76 year old man *SHOCKED* that 'street racer' law used against him

On Feb 11, 6:21*am, Scott in SoCal > wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 20:27:39 -0800 (PST), Ed Pirrero
>
> > wrote:
> >On Feb 10, 6:21 pm, (Brent P)
> >wrote:
> >> That's what happens when reasonable behavior is defined as a violation of
> >> the law.
>
> >Explain how nearly doubling the speed limit is reasonable.
>
> Strawman. 130 is not 2 * 80.
>
> IIRC there are some states that specifically allow drivers to
> temporarily exceed the speed limit while executing a pass. That seems
> pretty reasonable to me.
> --
> Please don't give financial rewards to trolls -
> DO NOT CLICK on any URLs containing "calrog.com"

Yes, Wa for one, but I assume (I know) that those that do also have
'reckless driving' laws that apply. Just as you can get a ticket for
reckless driving at well under the speed limit due to poor conditions,
you can get one for excessive speed while passing.

I hven't driven in that province but have in BC and 80km postings are
common. Where they are common, they are reasonable, always in semi
built up areas on (usually) two lane roads.

Harry K
Harry K

On Feb 11, 6:21*am, Scott in SoCal > wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 20:27:39 -0800 (PST), Ed Pirrero
>
> > wrote:
> >On Feb 10, 6:21 pm, (Brent P)
> >wrote:
> >> That's what happens when reasonable behavior is defined as a violation of
> >> the law.
>
> >Explain how nearly doubling the speed limit is reasonable.
>
> Strawman. 130 is not 2 * 80.

"Nearly" is a qualifier both of you 'tards seemed to have ignored.

OK, reworded for the idiotically pedantic: "Explain how 78 in a 48
zone is reasonable."

Make sure you know the zone in question, without bringing up
irrelevant examples such as onramps and freeways.

>
> IIRC there are some states that specifically allow drivers to
> temporarily exceed the speed limit while executing a pass. That seems
> pretty reasonable to me.

Yes, Harry and I have been discussing that, below. Obviously, this
province is not one of those places, so again, irrelevant.

Also, in WA, where speeding to pass is legal, reckless driving and
excessive speed can be ticketed. Depends on the conditions and the
location.

E.P.

On Feb 11, 5:59 pm, Scott in SoCal > wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:54:04 -0800 (PST), Ed Pirrero
>
> > wrote:
> >On Feb 11, 6:21 am, Scott in SoCal > wrote:
> >> On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 20:27:39 -0800 (PST), Ed Pirrero
>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >On Feb 10, 6:21 pm, (Brent P)
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> That's what happens when reasonable behavior is defined as a violation of
> >> >> the law.
>
> >> >Explain how nearly doubling the speed limit is reasonable.
>
> >> Strawman. 130 is not 2 * 80.
>
> >"Nearly" is a qualifier both of you 'tards seemed to have ignored.
>
> Is that an operational-definition of the word "nearly?"

In a way to avoid the actual, pertinent questions, and to avoid the
sticky situation of someone actually be called into account for doing
so, yeah, good enough.

Keep focusing on the "double" bit. That way, you won't have to answer
any nagging questions about whether or not going 78 in a 48 is
reasonable or not.

Ignore the recast question, the one that relieves you of being forced
to be a pedant. Ignore the actual facts, and focus on "double". Oh,
yeah - make damn sure you ignore any qualifiers, because that might
make your pedantry seem, sorta, umm, petty.

So, Scott, are you interested in answering the real question, or do
you want to swing your dick around some more?

Let me restate the question, so you aren't tempted to answer "what
question?"

The question is: How is 78 mph in a 48 mph zone reasonable?

E.P.

> HUH?!? This was KILOMETERS we're talking about. ~30MPH over the limit
> (briefly) to complete a pass safely? ****, I should have had my car
> impounded many thousands of times by now...
>
> What's much more dangerous are the ****tards that insist on waiting till
> the
> passing lane is almost ending, then insist on trying to pass you at (speed
> limit plus 5 or 10).
>
> If you're going to pass, PASS, dammit. I don't see that this man did
> anything wrong. Looks like the law needs to be re-worked a bit. He wasn't
> doing anything dangerous, or even out of the ordinary. -Dave

What does it being in KM have to do with anything? It is about safe
passing. 30 mph over the traffic being passed is excessive especially
in 'slow traffic' areas.

Harry K

OH!!! So YOU'RE the ****tard I was writing about. Learn to pass or shut the
**** up and know that you are a dangerous passer. -Dave

In article >, Ed Pirrero wrote:

> OK, reworded for the idiotically pedantic: "Explain how 78 in a 48
> zone is reasonable."

> Make sure you know the zone in question, without bringing up
> irrelevant examples such as onramps and freeways.

All examples are irrelevant for you I guess as you move in and out from
'it must match perfect to the story example' and 'in general'. I'll just
give you a picture of a road section with a 45mph speed limit that is
good for expressway speeds.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=e...77949859 5903

Six lanes wide, limited access, straight.

On Feb 11, 9:25 pm, (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article >, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > OK, reworded for the idiotically pedantic: "Explain how 78 in a 48
> > zone is reasonable."
> > Make sure you know the zone in question, without bringing up
> > irrelevant examples such as onramps and freeways.
>
> All examples are irrelevant for you I guess as you move in and out from
> 'it must match perfect to the story example' and 'in general'. I'll just
> give you a picture of a road section with a 45mph speed limit that is
> good for expressway speeds.
>
> http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=e...+wheeling+IL&s...
>
> Six lanes wide, limited access, straight.

Dumbass:

Let me make sure I explain in really tiny words so you can get a clue:

You, as in you, Brent P., have NO ****ING IDEA if 78 in a 48 was
reasonable for *that stretch of road*.

Maybe it IS reasonable. But nobody here knows that. You don't, I
don't - nobody.

So, you blanket (incorrect) statement about making reasonable actions
illegal is both idiotic AND incorrect, because you don't know the
road, the conditions, or anything else about the incident. You are
ASSuming.

It fits your inner narrative, which I get just fine. But there are
actual places where exceeding the speed limit in place is hazardous.
And in other places where exceeding the speed limit is meaningless.
No matter what the overage is. Like I-90 through rural Montana during
the clear-weather daytime. 30 over is a huge "so what?"

But this guy WAS NOT in IL or in rural MT. So those examples are
meaningless to this particular story. If you don't know the
conditions, you can't make a general claim like the one you made -
because it just ain't true.

Is that clear enough for you, or shall I draw it out in crayon and
give you a Xanax to help you with your anxiety?

E.P.

In article >, Ed Pirrero wrote:

> The question is: How is 78 mph in a 48 mph zone reasonable?

You've been given examples, you just insist they can't be like the road
in question. I went a googling for this 'hwy 515' near a town called
pembroke near ottawa Canada. I found the section of road that is pointed
towards pembroke....
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=e...&t=h&z=16&om=0

It's a very rural, lonely piece of 2 lane road. 48mph is insanely low a
speed limit. 78mph is perfectly acceptable for passing on many parts of
it as viewed from google.

Anyway... the point still is, unreasonable laws that define reasonable
behavior (regardless if you think this man was reasonable or not) as a
violation of the law lead to a condition where you cannot possibly have
enough cops to enforce it.

In article >, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Feb 11, 9:25 pm, (Brent P)
> wrote:
>> In article >, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> > OK, reworded for the idiotically pedantic: "Explain how 78 in a 48
>> > zone is reasonable."
>> > Make sure you know the zone in question, without bringing up
>> > irrelevant examples such as onramps and freeways.
>>
>> All examples are irrelevant for you I guess as you move in and out from
>> 'it must match perfect to the story example' and 'in general'. I'll just
>> give you a picture of a road section with a 45mph speed limit that is
>> good for expressway speeds.
>>
>> http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=e...+wheeling+IL&s...
>>
>> Six lanes wide, limited access, straight.
>
> Dumbass:

> Let me make sure I explain in really tiny words so you can get a clue:
>
> You, as in you, Brent P., have NO ****ING IDEA if 78 in a 48 was
> reasonable for *that stretch of road*.

Dumb****, let me explain to you... You made a universal statement, I made
a universal reply. You didn't like it so then you tried to get specific,
but then you ****ed that up and asked when double the speed limit is
reasonable. So I gave you examples, so you had to save face and get more
specific and claim it had to be this guy on this road... Stop being an
asshole Ed.

> Maybe it IS reasonable. But nobody here knows that. You don't, I
> don't - nobody.

> So, you blanket (incorrect) statement about making reasonable actions
> illegal is both idiotic AND incorrect, because you don't know the
> road, the conditions, or anything else about the incident. You are
> ASSuming.

My statement is correct, logical, and universal. When you make a behavior
that is reasonable illegal, you won't be able to have enough cops to
enforce it.

You're just trying to force the specific because you want to argue.

> It fits your inner narrative, which I get just fine. But there are
> actual places where exceeding the speed limit in place is hazardous.
> And in other places where exceeding the speed limit is meaningless.
> No matter what the overage is. Like I-90 through rural Montana during
> the clear-weather daytime. 30 over is a huge "so what?"

>> But this guy WAS NOT in IL or in rural MT. So those examples are
> meaningless to this particular story. If you don't know the
> conditions, you can't make a general claim like the one you made -
> because it just ain't true.

> Is that clear enough for you, or shall I draw it out in crayon and
> give you a Xanax to help you with your anxiety?

Look asshole, I know you're a lying ****tard who jacks himself off to
stupid usenet games like this, but you made a generic statement regarding
enforcement and I replied with a generic statement about that you're
right when the law defines resonable behavior as illegal. You can't ever
have enough cops to enforce a law that makes reasonable behavior illegal.
Of course you knew that, but in your typical fashion you had to save face
and that's when you started with the specifics.

As to the specifics of this case, he could have been doing 120mph down a
residential street and been COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY IN THE WRONG, because
to the point I was making by posting is that he's upset that these
'street racing' laws are being applied to him. That he, as a 70 something
year old man wasn't the target of the tool law, that it was only supposed
to be used to push young people.... people in groups he's not in. That's
what's special about it, not just that there might be yet another
underposted speed limit. What's special is that one of these people who
doesn't care about laws that target other people got hit by one. I'd hope
the lesson he comes away with would be one of not endorsing 'tool' laws
anymore but sadly I doubt it.

And as far as *THIS* road is concerned, it's a lonely two lane road with
lots of places where 78mph would be fine for passing.

On Feb 11, 9:46 pm, (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article >, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > The question is: How is 78 mph in a 48 mph zone reasonable?
>
> You've been given examples, you just insist they can't be like the road
> in question. I went a googling for this 'hwy 515' near a town called
> pembroke near ottawa Canada. I found the section of road that is pointed
> towards pembroke....http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=e...y+515,pembroke...
>
> It's a very rural, lonely piece of 2 lane road. 48mph is insanely low a
> speed limit. 78mph is perfectly acceptable for passing on many parts of
> it as viewed from google.
>
> Anyway... the point still is, unreasonable laws that define reasonable
> behavior (regardless if you think this man was reasonable or not) as a
> violation of the law lead to a condition where you cannot possibly have
> enough cops to enforce it.

A conclusion that cannot be reached in this case. Nor can this case
be an example of that, without further information.

E.P.

On Feb 11, 10:21 pm, (Brent P)
wrote:
>
> My statement is correct, logical, and universal.

It is actually none of the three.

But you go ahead and think so if it makes you happy.

E.P.