My DUI Charges Dropped! A Great Argument

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article >, Deadrat
> wrote:
>
>> Maturity is obeying well-founded laws even though you don't like
>> them, and being able to tell the difference between well-founded laws
>> and the others.
>
> Glad we got that straightened out.
>
> Now, what is the objection to people who have gone through the
> research and learned about speed limits, red light cameras, drunk
> driving, and other driving related topics and found that the laws are
> not well-founded?

I don't have any objection to such people.

> When someone mentions the pile of research and engineering best
> practices that show the law is not well-founded, the response has been
> 'you just want to go as fast as you want, you immature child. Obey the
> law. the law is the law, obey it.' No matter how much further
> explaination there is, the response remains the same.

As Richard Feynman used to say, "Why do you care what other people think?"

Well founded is in the eye of the finder. Take drunk driving. I'm aware
of no research that says it's safer to drive with alcohol in your system
than without. I imagine there are differing opinions on the "best" limit
for BAC. You get to voice yours, lobby for yours, vote for the legislator
who supports yours (or if there is none, to run for office yourself). Then
you obey the law enacted.

If you can't see the difference between a law setting BAC limits and say, a
law that forbids you to complain about those limits, then I don't think I
can help you.

In article >, Deadrat wrote:
> (Brent P) wrote in
> :
>
>> In article >, Deadrat
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Maturity is obeying well-founded laws even though you don't like
>>> them, and being able to tell the difference between well-founded laws
>>> and the others.
>>
>> Glad we got that straightened out.
>>
>> Now, what is the objection to people who have gone through the
>> research and learned about speed limits, red light cameras, drunk
>> driving, and other driving related topics and found that the laws are
>> not well-founded?
>
> I don't have any objection to such people.

Good...

>> When someone mentions the pile of research and engineering best
>> practices that show the law is not well-founded, the response has been
>> 'you just want to go as fast as you want, you immature child. Obey the
>> law. the law is the law, obey it.' No matter how much further
>> explaination there is, the response remains the same.

> As Richard Feynman used to say, "Why do you care what other people think?"

Hence why many are killed filed.

> Well founded is in the eye of the finder. Take drunk driving. I'm aware
> of no research that says it's safer to drive with alcohol in your system
> than without. I imagine there are differing opinions on the "best" limit
> for BAC.

There is opinion and then there is real world data. Opinion can be 'one
drop and you can't drive', real world data shows at what BAC drivers
become a danger.

> You get to voice yours, lobby for yours, vote for the legislator
> who supports yours (or if there is none, to run for office yourself). Then
> you obey the law enacted.

And here we go again.... You might as well tell me to grow wings and
learn how to fly. What you are telling me, is that if I just want speed
limits set properly, I have to take on politics as a career and make all
the compromises to my character required to make all the right alliances
and bring in the cash. You haven't seemed to realize that the idea of
citizens just being in public office for a short time and returning to
their private lives just isn't true. If it were, I'd have no problem what
you are saying, I probably would be in some office already. But it's not
that way and you know it.

> If you can't see the difference between a law setting BAC limits and say, a
> law that forbids you to complain about those limits, then I don't think I
> can help you.

I guess you haven't been paying attention here on usenet afterall.

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article >, Deadrat
> wrote:
>> (Brent P) wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> Deadrat wrote:
>>>
>>>> Maturity is obeying well-founded laws even though you don't like
>>>> them, and being able to tell the difference between well-founded
>>>> laws and the others.
>>>
>>> Glad we got that straightened out.
>>>
>>> Now, what is the objection to people who have gone through the
>>> research and learned about speed limits, red light cameras, drunk
>>> driving, and other driving related topics and found that the laws
>>> are not well-founded?
>>
>> I don't have any objection to such people.
>
> Good...
>
>>> When someone mentions the pile of research and engineering best
>>> practices that show the law is not well-founded, the response has
>>> been 'you just want to go as fast as you want, you immature child.
>>> Obey the law. the law is the law, obey it.' No matter how much
>>> further explaination there is, the response remains the same.
>
>> As Richard Feynman used to say, "Why do you care what other people
>> think?"
>
> Hence why many are killed filed.
>
>> Well founded is in the eye of the finder. Take drunk driving. I'm
>> aware of no research that says it's safer to drive with alcohol in
>> your system than without. I imagine there are differing opinions on
>> the "best" limit for BAC.
>
> There is opinion and then there is real world data. Opinion can be
> 'one drop and you can't drive', real world data shows at what BAC
> drivers become a danger.

Here's a guess, and I'll admit that it's only that. "Real world data"
will show a normal curve for mapping BAC against various measures of
impairment (like reaction time). "Real world data" will show a strong
correlation between level of impairment and the probability of driving
and having an accident. In other words, "real world data" won't give you
*an* answer. At best you'll get a range for BAC and a range of opinions
on what point to pick in the range. If we're going to pick such a point,
I don't know how to do it any better than we do.

>> You get to voice yours, lobby for yours, vote for the legislator
>> who supports yours (or if there is none, to run for office yourself).
>> Then you obey the law enacted.
>
> And here we go again.... You might as well tell me to grow wings and
> learn how to fly. What you are telling me, is that if I just want
> speed limits set properly, I have to take on politics as a career and
> make all the compromises to my character required to make all the
> right alliances and bring in the cash. You haven't seemed to realize
> that the idea of citizens just being in public office for a short time
> and returning to their private lives just isn't true. If it were, I'd
> have no problem what you are saying, I probably would be in some
> office already. But it's not that way and you know it.

The fallacy in this argument is that there's some "proper" speed limit
that we can pin down within a very narrow tolerance, and that setting the
speed limits outside this tolerance does you some injustice. Given the
range of proper speed limits and the range of opinion on them, I just
don't know any other way to factor in everyone's opinion.

You don't have to grow wings yourself. If you've got a large enough
constituency, there will be someone else willing to make the compromises
for you. If you're basically alone, what are the rest of us supposed to
do?

>> If you can't see the difference between a law setting BAC limits and
>> say, a law that forbids you to complain about those limits, then I
>> don't think I can help you.
>
> I guess you haven't been paying attention here on usenet afterall.

Maybe it's my attention span or maybe it's my deficient mental capacity,
but I don't see the point in losing more battles than you fight.

Deadrat wrote:
> (Brent P) wrote in
> :
>
>
>> In article >, Deadrat
>> wrote:
>>
>>> (Brent P) wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>
>>>> In article >,
>>>> Deadrat wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Maturity is obeying well-founded laws even though you don't
>>>>> like them, and being able to tell the difference between
>>>>> well-founded laws and the others.
>>>>
>>>> Glad we got that straightened out.
>>>>
>>>> Now, what is the objection to people who have gone through the
>>>> research and learned about speed limits, red light cameras,
>>>> drunk driving, and other driving related topics and found that
>>>> the laws are not well-founded?
>>>
>>> I don't have any objection to such people.
>>
>> Good...
>>
>>
>>>> When someone mentions the pile of research and engineering best
>>>> practices that show the law is not well-founded, the response
>>>> has been 'you just want to go as fast as you want, you immature
>>>> child. Obey the law. the law is the law, obey it.' No matter
>>>> how much further explaination there is, the response remains
>>>> the same.
>>
>>> As Richard Feynman used to say, "Why do you care what other
>>> people think?"
>>
>> Hence why many are killed filed.
>>
>>
>>> Well founded is in the eye of the finder. Take drunk driving.
>>> I'm aware of no research that says it's safer to drive with
>>> alcohol in your system than without. I imagine there are
>>> differing opinions on the "best" limit for BAC.
>>
>> There is opinion and then there is real world data. Opinion can be
>> 'one drop and you can't drive', real world data shows at what BAC
>> drivers become a danger.
>
>
> Here's a guess, and I'll admit that it's only that. "Real world
> data" will show a normal curve for mapping BAC against various
> measures of impairment (like reaction time). "Real world data" will
> show a strong correlation between level of impairment and the
> probability of driving and having an accident. In other words, "real
> world data" won't give you *an* answer. At best you'll get a range
> for BAC and a range of opinions on what point to pick in the range.
> If we're going to pick such a point, I don't know how to do it any
> better than we do.

Well, you're about right for the most part - but I do think that we can
do a better job than we're currently doing. Currently, BAC standards,
after traditionally having been set at 0.10% for years, are now 0.08%
nationwide, or nearly so. MADD and other organizations are lobbying
hard for even lower standards, and honestly, I think that they will
probably get them, despite the opposition of many reasonable people. If
you look at accident involvement of "impaired" drivers, you will likely
find that the vast majority of them are actually at 0.14% or above - so
we're getting into the area of diminishing returns.

Additionally, lowering the standards beyond 0.08% will effectively
outlaw social drinking. Whether or not you believe that is a worthy
goal or not is more or less irrelevant; the fact of the matter is that
many people can and do drive after having a single drink with dinner or
after work etc. This is nowhere near as significant a safety risk as
MADD et. al. would have you believe; of course, there is some amount of
impairment with even a single drink, but it is far overshadowed by the
"impairment" caused by fiddling with a radio, arguing with your spouse
on a cell phone, or any number of other completely legal things people
do every day. In other words, it'd be the speed limit situation all
over again, where people will be defined as criminals for engaging in
perfectly normal, societally accepted behavior.

>
>>> You get to voice yours, lobby for yours, vote for the legislator
>>> who supports yours (or if there is none, to run for office
>>> yourself). Then you obey the law enacted.
>>
>> And here we go again.... You might as well tell me to grow wings
>> and learn how to fly. What you are telling me, is that if I just
>> want speed limits set properly, I have to take on politics as a
>> career and make all the compromises to my character required to
>> make all the right alliances and bring in the cash. You haven't
>> seemed to realize that the idea of citizens just being in public
>> office for a short time and returning to their private lives just
>> isn't true. If it were, I'd have no problem what you are saying, I
>> probably would be in some office already. But it's not that way and
>> you know it.
>
>
> The fallacy in this argument is that there's some "proper" speed
> limit that we can pin down within a very narrow tolerance, and that
> setting the speed limits outside this tolerance does you some
> injustice. Given the range of proper speed limits and the range of
> opinion on them, I just don't know any other way to factor in
> everyone's opinion.

There's an easy method, which has been proven to work time and time
again - the 85th percentile method.

>
> You don't have to grow wings yourself. If you've got a large enough
> constituency, there will be someone else willing to make the
> compromises for you. If you're basically alone, what are the rest of
> us supposed to do?
>

But the thing is that Brent is *not* alone in this. Simple observation
of traffic on any Interstate highway, at least here on the East Coast,
will show you that the majority of people do not approve of our current
speed limits. However, there's no political will to change them, for
whatever reason, which is why people need to be stirred up about the
issue before anything will ever be done about it.

The problem is, of course, the massive lobbying dollars opposing any
speed limit increases combined with the much more serious problems that
our politicians have to deal with - the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the
slowing economy, etc. etc. etc.

>
>>> If you can't see the difference between a law setting BAC limits
>>> and say, a law that forbids you to complain about those limits,
>>> then I don't think I can help you.
>>
>> I guess you haven't been paying attention here on usenet afterall.
>>
>
> Maybe it's my attention span or maybe it's my deficient mental
> capacity, but I don't see the point in losing more battles than you
> fight.

not sure what you're trying to say here...

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

In article >, Deadrat wrote:

> Here's a guess, and I'll admit that it's only that. "Real world data"
> will show a normal curve for mapping BAC against various measures of
> impairment (like reaction time). "Real world data" will show a strong
> correlation between level of impairment and the probability of driving
> and having an accident. In other words, "real world data" won't give you
> *an* answer. At best you'll get a range for BAC and a range of opinions
> on what point to pick in the range. If we're going to pick such a point,
> I don't know how to do it any better than we do.

It's not done the way you describe. What happens is that a group with an
agenda of neo-prohibitionism has taken an incremental approach to
achieving their goals. For many years the data showed that collision
involvement went along with a .1% BAC or higher. The law was passed and
it made sense. Then looking for a reason to exist and having money to
spend MADD started the .08% lobbying. Before the ink was even dry they
were cooking up their plans to lobby and push for .05 to as low as .03 %
BAC.

Speed limits are much the same. 2 lane road, 45mph speed limit. It
eventually wears out and gets rebuilt as a four lane. Sure there's been
some growth in the area, but the 45mph 2 lane was safe for decades. The
four lane, a much better, much safer road, gets a 30mph speed limit.
Reasonable? I don't see how.

>>> You get to voice yours, lobby for yours, vote for the legislator
>>> who supports yours (or if there is none, to run for office yourself).
>>> Then you obey the law enacted.

>> And here we go again.... You might as well tell me to grow wings and
>> learn how to fly. What you are telling me, is that if I just want
>> speed limits set properly, I have to take on politics as a career and
>> make all the compromises to my character required to make all the
>> right alliances and bring in the cash. You haven't seemed to realize
>> that the idea of citizens just being in public office for a short time
>> and returning to their private lives just isn't true. If it were, I'd
>> have no problem what you are saying, I probably would be in some
>> office already. But it's not that way and you know it.

> The fallacy in this argument is that there's some "proper" speed limit
> that we can pin down within a very narrow tolerance, and that setting the
> speed limits outside this tolerance does you some injustice. Given the
> range of proper speed limits and the range of opinion on them, I just
> don't know any other way to factor in everyone's opinion.

It's not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of best engineering practice
that uses the data of the speeds people actually drive.

> You don't have to grow wings yourself. If you've got a large enough
> constituency, there will be someone else willing to make the compromises
> for you. If you're basically alone, what are the rest of us supposed to
> do?

What the hell is that supposed to mean? You get promoted by one of the
so called parties and get air play because of it the media and then you
get the constituency. Otherwise, you're just another guy trying to get a
message out. If you are not willing to do as the system demands, don't
expect to be anything bigger than a small town alderman. Hardly a
posistion to change state law.

>>> If you can't see the difference between a law setting BAC limits and
>>> say, a law that forbids you to complain about those limits, then I
>>> don't think I can help you.

>> I guess you haven't been paying attention here on usenet afterall.

> Maybe it's my attention span or maybe it's my deficient mental capacity,
> but I don't see the point in losing more battles than you fight.

And yet you make the demand that I give up my career and start a new one
in politics otherwise I should shut up apparently.

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article >, Deadrat
> wrote:
>
>> Here's a guess, and I'll admit that it's only that. "Real world
>> data" will show a normal curve for mapping BAC against various
>> measures of impairment (like reaction time). "Real world data" will
>> show a strong correlation between level of impairment and the
>> probability of driving and having an accident. In other words, "real
>> world data" won't give you *an* answer. At best you'll get a range
>> for BAC and a range of opinions on what point to pick in the range.
>> If we're going to pick such a point, I don't know how to do it any
>> better than we do.
>
> It's not done the way you describe.

Of course, not. It would probably be impossible to do the way I
described. My point is that there isn't some "right" answer.

> What happens is that a group with
> an agenda of neo-prohibitionism has taken an incremental approach to
> achieving their goals. For many years the data showed that collision
> involvement went along with a .1% BAC or higher. The law was passed
> and it made sense. Then looking for a reason to exist and having money
> to spend MADD started the .08% lobbying. Before the ink was even dry
> they were cooking up their plans to lobby and push for .05 to as low
> as .03 % BAC.

So .1% is fine, but .08% is absurd? Did you read my first paragraph?
And isn't MADD's operation the way things work in a democracy?

> Speed limits are much the same. 2 lane road, 45mph speed limit. It
> eventually wears out and gets rebuilt as a four lane. Sure there's
> been some growth in the area, but the 45mph 2 lane was safe for
> decades. The four lane, a much better, much safer road, gets a 30mph
> speed limit. Reasonable? I don't see how.

I have no opinion on hypothetical four-lane roadways.

>>>> You get to voice yours, lobby for yours, vote for the legislator
>>>> who supports yours (or if there is none, to run for office
>>>> yourself).
>>>> Then you obey the law enacted.
>
>>> And here we go again.... You might as well tell me to grow wings and
>>> learn how to fly. What you are telling me, is that if I just want
>>> speed limits set properly, I have to take on politics as a career
>>> and make all the compromises to my character required to make all
>>> the right alliances and bring in the cash. You haven't seemed to
>>> realize that the idea of citizens just being in public office for a
>>> short time and returning to their private lives just isn't true. If
>>> it were, I'd have no problem what you are saying, I probably would
>>> be in some office already. But it's not that way and you know it.
>
>> The fallacy in this argument is that there's some "proper" speed
>> limit that we can pin down within a very narrow tolerance, and that
>> setting the speed limits outside this tolerance does you some
>> injustice. Given the range of proper speed limits and the range of
>> opinion on them, I just don't know any other way to factor in
>> everyone's opinion.
>
> It's not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of best engineering
> practice that uses the data of the speeds people actually drive.

Best engineering practice isn't the sole contribution to the traffic
laws. I'm having a hard time getting worked up over this or
understanding why you are.

>> You don't have to grow wings yourself. If you've got a large enough
>> constituency, there will be someone else willing to make the
>> compromises for you. If you're basically alone, what are the rest of
>> us supposed to do?
>
> What the hell is that supposed to mean? You get promoted by one of
> the so called parties and get air play because of it the media and
> then you get the constituency. Otherwise, you're just another guy
> trying to get a message out. If you are not willing to do as the
> system demands, don't expect to be anything bigger than a small town
> alderman. Hardly a posistion to change state law.

It's supposed to mean that the you can't change state law unless you can
vote on state law or influence somebody who can. How else would you like
this to work?

>>>> If you can't see the difference between a law setting BAC limits
>>>> and say, a law that forbids you to complain about those limits,
>>>> then I don't think I can help you.
>
>>> I guess you haven't been paying attention here on usenet afterall.
>
>> Maybe it's my attention span or maybe it's my deficient mental
>> capacity, but I don't see the point in losing more battles than you
>> fight.
>
> And yet you make the demand that I give up my career and start a new
> one in politics otherwise I should shut up apparently.

I'm not demanding that you do anything. I'm certainly not telling you to
shut up. It's your right to whine incessantly. How many contributors to
MADD gave up their careers and started new ones in politics?

Nate Nagel > wrote in
:

> Deadrat wrote:
>> (Brent P) wrote in
>> :
>>
>>
>>> In article >, Deadrat
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> (Brent P) wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> In article >,
>>>>> Deadrat wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>

<lament about lack of total rationality in lawmaking snipped>

>
>>
>> You don't have to grow wings yourself. If you've got a large enough
>> constituency, there will be someone else willing to make the
>> compromises for you. If you're basically alone, what are the rest of
>> us supposed to do?
>>
>
> But the thing is that Brent is *not* alone in this. Simple
> observation of traffic on any Interstate highway, at least here on the
> East Coast, will show you that the majority of people do not approve
> of our current speed limits.

Or at least a majority ignore them.

> However, there's no political will to
> change them, for whatever reason, which is why people need to be
> stirred up about the issue before anything will ever be done about it.
>
> The problem is, of course, the massive lobbying dollars opposing any
> speed limit increases combined with the much more serious problems
> that our politicians have to deal with - the war in Iraq and
> Afghanistan, the slowing economy, etc. etc. etc.
>
>>
>>>> If you can't see the difference between a law setting BAC limits
>>>> and say, a law that forbids you to complain about those limits,
>>>> then I don't think I can help you.
>>>
>>> I guess you haven't been paying attention here on usenet afterall.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe it's my attention span or maybe it's my deficient mental
>> capacity, but I don't see the point in losing more battles than you
>> fight.
>
> not sure what you're trying to say here...

Just showing my age. It's a paraphrase from the comedy group "The
Firesign Theater." It means there's nothing worse than losing a battle
that was unnecessary to fight in the first place.

> nate

In article >, Deadrat wrote:

> Of course, not. It would probably be impossible to do the way I
> described. My point is that there isn't some "right" answer.

And then we are back to following whatever authority demands, wether it
is justified or not?

>> What happens is that a group with
>> an agenda of neo-prohibitionism has taken an incremental approach to
>> achieving their goals. For many years the data showed that collision
>> involvement went along with a .1% BAC or higher. The law was passed
>> and it made sense. Then looking for a reason to exist and having money
>> to spend MADD started the .08% lobbying. Before the ink was even dry
>> they were cooking up their plans to lobby and push for .05 to as low
>> as .03 % BAC.

> So .1% is fine, but .08% is absurd? Did you read my first paragraph?
> And isn't MADD's operation the way things work in a democracy?

Oh, so we are a democracy now? Mob rule? It's interesting how you have
no position, you just find things to pick with.

>> Speed limits are much the same. 2 lane road, 45mph speed limit. It
>> eventually wears out and gets rebuilt as a four lane. Sure there's
>> been some growth in the area, but the 45mph 2 lane was safe for
>> decades. The four lane, a much better, much safer road, gets a 30mph
>> speed limit. Reasonable? I don't see how.

> I have no opinion on hypothetical four-lane roadways.

It's a very real roadway. One I used to bike as child and later drove upon.

>> It's not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of best engineering
>> practice that uses the data of the speeds people actually drive.

> Best engineering practice isn't the sole contribution to the traffic
> laws.

Having read it, it's got all the bases covered. If we are going to do
technical things politically, how do I get influence on how the space
shuttle rocket booster is designed? How about how the F22's weapon
system? The structure of city hall? If we are going to ignore best
practices for the favor of a political process, let's do it for
everything. After all, it works so well when a particular lobby gets
things skewed their way... roads wear out, bridges fall down, etc..

> I'm having a hard time getting worked up over this or
> understanding why you are.

I am having a hard time understanding how you couldn't. Do you obey the
posted limits? I do for the most part and by doing so what I have to deal
with should drive anyone to be 'worked up' about it as you put it.

Did you know the 85th percentile method is by way of the MUTCD codified
into IL law? It's so in many states. In some states it's not even via the
MUTCD as I understand it, but actually written right into the law. But
the law isn't followed by the government. Yet, the obey the law types
would have us all obey something that is illegal. They don't hold the
government to that standard of obeying the law.

>>> You don't have to grow wings yourself. If you've got a large enough
>>> constituency, there will be someone else willing to make the
>>> compromises for you. If you're basically alone, what are the rest of
>>> us supposed to do?

>> What the hell is that supposed to mean? You get promoted by one of
>> the so called parties and get air play because of it the media and
>> then you get the constituency. Otherwise, you're just another guy
>> trying to get a message out. If you are not willing to do as the
>> system demands, don't expect to be anything bigger than a small town
>> alderman. Hardly a posistion to change state law.

> It's supposed to mean that the you can't change state law unless you can
> vote on state law or influence somebody who can. How else would you like
> this to work?

State law is actually quite reasonable except for the NMSL language that
remains and few other nit picks. Government doesn't follow it.

>> And yet you make the demand that I give up my career and start a new
>> one in politics otherwise I should shut up apparently.

> I'm not demanding that you do anything. I'm certainly not telling you to
> shut up. It's your right to whine incessantly.

Yet you go for the 'you need to run for office' shutdown.

> How many contributors to
> MADD gave up their careers and started new ones in politics?

I don't think my stories of more or less cosmetic damage to my cars is
going to have the same pull as the tragic story telling that gets one to
the higher ranks of MADD.

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article >, Deadrat
> wrote:
>
>> Of course, not. It would probably be impossible to do the way I
>> described. My point is that there isn't some "right" answer.
>
> And then we are back to following whatever authority demands, wether
> it is justified or not?
>
>>> What happens is that a group with
>>> an agenda of neo-prohibitionism has taken an incremental approach to
>>> achieving their goals. For many years the data showed that collision
>>> involvement went along with a .1% BAC or higher. The law was passed
>>> and it made sense. Then looking for a reason to exist and having
>>> money to spend MADD started the .08% lobbying. Before the ink was
>>> even dry they were cooking up their plans to lobby and push for .05
>>> to as low as .03 % BAC.
>
>> So .1% is fine, but .08% is absurd? Did you read my first paragraph?
>> And isn't MADD's operation the way things work in a democracy?
>
> Oh, so we are a democracy now? Mob rule? It's interesting how you
> have no position, you just find things to pick with.

It's interesting how things are so stark for you. I say democracy and
you assume I mean direct democracy on all matters. It's a representative
democracy in a republic that has protections for minorities. But you
knew that's what I meant, didn't you?

>>> Speed limits are much the same. 2 lane road, 45mph speed limit. It
>>> eventually wears out and gets rebuilt as a four lane. Sure there's
>>> been some growth in the area, but the 45mph 2 lane was safe for
>>> decades. The four lane, a much better, much safer road, gets a 30mph
>>> speed limit. Reasonable? I don't see how.
>
>> I have no opinion on hypothetical four-lane roadways.
>
> It's a very real roadway. One I used to bike as child and later drove
> upon.

Please don't take this amiss, but I'm not taking your word for the
conditions surrounding this road, even if the pavement isn't
hypothetical.

>>> It's not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of best engineering
>>> practice that uses the data of the speeds people actually drive.
>
>> Best engineering practice isn't the sole contribution to the traffic
>> laws.
>
> Having read it, it's got all the bases covered.

And here's why you were taught not to use dangling participles: it
allows you to conceal your meaning. This should read, "Having read it,
I find it's got all the bases covered." And that's fine. But that's you
and the people writing the engineering practice. I don't know a safe way
to let you make the rules.

> If we are going to do
> technical things politically, how do I get influence on how the space
> shuttle rocket booster is designed?

Get a degree and job with NASA.

> How about how the F22's weapon system?

Get a degree and a commission.

> The structure of city hall? If we are going to ignore best
> practices for the favor of a political process, let's do it for
> everything. After all, it works so well when a particular lobby gets
> things skewed their way... roads wear out, bridges fall down, etc..

If only we had oracles.

>> I'm having a hard time getting worked up over this or
>> understanding why you are.
>
> I am having a hard time understanding how you couldn't. Do you obey
> the posted limits? I do for the most part and by doing so what I have
> to deal with should drive anyone to be 'worked up' about it as you put
> it.

I obey the posted limits, and I'll be the first to admit I probably don't
drive as much as you do, but they don't seem to be that bad. I think I
could avoid most errant school children at 20 mph.

> Did you know the 85th percentile method is by way of the MUTCD
> codified into IL law? It's so in many states. In some states it's not
> even via the MUTCD as I understand it, but actually written right into
> the law. But the law isn't followed by the government. Yet, the obey
> the law types would have us all obey something that is illegal. They
> don't hold the government to that standard of obeying the law.
>
>>>> You don't have to grow wings yourself. If you've got a large
>>>> enough constituency, there will be someone else willing to make the
>>>> compromises for you. If you're basically alone, what are the rest
>>>> of us supposed to do?
>
>>> What the hell is that supposed to mean? You get promoted by one of
>>> the so called parties and get air play because of it the media and
>>> then you get the constituency. Otherwise, you're just another guy
>>> trying to get a message out. If you are not willing to do as the
>>> system demands, don't expect to be anything bigger than a small town
>>> alderman. Hardly a posistion to change state law.
>
>> It's supposed to mean that the you can't change state law unless you
>> can vote on state law or influence somebody who can. How else would
>> you like this to work?
>
> State law is actually quite reasonable except for the NMSL language
> that remains and few other nit picks. Government doesn't follow it.
>
>>> And yet you make the demand that I give up my career and start a new
>>> one in politics otherwise I should shut up apparently.
>
>> I'm not demanding that you do anything. I'm certainly not telling
>> you to shut up. It's your right to whine incessantly.
>
> Yet you go for the 'you need to run for office' shutdown.

How many people in MADD ran for public office? They're your "bad"
example. Learn from them. You don't like the way things are, but you
don't want to spend your time to change them.

>> How many contributors to
>> MADD gave up their careers and started new ones in politics?
>
> I don't think my stories of more or less cosmetic damage to my cars is
> going to have the same pull as the tragic story telling that gets one
> to the higher ranks of MADD.

You can start a counter-group. Let's call it CALM, Citizens for Always
Legitimate Methods. I can see the slogan now: Don't get MADD; be CALM.

Too much trouble? What can I tell you?

In article >, Deadrat wrote:

> It's interesting how things are so stark for you. I say democracy and
> you assume I mean direct democracy on all matters. It's a representative
> democracy in a republic that has protections for minorities. But you
> knew that's what I meant, didn't you?

Actually, the way you bounce around, no.

>> It's a very real roadway. One I used to bike as child and later drove
>> upon.

> Please don't take this amiss, but I'm not taking your word for the
> conditions surrounding this road, even if the pavement isn't
> hypothetical.

If you've never seen an improved road with a speed limit lower than it
was before, you either live in some unknown driving utopia in the USA
where the speed limits make sense and local governments don't do this
sort of nonsense and have never lived or traveled outside of it.

> And here's why you were taught not to use dangling participles: it
> allows you to conceal your meaning. This should read, "Having read it,
> I find it's got all the bases covered." And that's fine. But that's you
> and the people writing the engineering practice. I don't know a safe way
> to let you make the rules.

But you have problems with people with no engineering education what so
ever make the decisions and then we are all required to obey?

>> If we are going to do
>> technical things politically, how do I get influence on how the space
>> shuttle rocket booster is designed?

> Get a degree and job with NASA.
>> How about how the F22's weapon system?
> Get a degree and a commission.

I see.... you only want to put _SOME_ technical decisions through the
political process.

>>> I'm having a hard time getting worked up over this or
>>> understanding why you are.

>> I am having a hard time understanding how you couldn't. Do you obey
>> the posted limits? I do for the most part and by doing so what I have
>> to deal with should drive anyone to be 'worked up' about it as you put
>> it.

> I obey the posted limits, and I'll be the first to admit I probably don't
> drive as much as you do, but they don't seem to be that bad. I think I
> could avoid most errant school children at 20 mph.

Nice herring. Try driving 20+mph under the flow speed for awhile. Even 10
is bad enough.

>> Did you know the 85th percentile method is by way of the MUTCD
>> codified into IL law? It's so in many states. In some states it's not
>> even via the MUTCD as I understand it, but actually written right into
>> the law. But the law isn't followed by the government. Yet, the obey
>> the law types would have us all obey something that is illegal. They
>> don't hold the government to that standard of obeying the law.

Yeah... I figured that would get a blank stare.


> How many people in MADD ran for public office?

Why don't you google that up and get back to me, I don't know, I don't
care.

> They're your "bad" example. Learn from them.

I don't have any sob stories to tell.... As far as I can tell, that's how
mad advances their agenda, that's how it chooses its officers.

> You don't like the way things are, but you
> don't want to spend your time to change them.

On the contrary, I have spent my time. But you're playing the 'not enough
game'. No matter what level I had gone to, you'd just say I needed to go
one higher.

>>> How many contributors to
>>> MADD gave up their careers and started new ones in politics?

>> I don't think my stories of more or less cosmetic damage to my cars is
>> going to have the same pull as the tragic story telling that gets one
>> to the higher ranks of MADD.

> You can start a counter-group. Let's call it CALM, Citizens for Always
> Legitimate Methods. I can see the slogan now: Don't get MADD; be CALM.
> Too much trouble? What can I tell you?

Interesting, but groups that want less government control and work
contary to government revenue streams don't seem to have a particularly
good track record. But anyway, such a group does exist for driving:
http://www.motorists.org/ I wouldn't want to dilute what they are already
doing.