If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
55 returning? It had better not-the dumbest law since Prohibition
On 2008-07-08, Eeyore > wrote:
> I have a totally CLEAN licence. Not a single endorsement on it EVER. That's > because I drive *safely*. Low speed DOES NOT ensure safety. A clean license has nothing to do with safety either. It just means you haven't been caught in a revenue trap or had a moron do something so stupid you couldn't compensate for it. |
Ads |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
55 returning? It had better not-the dumbest law since Prohibition
Brent P wrote: > What's reckless is the stupid lane and other behavior that is permitted on > US roads. Now there's a truth. I can't believe you allow overtaking either side. It must be a major contributory factor in many accidents. Also the roundabout vs intersection thing. Graham |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
55 returning? It had better not-the dumbest law since Prohibition
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
55 returning? It had better not-the dumbest law since Prohibition
On 2008-07-08, Eeyore > wrote:
> > > Brent P wrote: > >> What's reckless is the stupid lane and other behavior that is permitted on >> US roads. > > Now there's a truth. > > I can't believe you allow overtaking either side. It must be a major > contributory factor in many accidents. If there were no overtaking on the right the roads would be constant traffic jam as such a law would enable the aunt-judy control freaks in their road-blocking behaviors. They would go to the left lane and sit there doing 20-30mph less than everyone else wanted to go. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
55 returning? It had better not-the dumbest law since Prohibition
Larrybud wrote: > Jeff Morrison > wrote in > > > On Jul 5, 10:39 am, wrote: > >> I would agree, Virginia seems to have a "Hard-On" against > >> speeding more than any state I can think of. They consider > >> anything over 80 to be Reckless Driving and nail you > >> accordingly. > >> > >> Jim K. Georges > > > > Anything over 80 IS reckless driving. > > You must be a politician, pulling some arbitrary number out of your > ass like that. 80 is 3000 rpm in my car's fifth gear. Graham |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
55 returning? It had better not-the dumbest law since Prohibition
BSMack wrote: > Eighty is wreakless driving. A lot of the drivers are too in-experienced and > ignorant of the rules of the road to drive that fast. SO TEACH THEM TO DRIVE PROPERLY ! Graham |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
55 returning? It had better not-the dumbest law since Prohibition
>> > On Jul 5, 10:39 am, wrote:
>> >> I would agree, Virginia seems to have a "Hard-On" against >> >> speeding more than any state I can think of. They consider >> >> anything over 80 to be Reckless Driving and nail you >> >> accordingly. >> >> >> >> Jim K. Georges >> > >> > Anything over 80 IS reckless driving. >> >> You must be a politician, pulling some arbitrary number out of >> your ass like that. > > 80 is 3000 rpm in my car's fifth gear. Yeah, so? |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
55 returning? It had better not-the dumbest law since Prohibition
On Jul 5, 12:25*pm, Arif Khokar > wrote:
> Jeff Morrison wrote: > > Anything over 80 IS reckless driving. > > Hardly. *That's the speed of traffic (or maybe 3 to 5 mph faster ) on > many interstates. Even before the lifting of the hated 65 MPH limit, compliance data showed that Arizona drivers averaged 82 MPH in good weather on rural freeways. I wouldn't think that over half of Arizonans are reckless. Fee Waybill and John McCain certainly aren't! |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
55 returning? It had better not-the dumbest law since Prohibition
>>> What's reckless is the stupid lane and other behavior that is permitted on
>>> US roads. >> Now there's a truth. >> >> I can't believe you allow overtaking either side. It must be a major >> contributory factor in many accidents. > If there were no overtaking on the right the roads would be constant > traffic jam as such a law would enable the aunt-judy control freaks in > their road-blocking behaviors. They would go to the left lane and sit > there doing 20-30mph less than everyone else wanted to go. That's what DID happen during 1974-88. Left Lane Blockers were never a serious problem before 1974, but the 55 limit (and police policies that came along with it) encouraged sanctimonious assholes to believe (or pretend) they were performing a public service by being LLBs. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
55 returning? It had better not-the dumbest law since Prohibition
On Jul 9, 12:37*pm, Michael Angelo Ravera >
wrote: > Even before the lifting of the hated 65 MPH limit, compliance data > showed that Arizona drivers averaged 82 MPH in good weather on rural > freeways. I wouldn't think that over half of Arizonans are reckless. > Fee Waybill and John McCain certainly aren't! The _average_ speed was 82? Certainly on a rural wide open road people can go faster, but still that seems rather high. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
what is the dumbest thing u have ever been pulled over for? | ricer1991 | Driving | 32 | August 18th 07 08:16 AM |
South Dakota to impose total alcohol prohibition on anyone convicted of drunk driving. | Brent P[_1_] | Driving | 19 | March 3rd 07 02:24 AM |
This may very well be the dumbest question ever posted but here goes... | Leslie | BMW | 8 | January 10th 06 01:24 PM |
Dumbest car commercial ever | 223rem | Driving | 32 | November 18th 05 09:23 PM |
Survey: Northeast has dumbest [sic] drivers | Arif Khokar | Driving | 3 | May 28th 05 03:36 AM |