously of no mind to pull over. After
>>
>>>8-minute chase around any number of other motorists (most of whom had the
>>>good sense to pull over to the side of the road) has to be a serious
>>>crime.
>>>The potential for disaster is all over that video.
>>>
>>>I would have dismissed this case from the start.
>>>
>>>dwight
>>>www.tfrog93.com
>>>
>>
>>First, in this particular case, the suspect was in violation for the
>>initial offense AND for failing to stops, evading, etc, and took the
>>responsibility upon himself. This is much the same as walking into a
>>7/11 with a gun which you don't intend to use, but, because the clerk
>>tries to do something unexpected, the gun goes off and kills the clerk
>>or an innocent bystander.
>>
>>As I see it, as a citizen of this country, one of our problems is that
>>we do not make the "criminal" take full responsibility for their
>>actions.
>
>
>
> I love it. You whine about how we don't make the "criminal"
> responsible for his actions. Fine, make him responsible. Now, how
> about making the COP responsible for HIS actions!! The cop does not
> HAVE to engage in a high speed pursuit. But you want to absolve the
> cop of all responsibility if anyone gets injured as if the cop had no
> choice in the matter. The fact is, just as the criminal makes a choice
> or running or not, the cop makes a choice of pursuing or not. BOTH
> should be held accountable for their actions. But the cops never have
> the balls to take responsibility for their decisions. Time and time
> again the cops whine like the pussy's they are whenever they screw up
> and someone try's to hold them accountable.
>

Can't be done...

A Beaverton police officer cited by photo radar for speeding while on patrol
is fighting her ticket.
http://blog.oregonlive.com/oregonian...a_beavert.html

Or can it?

Judge says speeding Beaverton cop won't get special treatment.
http://www.kgw.com/neighborhood/sout....1f584967.html

I guess we will see...

In article <QD20i.9058$s7.6614@trndny05>, My Name Is Nobody wrote:
<in response to spike>

> You may want to start here. "A Study for the Selection of Maximum Speed
> Limits." October 1970. Four (4) volumes, prepared for the National Highway
> Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S. Dept. of Transportation, by the
> Indiana University's Institute for Research in Public Safety. IRPS report
> number FH-11-7275; Volume II is also federally numbered as PB 197 374, and
> DOD HS-800 379.


He's not going to actually read it. But someone wrote a quick summary
he http://www.dma.org/~ganotedp/irps.htm

But anyway... here's some more sources:

Cirillo, J.A., Interstate System Accident Research Study II Interim
Report II. Public Roads, Vol 35, No 3, August 1969, pp. 71-75.
Federal Highway Administration. Synthesis of Speed Zoning Practice.
Report No. FHwA/RD-85/096. Washington, D.C. July 1985.
Federal Highway Administration. Traffic Speed Trends. Washington, D.C.
1969-1975.
Solomon, D., Accidents on Main Rural Highways Related to Speed, Driver,
and Vehicle. Bureau of Public Roads (precursor to FHwA). July 1964.
Federal Highway Administration. Effects of Raising and Lowering Speed
Limits. Report No. FHwA/RD-92/084. McLean, VA. June 1996.
Tignor, Samuel C. and Warren, Davey. Driver Speed Behavior on U.S.
Streets and Highways. Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1990
Compendium of Technical Papers. Orlando, FL August, 1990.
David L. Harkey, et. al., "Assessment of Current Speed Zoning
Criteria," Transportation Research Record, no. 1281, 1990.

"Spike" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 07 May 2007 15:58:11 -0500,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>In article >, Spike wrote:
>>
>>> Nobody understands what you wrote EXCEPT you...
>>
>>Guess you missed the post where someone else tried to explain it to you.
>>
>>> although a good shrink
>>> might be able to interpret your concepts. Might even make something
>>> out of the fact that your only responses were to repeatedly say
>>> "strawman". Might as well have said 'neener neener neener'... or like
>>> the kid on the playground... 'you... you... you... that's what you
>>> are!'. Considering that the world is not going to change for you, I
>>> hope the meds work for you.
>>
>>When you don't have facts, use insults.
>>
>>It's not my fault that you have the intelligence of a dog and only
>>understand orders, rules, and punishment. Google up 85th percentile
>>method. Google up the MUTCD. These are actually codified into many state
>>laws as requirements to follow. However government often does not follow
>>the
>>law.
>>
>>Silly me, I just want the speed limits to be set by an accepted
>>engineering
>>practice that uses real world data as required by law.
>>
>>You just want people to follow orders. You don't care if those orders
>>make sense, you don't even care if they are lawful, you don't even care
>>if the majority of people refuse to. To you, it's just a question of
>>obedence of authority. Sad.
>>
> Actually, BrentP, I do not care if you follow the rules of society or
> not. That's your choice. What I do care about is all the inncoent
> people who may ride with you, or share the road with you. Those are
> the people who end up suffering due to the arrogance of people like
> you. You think you know more and know better than evceryone else. That
> kind of attitude leads to accidents. While you may avoid the accident,
> it may just be your conduct which causes it. And it's the cops,
> firemen, ambulance crews, etc who have to clean up the mess you may
> have made. But your attitude will probably be, that they should not
> have been allowed on the road... that it is their fault they didn't
> know you were right and they were wrong. And I will feel sorry for
> them, but I will pity you.


DAMN IT!
Never, NEVER question authority!
You risk the safety and lives of all of society by doing so... Moo...

"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, dwight wrote:
>> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> You just want people to follow orders. You don't care if those orders
>>> make sense, you don't even care if they are lawful, you don't even care
>>> if the majority of people refuse to. To you, it's just a question of
>>> obedence of authority. Sad.
>>
>> So many others have tried and failed, maybe it's my turn...
>
>> Once again, you're missing the point. That point being reality.
>
> 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.

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.

>> Preach all you want about how things "should" be (irrelevant to the
>> discussion), but at the end of the day you still come up against reality.
>
> 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".

>> SHOULD speed limits be readdressed? Sure.
>> SHOULD the majority determine what those speeds should be? Not
>> necessarily,
>> but probably better than an arbitrary number.
>> But... oh, there's that reality again.
>
> 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.

>> Speed limits are posted. In paint. Not like a temporary road sign that
>> can
>> change from one minute to the next, but painted.
>> You can look at that big 55 and grumble all day, but it's still going to
>> read 55.
>
> Yet it doesn't reflect the reality of the road. People are driving 75+mph
> day in and day out without issue. And not just some people nearly all of
> them. In fact, the percentage driving that 55mph posted speed limit or
> less is statistically no different from zero in free flowing traffic. Even
> blue haired old ladies are exceeding it with good margin in their buicks.
> Some of them might think it's still 1968 and the speed limit is 75....

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

>> And here's the deal - we all KNOW that it's 55 and a lot of us choose to
>> exceed that limit. A lot of us. Doesn't make it legal, doesn't give me
>> any
>> grounds to contest a speeding ticket if I get one. We know the game, and
>> if
>> we choose to play and lose, that's just too bad.
>
> 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.

>> EVERY CAR ON THE HIGHWAY could be doing 75mph, but if YOU get singled out
>> of
>> the herd and pulled over for speeding, that's on you.
>
> Here's a big hint for you, I am not whining about a speeding ticket.
> Haven't had a speeding ticket in YEARS.

That's fine. At least we got the whining part down.

> 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.

>> Now go back to your preaching. Or make a donation to an organization that
>> aims to change the reality. Better yet, run for public office and see if
>> you
>> can change things yourself. Hell, I'll make a small donation to YOUR
>> campaign.
>
> Here we go again... the 'run for office' routine. Which side of the
> effective single party do you think will take me? What law am I going to
> change exactly? Well I suppose in IL there is that old NMSL speed cap
> law... but that's about all there is. It's already the law that local and
> state governments follow the MUTCD. Most of what I want -already IS law-,
> government simply doesn't follow it. But since apathetic types like you
> won't fight tickets that are illegal under the law, it just stands and
> the system rolls on. They put up red light cameras on intersections with
> underlying problems that don't comply with the MUTCD, shorten the yellow
> timing even further, making the intersection's traffic control devices
> clearly out of compliance with the law that demands the MUTCD be followed
> and you just shrug your shoulders, 'that's the game, law is the law'.

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...

> 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 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.

> http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/04/430.asp
>
>> Me? My driving record is clean and clear. And, no, I don't always adhere
>> to
>> the speed limit. And on those days, years ago, when I DID get a speeding
>> ticket, I didn't complain. I knew the rules, I knew the risks. I lost the
>> game that day.
>
> I AM NOT COMPLAINING ABOUT A SPEEDING TICKET. Are you just clueless? You
> want to play to game. I don't think I should have to choose between my
> safety and being singled out for a ticket. He
> http://www.fhwa.dot.gov//////tfhrc/s...mages/fig1.gif
> http://www.sha.state.md.us/images/85thchart.gif
>
> Notice, those are -government- websites. Even they know that driving a
> couple standard deviations below the mean speed is dangerous, yet it's
> often what one has to do to be legal. And you don't have a problem with
> it.... it's just the game...

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.

>> 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?

> 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.

> 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.

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.

dwight

"Spike" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 7 May 2007 20:03:51 -0400, "dwight" >
> wrote:
>
>>"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> You just want people to follow orders. You don't care if those orders
>>> make sense, you don't even care if they are lawful, you don't even care
>>> if the majority of people refuse to. To you, it's just a question of
>>> obedence of authority. Sad.
>>
>>So many others have tried and failed, maybe it's my turn...
>>
>>Once again, you're missing the point. That point being reality.
>>
>>Preach all you want about how things "should" be (irrelevant to the
>>discussion), but at the end of the day you still come up against reality.
>>
>>SHOULD speed limits be readdressed? Sure.
>>SHOULD the majority determine what those speeds should be? Not
>>necessarily,
>>but probably better than an arbitrary number.
>>
>>But... oh, there's that reality again.
>>
>>Speed limits are posted. In paint. Not like a temporary road sign that can
>>change from one minute to the next, but painted.
>>
>>You can look at that big 55 and grumble all day, but it's still going to
>>read 55.
>>
>>And here's the deal - we all KNOW that it's 55 and a lot of us choose to
>>exceed that limit. A lot of us. Doesn't make it legal, doesn't give me any
>>grounds to contest a speeding ticket if I get one. We know the game, and
>>if
>>we choose to play and lose, that's just too bad.
>>
>>EVERY CAR ON THE HIGHWAY could be doing 75mph, but if YOU get singled out
>>of
>>the herd and pulled over for speeding, that's on you.
>>
>>Now go back to your preaching. Or make a donation to an organization that
>>aims to change the reality. Better yet, run for public office and see if
>>you
>>can change things yourself. Hell, I'll make a small donation to YOUR
>>campaign.
>>
>>Me? My driving record is clean and clear. And, no, I don't always adhere
>>to
>>the speed limit. And on those days, years ago, when I DID get a speeding
>>ticket, I didn't complain. I knew the rules, I knew the risks. I lost the
>>game that day.
>>
>>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.
>>
>>dwight
>>
> Well put Dwight. Proably won't do any good, but a good try.

Wow.

You got THAT right. Actually quite impressive...

dwight

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.

>> 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.

>> 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.

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

Yep, preaching apathy.

>> 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.

>> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

>> 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.

>>> 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.

>> 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.

>> 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.

On Tue, 08 May 2007 20:25:12 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

>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.
>
SNIP
>
>> 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.
>

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.

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.

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.