YOU CAN'T DRIVE TOO SLOW

"Jack May" > wrote in message
...
>
> Cars already have collision avoidance systems on some models. There is at
> least one model that also prevents your car from wandering out of a lane
for
> example if you fall asleep at the wheel.

I'm not sure I trust that technology (Honda's lane holding tech)- suppose
you had to swerve out of a lane for an emergency? I'm not sure computers
are up to being that intelligent yet.

Some of it makes sense, though. BMW has a cruise control that works with
a radar to keep a safe cruising distance behind other cars, even if they
slow down.

Also, about half of all accidents are simply somebody losing control of a
car/truck (often speed is a factor). That's where ABS, stability control,
etc., will come in.

"Dave Lister" > wrote in message
. 6...
> "Chance Hopkins" > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> "Dave Lister" > wrote in message
>> . 6...
>>> "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" > wrote in
>>> oups.com:
>>>
>>>> Not while we have 110 americans killed EVERY DAY on our highways.
>>>> And thousands more injured. Terrorists are a microscopic problem
>>>> compared to speeders.
>>>
>>> Crapola.
>>
>> Translation: I have nothing to say regarding this point, because it
>> makes too much sense for my brain to handle.
>
> Translation: Crapola = Crapola. Speeders aren't the problem. Bad drivers
> are.

The point was the stance on terrorism is hypocrytical , when more people are
killed driving every day.




>
> --
> DWA should be a felony.

On 14 Apr 2005 21:05:40 -0700, "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend"
> wrote:

>
>Dave Head wrote:
>> On 14 Apr 2005 19:11:52 -0700, "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Not while we have 110 americans killed EVERY DAY on our highways.
>And
>> >thousands more injured. Terrorists are a microscopic problem
>compared
>> >to speeders.
>>
>> Welll... you can't much do a lot about it - you can go as slow as you
>want, and
>> the death toll will still be unacceptable.
>>
>> It is amazing that we put up with this, on an absolute scale. I
>mean, if there
>> _were_ terrorists taking down 110 Americans a day, there would be
>armed citizen
>> patrols, curfews, etc. But, we're just USED TO THIS.
>>
>> Question: If there were a solution that would cut the carnage in
>half
>> _without_ slowing down commerce, how much would it be worth?
>
>Hey dood. Measures like lower speed limits and suspended licenses or
>jail time for reckless drivers would pay for itself.

I don't think so. The lower speed limits would impact the economy, if they
were obeyed, which they would not be. The result would be so many people in
jail that the rest of us would go broke supporting them, which would _still_
impact the economy. Either way you look at it, the situation is a loser.

>Tens of billions
>of $ would be saved every year in medical bills and property damage.

Go as slow as you like, people are still going to screw up and kill each other.
You might lower the death rate by 50%, if you could get people to obey these
laws, but you wouldn't - you'd just have an amazing percentage of the
population in jail, with the remainder of society taxed to death to simply feed
'em.

Plus, remember the unintended consequences. Human beings are not designed to
do an easy job for hours on end without losing their concentration. People
would run off the road and hit trees just from going to sleep at the wheel,
even in the daytime, if they did try to obey unreasonably low speed limits.

All in all, it doesn't work.

Dave Head

Could you please tell us your former name so we know which idiotic history
of moronic writing you have contributed?

Oh, that's probably why you change your name, right?


> wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 03:35:13 GMT, "Chance Hopkins"
> > wrote:
>
>>Translation: I have nothing to say regarding this point, because it makes
>>too much sense for my brain to handle.
>
> Translation: I have nothing to say regarding this point, because it
> makes too much sense for my brain to handle.

On 14 Apr 2005 19:11:52 -0700, "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend"
> wrote:

>Not while we have 110 americans killed EVERY DAY on our highways. And
>thousands more injured. Terrorists are a microscopic problem compared
>to speeders.


<ROTFLMAO> It must be tough for old Xeton living in a world where
everybody else has somewhere to go but he doesn't.



--

Did Zepp Jamieson really think he was going to get away with posting
as "Greywolf the Wanderer" long ago writing about his homosexual fantasies
about the startrek characters and about his belief that he was a werewolf?

The similarities are too many to be a coincidence.

First, Greywolf was born in Scotland and then lived in B.C. Canada, as did Zepp.
Greywolf used to be a bbs sysop in Santa Barbara, as was Zepp.
Greywolf lives near Mt Shasta in California, so does Zepp.
Greywolf says he isn't a U.S. Citizen, so does Zepp.
Greywolf has a house full of cats and 3 dogs, as does Zepp
Greywolf complains of bad eyesight, as does Zepp.
Greywolf used to work at an airport, so did Zepp
Greywolf used to work as a janitor, so did Zepp
Greywolf used to work at an hospital, so did Zepp
Greywolf has a samoyed named Monk, so does Zepp
Greywolf complains of "rhuematiz", as does Zepp
Greywolf says he is dyslexic, as does Zepp.
Greywolf used Zepp's ISP account and even used Zepp's computer
Greywolf claims to be a writer, as does Zepp
Greywolf and Zepp both claim to like author Robert Heinlein
Greywolf and Zepp both like Heinlein's book "Moon is a Harsh Mistress"
Greywolf says that he's a wiccan and Zepp does a lot of writing about wiccans.
Greywolf's favorite quote is "evolution in action," Zepp used that for one of his "commentaries."
Greywolf's an alcoholic who stopped drinking, Zepp says he's had problems with alcohol
so he quit drinking a long time ago.

So is Zepp the same person as Greywolf?

"Dave Head" > wrote in message
...
> On 14 Apr 2005 21:05:40 -0700, "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>Dave Head wrote:
>>> On 14 Apr 2005 19:11:52 -0700, "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> >Not while we have 110 americans killed EVERY DAY on our highways.
>>And
>>> >thousands more injured. Terrorists are a microscopic problem
>>compared
>>> >to speeders.
>>>
>>> Welll... you can't much do a lot about it - you can go as slow as you
>>want, and
>>> the death toll will still be unacceptable.
>>>
>>> It is amazing that we put up with this, on an absolute scale. I
>>mean, if there
>>> _were_ terrorists taking down 110 Americans a day, there would be
>>armed citizen
>>> patrols, curfews, etc. But, we're just USED TO THIS.
>>>
>>> Question: If there were a solution that would cut the carnage in
>>half
>>> _without_ slowing down commerce, how much would it be worth?
>>
>>Hey dood. Measures like lower speed limits and suspended licenses or
>>jail time for reckless drivers would pay for itself.
>
> I don't think so. The lower speed limits would impact the economy, if
> they
> were obeyed, which they would not be. The result would be so many people
> in
> jail that the rest of us would go broke supporting them, which would
> _still_
> impact the economy. Either way you look at it, the situation is a loser.
>
>>Tens of billions
>>of $ would be saved every year in medical bills and property damage.
>
> Go as slow as you like, people are still going to screw up and kill each
> other.
> You might lower the death rate by 50%, if you could get people to obey
> these
> laws, but you wouldn't - you'd just have an amazing percentage of the
> population in jail, with the remainder of society taxed to death to simply
> feed
> 'em.
>
> Plus, remember the unintended consequences. Human beings are not designed
> to
> do an easy job for hours on end without losing their concentration.
> People
> would run off the road and hit trees just from going to sleep at the
> wheel,
> even in the daytime, if they did try to obey unreasonably low speed
> limits.
>
> All in all, it doesn't work.
>
> Dave Head

The faster you go, the less time you spend on the road.

Magnulus wrote:
> "Jack May" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Cars already have collision avoidance systems on some models. There is at
>>least one model that also prevents your car from wandering out of a lane
>
> for
>
>>example if you fall asleep at the wheel.
>
>
> I'm not sure I trust that technology (Honda's lane holding tech)- suppose
> you had to swerve out of a lane for an emergency? I'm not sure computers
> are up to being that intelligent yet.
>
> Some of it makes sense, though. BMW has a cruise control that works with
> a radar to keep a safe cruising distance behind other cars, even if they
> slow down.
>
> Also, about half of all accidents are simply somebody losing control of a
> car/truck (often speed is a factor). That's where ABS, stability control,
> etc., will come in.
>
>

The problem is people are driving the car. I know a number of stupid
people with licenses.

They're not difficult to get and somewhat hard to lose.

Dave Head wrote:
>
> Plus, remember the unintended consequences. Human beings are not
designed to
> do an easy job for hours on end without losing their concentration.
People
> would run off the road and hit trees just from going to sleep at the
wheel,
> even in the daytime, if they did try to obey unreasonably low speed
limits.
>
> All in all, it doesn't work.

Hey stupid. It's already been tried - in the 1970s and it worked. In
1974 when we went to the 55, highway fatalities dropped 16% while miles
driven only dropped 2%. This matter was setttled 30 years ago.

Magnulus wrote:
>
> Also, about half of all accidents are simply somebody losing
control of a
> car/truck (often speed is a factor). That's where ABS, stability
control,
> etc., will come in.

Then they're not "accidents." Almost every collison on the highways is
due to driver recklessness.

Around 4/15/2005 8:29 AM, Aunt Judy (Pride of Diarrhea)
<http://tinyurl.com/65nqz> wrote:

> Dave Head wrote:
>
>>All in all, it doesn't work.
>
>
> Hey stupid. It's already been tried - in the 1970s and it worked.

No, Dave is right about this: it didn't work then, and it won't work now.

--
~/Garth
"I am patient with stupidity
but not with those who are proud of it." - Edith Sitwell
(Mail for secure contact information)