Two kinds of idiots

In article >, Joe wrote:
> (Brent P) wrote in news:F_adnZhhB-
> :
>
>> In article >, RichA
> wrote:
>>
>>> I would personally like them to do this; Raise speed limits on
>>> highways to 80mph, with the admonition that anyone caught going
>>> over that limit would be fined far more heavily than they are now.
>>
>> That would be excellent. But the problem is, it would mean enforcing
>> speed limits for safety instead of profit. Enforcing for safety
> costs
>> money, enforcing for profit makes money.
>
> Another newsflash: There aren't enough cops to enforce the speed
> limit, whether it's for money or safety. There will _always_ be more
> speeders and wreckless drivers than police to catch them.

Make a speeding conviction a prison sentance and there won't need to be.

There are very few truely reckless drivers. There are lots of wreckless
drivers. Note the difference. Why you'd want punish drivers for not
having wrecks, I have no idea.

In article >, Joe wrote:
> (Brent P) wrote in
> :
>
>> In article >, Joe
>> wrote:
>>
>>> You're simply wrong. The single reason is the law. Go above the
>>> limit and risk getting a ticket with points.
>>
>> Drive the limit or below and become suspicious for driving too
>> slowly.
>
> Like I already posted, if it's a risk to drive the limit because
> everyone else is driving 10mph above, then by all means go with the
> flow. But also realize that you could be singled out and given a
> ticket with points. It's your choice.

You don't seem to understand the problem wrt liberty here. You can choose
to disobey the law and be a violator. Or you chould choose to obey the
law and be a suspected criminal. I find it remarkable that this catch 22
is perfectly acceptable to you. I suppose that's because you've never
been pulled over when you haven't violated any aspect of the vehicle
code. I have, on more than one occasion.

>>> Don't mix apples and oranges. Driving dangerously had nothing to
>>> do with the speed limit.

>> BINGO! Now then we get to the point, speed limits are about MONEY,
>> not safety.

> Speed limits are an effort to prevent idiots from killing themselves
> and others. A lot of them are too low, but nonetheless they're there.

IF that is the case, then they are failing miserably. Time to try something
else. Or make the punishment considerably more harsh. If it was about
safety, the fine shouldn't be so low. It should be high enough that it
would be worth fighiting a speeding ticket.

In article > , Joe wrote:

>> and worse "nanny state" every year, they are MISSING something.
>> -Rich

> So either fix it or move to a better place. Whining about it doesn't
> accomplish a thing, except waste Brent's precious bandwidth.

The more people that understand the problem, the better chance we have at
avoiding tyranny. Sadly, too many are incapable of understanding what is
going on. They won't care until the state comes for them, then it will be
too late.

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article >, Joe
> wrote:
>> (Brent P) wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> In article >, Joe
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You're simply wrong. The single reason is the law. Go above the
>>>> limit and risk getting a ticket with points.
>>>
>>> Drive the limit or below and become suspicious for driving too
>>> slowly.
>>
>> Like I already posted, if it's a risk to drive the limit because
>> everyone else is driving 10mph above, then by all means go with the
>> flow. But also realize that you could be singled out and given a
>> ticket with points. It's your choice.
>
> You don't seem to understand the problem wrt liberty here. You can
> choose to disobey the law and be a violator. Or you chould choose to
> obey the law and be a suspected criminal.

Brent, has anybody told you that you're paranoid?

> I find it remarkable that
> this catch 22 is perfectly acceptable to you.

It's only a catch-22 to you.

> I suppose that's
> because you've never been pulled over when you haven't violated any
> aspect of the vehicle code. I have, on more than one occasion.

It's all part of living in a country with laws. Sounds like you need
to be on your own desert island.

>>>> Don't mix apples and oranges. Driving dangerously had nothing to
>>>> do with the speed limit.
>
>>> BINGO! Now then we get to the point, speed limits are about
>>> MONEY, not safety.
>
>> Speed limits are an effort to prevent idiots from killing
>> themselves and others. A lot of them are too low, but nonetheless
>> they're there.
>
> IF that is the case, then they are failing miserably. Time to try
> something else.

Consider how things would be if they didn't exist.

> Or make the punishment considerably more harsh. If
> it was about safety, the fine shouldn't be so low. It should be high
> enough that it would be worth fighiting a speeding ticket.

I don't know what it's like where you are, but you're well into three
figures and possibly four if you're speeding far above the posted
limit on a highway, not to mention points. Forget it if you get
nabbed for racing.

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article >, Joe
> wrote:
>> (Brent P) wrote in
>> news:F_adnZhhB- :
>>
>>> In article >, RichA
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I would personally like them to do this; Raise speed limits on
>>>> highways to 80mph, with the admonition that anyone caught going
>>>> over that limit would be fined far more heavily than they are
>>>> now.
>>>
>>> That would be excellent. But the problem is, it would mean
>>> enforcing speed limits for safety instead of profit. Enforcing for
>>> safety
>> costs
>>> money, enforcing for profit makes money.
>>
>> Another newsflash: There aren't enough cops to enforce the speed
>> limit, whether it's for money or safety. There will _always_ be
>> more speeders and wreckless drivers than police to catch them.
>
> Make a speeding conviction a prison sentance and there won't need to
> be.

Brent, you need to make up your mind. First, you say you're against
the laws. Now you want to send speeders to jail. Schizo or what?

> There are very few truely reckless drivers. There are lots of
> wreckless drivers. Note the difference. Why you'd want punish
> drivers for not having wrecks, I have no idea.

In addition to being schizo, now you're not even making sense.

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article >, Joe
> wrote:
>> I agree. Every day I commute to work and back, I see at least
>> several nut jobs weaving in and out of traffic (mostly in wannabe
>> ricemobiles) doing 15-20mph above what everybody else is doing.
>
> But joan claybrook et al believe that forcing faster traffic to
> weave through was -safer- because it made them go slower.
>
> I don't believe that, but that's the tennet of lane blocking in the
> speed kills religion.
>
>> The bottom line though, is that I really don't care anymore what
>> the speed limit is. Unless I'm speeding to blend in with everybody
>> else, I'll obey it simply because I don't want any points. And so
>> what if I get to my destination 10 minutes later? It certainly
>> isn't going to kill me...
>
> See the following chart:
>
> http://www.fhwa.dot.gov//////tfhrc/s...mages/fig1.gif
> http://www.sha.state.md.us/images/85thchart.gif
>
> I like to base my risk assement on actual data than warm fuzzy
> feelings.

I like to base my risk assesment on actual experience rather than old
charts off a website.

> I've experimented with various travel speeds and concluded that this
> chart matches well with my experience. I've nearly been killed on
> more than one occasion because I was following the speed limit that
> was severely underposted. Our lady of blessed acceleration is what
> saved me.

So take the bus.

Glad you finally get it.


(Brent P) wrote in
:

>
> That explains a lot.
>
>
>
>
> In article >, Joe
wrote:
>> (Brent P) wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>
>>> You don't seem to understand how things work.
>>
>> I understand very well how things work. What you don't seem to
>> understand is how things _don't_ work.
>>
>>> You don't care.
>>
>> Bingo! Give the man a cigar.
>>
>> After all, it's only USENET.
>>
>>> It's
>>> all about your ease of doing things, just like most top posters.
>>> Just push the work on other people.
>>
>> Dude, if you had read, you'd have seen that I top post to other
>> people's top posting. I bottom post to other people's bottom
posts.
>> I'm flexible.
>>
>>> And it seems you have a inability to read and pay attention.
>>
>> It seems that way because _you_ aren't reading and paying
attention.
>>
>>> I start
>>> top posting in threads about top posting. Because it's the best
way
>>> to demonstrate my points.
>>
>> LOL! Whatever. As you said above, I really don't give a rat's
ass.
>

That explains a lot.




In article >, Joe wrote:
> (Brent P) wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> You don't seem to understand how things work.
>
> I understand very well how things work. What you don't seem to
> understand is how things _don't_ work.
>
>> You don't care.
>
> Bingo! Give the man a cigar.
>
> After all, it's only USENET.
>
>> It's
>> all about your ease of doing things, just like most top posters.
>> Just push the work on other people.
>
> Dude, if you had read, you'd have seen that I top post to other
> people's top posting. I bottom post to other people's bottom posts.
> I'm flexible.
>
>> And it seems you have a inability to read and pay attention.
>
> It seems that way because _you_ aren't reading and paying attention.
>
>> I start
>> top posting in threads about top posting. Because it's the best way
>> to demonstrate my points.
>
> LOL! Whatever. As you said above, I really don't give a rat's ass.

In article >, Joe wrote:
> (Brent P) wrote in
> :
>
>> In article .net>,
>> SVTKate wrote:
>>>
>>> "Brent P" > wrote
>>>|
>>>| I even know that as an adult I cannot legally ride a bicycle on
>>>| the sidewalk. Numerous driver's insist on it however. The law
>>>| states to use the road and ride by the letter of the IL vehicle
>>>| code.
>>>|
>>>
>>> When was the last time you tried to ride a bike on the street?
>>
>> The day before it got cold again. Tuesday.
>>
>>> We bought dirt bikes several years ago, decided to ride along the
>>> canals. The sheriff's department kicked us off. A couple of old
>>> folks, riding biked for exercise.
>>> The streets were't safe, so we sold the damn bikes and said
>>> ta-hell-with-it.
>>
>>> Out here in Tennessee, there is no f-ing way I would try to ride a
>>> bike on the road. These people drive like idiots.
>>> Even worse than California.
>>
>> I don't give in so easily. I also am capable of out performing most
>> drivers in city/suburban traffic. In other words, the cars in front
>> of me slow me down. Drivers may pass me mid-block, but I will
>> usually stay on the same light cycle as them for miles on end.
>
> This speaks volumes about you, Brent. You equate giving in to being
> outperformed on the street.

You have trouble with the english language that's for sure. There is no
statement of equilvence there. There are two separate statements. The
separation of these statements is made clear with the word 'also'. In
addition to, not equal to. I don't give in so easily in that I don't
quit riding because of other people. But that's easier for me because I
_also_ out perform most drivers when I am using a _bicycle_.

You don't seem to grasp that, I'm on a bicycle, they are in their cars. I
can turn and accelerate better on a _bicycle_ than they do with their
cars. You know what a bicycle is right? A two wheeled, human propelled
vehicle. What do you think I put out? a 1/4 hp?

> One more newsflash: Laws exist to protect most people from the likes
> of you. Given your attitude you portray in here, you're downright
> dangerous on the street.

Oh yeah... my 35mph top speed on bicycle is such a threat. I'll wager I
commit fewer moving violations than you do. I am not talking being
caught, but actual moving violations. See, I pay a great deal of
attention to that other part of the vehicle code that doesn't have to do
with speed. I even signal turns and lane changes when using a bicycle.

In article >, Joe wrote:
> (Brent P) wrote in
> :
>
>> In article >, Joe
>> wrote:
>>> (Brent P) wrote in
>>
>>>> So all laws are good and need to be obeyed because their laws eh?
>>
>>> Some laws suck, but they're still laws. You have a choice. Either
>>> obey them or risk the consequences.
>>
>> Considerable difference from the law is the law mantra.
>
> Esoteric bull****.

Either you are demanding obedence to all laws or just obeying ones we
feel like and dealing with the consquences. These are two very different
things. One is just blind obedence, the other indicates that acts of
protest etc are quite possible. And that's just a start.

>>>> Did your grandfather drink during prohibition? Would you?
>>
>>> I honestly don't know and don't care. It's not an issue.
>>
>> Prohibitionists still exist, and they are still out there trying to
>> tell other people what they may consume. Drug prohibition has never
>> ended. Or maybe you don't care because you don't drink or do drugs.
>> It doesn't bother you when the thing that is banned is something you
>> don't have. They aren't coming for you today.

> You sound like a '70s rebel without a cause.

Once again you go for the low road of character attack. There are lots of
things I don't do that I am willing to fight for the right of people to
choose to do them or not do them. Because I believe in liberty. Rather
than your self centered view of not worrying about something until it
impacts you personally.

I haven't had a local government try to take my property to give to a
developer yet. However I still oppose the practice. I'll never do any
kind of drugs, but I oppose telling other people what substances they may
or may not consume. I'll never carry around $10,000 in cash, but I'll
fight for people's right to do so if they wish, without the government
being able to take it on mere suspicion of illegal activity.

>>> So what's your point?

>> My point is obvious for anyone with the intelligence of the average
>> house cat. There are so many laws that they are selectively enforced
>> and nobody can get through the day without breaking them.

> I'll repeat: So what the hell are you whining about? Either work to
> change those laws or break them. Whining and not doing anything is
> just plain whining. You sound like a freakin' kid who can't get his
> way.

You don't want to read my posts, you can simply kill file me. It's really
easy in most news-readers these days. However, I will choose to get the
word out any way I can as to what is occuring. I'll try to fill that void
of people not being taught what liberty really is. Something missing in
your education from your posts. Your character attack on me contains a
great deal of projection about yourself. You don't care unless it effects
you directly. You think I am paranoid nut for caring about the liberty of
others being impacted. I can only wish that someday, that it does effect
you, then you might understand my point.

>>> Here's the deal that you and a lot of others are missing: If you
>>> don't like laws and insist on breaking them, go right ahead and
>>> take the risk that comes with it. And since you're doing your own
>>> thing, don't whine about the fact that the laws exist - you're
>>> ignoring them anyway. You've got no basis for complaining.

>> I hope someone starts punishing you for every law you break
>> everyday. Including the ones you don't know about. Then, maybe,
>> you'll grow a bit of a clue.

> Dude, you really need to wake up.

I am awake. It is you that is asleep. Nice fat, sleepy sheeple.