Two kinds of idiots

In article >, Joe wrote:
> Using your own logic, wouldn't it be just dandy if someone decided
> they had a great reason to hunt you down and blow you away? Of
> course, it would be just fine because they didn't agree with the
> concept that killing people is against the law.

Try some courses at the local HS on reading comprehension and then some
on actual US history, if any are still taught. Then maybe you'll understand
what I wrote.

Notice the tactic of top posting being used to avoid actually addressing
my points.

Brent P wrote:
> In article >, Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>
>>I remember talking to an old VDOT employee several years ago and he told
>>me how they determined speed limits before the design of roadways became
>>standardized. They observed the actual traffic speed, plugged those
>>numbers into an equation (nothing complicated I'm sure), rounded to the
>>nearest multiple of 5 mph and that number was the speed limit. Too bad
>>this still isn't the way it is done.
>
>
> 85th percentile method. It's been found to lead to the safest conditions
> and best flows. It's oppsed by the insurance companies that surcharge on
> speeding tickets, local governments that make money on speeding tickets,
> state governments that get money from speeding tickets. Basically anyone
> that profits from speed limits set lower than people actually drive.

Unfortunately, there are multitudes fines and penalties that are
basically revenue generation measures (i.e. another way to tax us) for
the government. I live in Virginia and in 1995 the state legislature
passed a law giving localities the right to install cameras at
intersections to automatically photograph vehicles for speeding and red
light violations. Trouble is they sent the ticket to the vehicle owner
and not necessarily the driver who committed the violation. All these
municipalities could care less if they ticketed the actual driver, it
was the owners fault and responsibility to pay the fine. These cameras
were cash cows for them to exploit. They would collaborate private
companies that took a percentage of the ticket revenue in return for
installing the devices and maintaining them. All they had to do was
figure out how to spend all the money they made, of which, IMO, too much
was illegitimate but they didn't seem to matter to them.

The bill was written to expire in ten years unless the legislature
renewed it. The public complained enough that they let it expire. You
wouldn't believe the whining and complaining from police departments,
etc. that used the cameras. You would have thought they were starving
babies that had bottles yanked out of their mouths. I considered a
small victory for the average Joe that at least deserves to have a
ticket written in his presence by a law enforcement officer.

> It's based on the simple principle that most people will choose a
> reasonable speed.

As it should be. It irritates me that the government assumes we all are
reckless drivers and they know what is best for everyone.
Unfortunately, they have this same attitude for far too many areas that
effect our lives.

IMO, the real threat to drivers are those that feel the need to drive
either much slower or faster than the "pack". They will be there no
matter what the speed limit may be. I bet the overwhelming majority of
drivers would support a 75-80 mph speed limit on most rural interstate
highways and be perfectly willing to accept whatever additional risk
they may be exposed to as a result. I know I would for one. One other
thing is that most new cars perform (brake, handle etc.) much better
than the ones on the road when the interstate highway system was
conceived and designed. This is further reason why raising the speed
limit to 75-80 mph wouldn't cause profits for funeral homes to skyrocket.

Joe wrote:
> Within the last few years, they raised the speed limit on I-75 down
> here to 70. It was 65, and everybody did 80-85, so they redid their
> study and agreed that it was certainly safe to raise it to 70. So now
> everybody does 80-90.
>
>
> "Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in
> news >
>
>>I remember talking to an old VDOT employee several years ago and he
>>told me how they determined speed limits before the design of
>>roadways became standardized. They observed the actual traffic
>>speed, plugged those numbers into an equation (nothing complicated
>>I'm sure), rounded to the nearest multiple of 5 mph and that number
>>was the speed limit. Too bad this still isn't the way it is done.
>>
>>Joe wrote:
>>
>>>"SVTKate" > wrote in
rthlink.net:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Joe" > wrote
>>>>*snip*
>>>>| Kate, I really thought you had more sense than this. What did
>>>>| you tell your kids when they learned to drive? That going 5mph
>>>>| over the limit is just fine because "everybody does it"? Did you
>>>>| tell them that the law is only a "suggestion"?
>>>>
>>>>Well, Joe, thanks for the kind words. How much sense I have may be
>>>>questionable at times.
>>>
>>>
>>>I know the feeling.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>You're right, about it being just a suggestion, and you have an
>>>>valid point. It IS the law. There is no arguing with that
>>>>whatsoever.
>>>
>>>
>>>That's my only point.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>But seriously, how many poeple do you know that do the exact speed
>>>>limit? I mean that will admit to always going the limit.
>>>
>>>
>>>None. Myself included. I've taught my son that it's his duty to
>>>obey the laws. But when obeying the law puts him at risk, like
>>>when everybody's doing 90 in a 70, then he should "blend in" with
>>>the traffic so he doesn't pose a hazard to himself or anyone else.
>>>I've also told him that while doing so, he (and everyone else)
>>>risks getting a ticket with points. It's happened to me, and I'm
>>>sure it's happened to others.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>In town, school zones and places like that, I try my damnedest to
>>>>drive the speed limit.
>>>>I would say that 95% of the time I am successful.
>>>
>>>
>>>In school zones, if you're doing 1 mph over the limit, you should
>>>be strung up and shot. 2 cents. We're talking about _kids_ here.
>>>Children, fercrissakes.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>BUT, on the freeway?
>>>>If I'm doing 5-7 mph over I'm still sitting still out there when
>>>>everyone is wizzing past. I know that because everyone else does
>>>>it, is not a good excuse, but dangit, I am not going to drive 65
>>>>while the rest of the world is driving 75-80.
>>>
>>>
>>>Like I said above, if it poses a hazard to do the limit, then by
>>>all means blend in. But by doing so, realize that you're also
>>>putting yourself at risk for getting a ticket with points. Those
>>>are the facts.
>>
>

"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
| In article .net>,
SVTKate wrote:
|
| > But seriously, how many poeple do you know that do the exact speed
limit? I
| > mean that will admit to always going the limit.
|
| The ISP has been threatening to use photo radar in construction zones.
| I've been slowing to the posted 45mph speed instead of the customary
| 55-65 depending on the road conditions. I keep to the right, and man have
| I been ****ing people off. A few times I had to accelerate just to avoid
| being crashed into. I how have to balance my safety vs. the law. There
| should never be such a condition.
|


I have seen this situation so many times I cannot tell you.
Since my husband worked heavy construction nearly all of his life we tend to
be extremely contentious in construction zones. We KNOWwhat it's like for
the guys working out there and we want to see each and every one of them
make it home at the end of their shift.

I have many times had people really angry at me for driving the posted
limit, or big trucks drive rught up my tailpipe. There comes a point where
you feel that you must go faster to avoid being rammed from behind.

It's situations like this that can get very dangerous. I DO wish that they
would require the construction speed signs be covered when the crews have
gone home. So that normal traffic can flow. If the road conditions permit it
of course.

Even if a soul isn't on the site, if you exceed the speed limit in a
construction zone, you can get popped with a double fine... for endangering
no one. I think that is bull****.

Kate

"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?

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.

Kate

RichA > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 23:20:25 GMT, Joe >
wrote:
>
>>RichA > wrote in
m:
>>
>>> On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 14:44:11 GMT, Joe >
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>"SVTKate" > wrote in
thlink.net:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Brent P" > wrote
>>>>>
>>>>> *snipped*
>>>>>
>>>>>| What is the purpose of having so many laws such that people
>>cannot
>>>>>| get through the day without breaking laws? What is the purpose
of
>>>>>| having laws that define common, reasonable behavior as illegal?
>>>>>| Many laws in this nation are only enforced selectively. Against
>>>>>| people who are not liked, or have a certain appearance, etc and
>>so
>>>>>| forth.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because without all of those laws, the jackasses in Washington
>>>>> wouldn't have a job making more.
>>>>> Your paragraph above Brent is, IMHO, right on the money.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>|
>>>>>| Emotional appeals. Even less. Do you obey 55 mph interstate
speed
>>>>>| limits? I'll wager in any give day you commit more moving
>>>>>| violations than I do.
>>>>>|
>>>>>
>>>>> Again I agree. I always push the interstate speed limits 5-9 mph
>>>>> over. Out here, if the speed limit is 45, they drive 55-60.
>>>>> If it's 70, they are driving 80-85.
>>>>> I feel like an idiot allot of the time because everyone is
passing
>>>>> me. It's not as though I don't WANT to go that fast, BUT I just
do
>>>>> not want that ticket.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Kate
>>>>
>>>>Kate, I really thought you had more sense than this. What did you
>>>>tell your kids when they learned to drive? That going 5mph over
the
>>>>limit is just fine because "everybody does it"? Did you tell them
>>>>that the law is only a "suggestion"?
>>>
>>> Of course no one would, but then young people pay huge insurance
>>rates
>>> because they have no e-x-p-e-r-i-e-n-c-e. There is NO reason for
an
>>> experienced driver not to drive 70-80mph on an uncrowded, dry
>>highway;
>>> None. Yet our speed limits stay at 60mph, crowded, uncrowded,
rain
>>or
>>> shine.
>>
>>You're simply wrong. The single reason is the law. Go above the
>>limit and risk getting a ticket with points.
>>
>>> Some have said it is because people normally drive 10-15mph faster
>>> that they keep them at 60mph, which is fine, at least it
acknowleges
>>> that people DO drive faster on average than the speed limit and
>>there
>>> is no major increase in danger from it.
>>
>>Don't mix apples and oranges. Driving dangerously had nothing to do
>>with the speed limit.
>>
>>> And, even if there is, there has to be a point at which you say,
we
>>> are a car-driving society. We accept as a consequence that people
>>> will be injured and hurt in car accidents because of this. We can
>>> slow cars down to 40mph on highways and we know it "might"
mitigate
>>> some fatalities, but we've rationalized that the risk of faster
>>speeds
>>> is paid back in the rewards of faster speeds, namely, getting
where
>>> were going in a suitable period of time. There are some who think
>>> the sheer tedium of travelling very slow makes drivers worse
>>drivers.
>>
>>So what? If you're a bad driver, you shouldn't be on the road until
>>you become a good driver.
>>
>>> 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.
>>> This is what they do in some countries in Europe. This would
>>> legalize the higher speed, would not encourage people to go faster
>>> than they already do, but, would mean someone going 80mph wouldn't
>>> face the possibility of a ticket for doing so. I think it would
>>also
>>> encourage people to develop a more disciplined driving style than
>>> they practice now.
>>
>>Then do something about it. Write your legistlators and try to get
it
>>enacted. Be empowered. Don't sit there and post drivel about how
>>unfair things are and not do anything about it.
>>
>>> I'd keep speeds the same on city streets though and nail people's
>>> asses to the wall if they did things like run red lights. IMO,
>>> you should have your license suspended for things like that
because
>>> they have inherently higher risk than simply going faster on a
>>highway
>>> that can support it.
>>> -Rich
>>
>>So change things. If the current laws bother you so much, do
>>something to change them. Don't whine with the excuse that it's too
>>hard and nobody listens - that's just a cop out.
>>
>>Bottom line - either abide by the law or do something to change it
for
>>the better. Simply breaking it and whining that it's not a fair law
>>anyway is just plain lazy, cowardly bull****.
>
> I guess you have to believe the politicians as well? Good luck.
> When the conservatives wanted in in Ontario Canada, the talked about
> raising the speed limit to 70mph, which most supported. They got
in,
> the idea was never raised again. They talked about allowing stores
> (other than official government run ones) to sell liquor) and nearly
> everyone supported it, except for the overpaid employees in the gov
> stores. They got in, they never mentioned it again.
> The only thing with regard to traffic that ever got passed by
> politicians in Ontario was the implementation of photo radar and
> people finally went nuts with hatred of it, and the slimy socialists
> who brought it in had to back down and remove it.
> If people haven't figured out that North America is becomming a
worse
> 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.

(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.

>> 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.

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article >, Joe
> wrote:
>> Using your own logic, wouldn't it be just dandy if someone decided
>> they had a great reason to hunt you down and blow you away? Of
>> course, it would be just fine because they didn't agree with the
>> concept that killing people is against the law.
>
> Try some courses at the local HS on reading comprehension and then
> some on actual US history, if any are still taught. Then maybe
> you'll understand what I wrote.

I fully understand what you wrote. I simply put it in extreme terms
to make my point.

> Notice the tactic of top posting being used to avoid actually
> addressing my points.

As I said in another post, I'll respond based on the first response.
You've been top posting, so I have. Your response was a bottom post,
so I simply followed suit. Hope that's not too difficult to
understand.

Again, so what? If you don't like it don't read it. If you want to
whine about it, get ready for responses. And btw, why do you continue
to top post if it's so horrible?


(Brent P) wrote in
:

>
> Really? I've seen 1000 line posts when two top posters went at it.
> Posts so long that I would have to wait on a broadband connection.
> Back when I was using modem connections, these would really suck.
>
> Also, 95+% of top posters I've encountered don't trim, don't do any
> work what so ever, they expect other people to do it. There are a
> few idiot bottom posters who do the same. No trimming what so ever.
> Posts that are practically unreadable except for the new content.
>
> As I stated before, it's also a good way just to ignore points the
> other person has made.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In article >, Joe
> wrote:
>> (Brent P) wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Well it slows things down, is wasteful, hard to follow, messy. If
>>> you are refering to pushing the work on others, well it's just
>>> plain rude.
>>
>> Not to usurp Kate's response, but the above is simply bull****.
>>
>>
>>> In article >, Joe
>>> wrote:
>>>> So what?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (Brent P) wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And if we keep top posting long enough, the last post in the
>>>>> thread will be a 1000 lines wrong. That's why I start top
>>>>> posting when someone decides to argue with me that it's ok. If I
>>>>> top post long enough, they begin to get the point. See, top
>>>>> posting doesn't work well when neither party is doing the clean
>>>>> up work. Top posters function because others are doing the clean
>>>>> up
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In article >, Joe
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I tend to follow the leader. If I respond to a top post (like
>>>>>> this one), I'll top post. If I respond to a bottom post, I'll
>>>>>> bottom post. Real easy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>> Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies
>>>>>> Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (Brent P) wrote in
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>> .net>,
>>>>>>> SVTKate wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, because it forces all the work on the other person. and
>>>>>>> it puts things out out of order. Most top posters, including
>>>>>>> the one I responded to, don't even bother to trim.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The only reason top posting occurs so much now, is because of
>>>>>>> microsoft crapware.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because someone top posts that makes them disrespectful?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think it makes it easier to read the comment wiithout
>>>>>>>> having to sort through the whole post.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Back in the day" top posting was considered a no-no, times
>>>>>>>> have changed. You may as well get used to it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Kate
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Brent P" > wrote
>>>>>>>>| You haven't been arguing from 'authority', top posting and
>>>>>>>>| ignoring my points that is not respect.
>>>>>>>>|
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *snipped for clarity*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>

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. These idiots will
be doing their thing regardless of the speed limit. And of course,
there are always the moron 2-wheelers who drive down the line in
between lanes. The other day I almost saw one get taken out because a
car changed lanes right in front of him.

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...


"Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in
:

> IMO, the real threat to drivers are those that feel the need to
> drive either much slower or faster than the "pack". They will be
> there no matter what the speed limit may be. I bet the overwhelming
> majority of drivers would support a 75-80 mph speed limit on most
> rural interstate highways and be perfectly willing to accept
> whatever additional risk they may be exposed to as a result. I know
> I would for one. One other thing is that most new cars perform
> (brake, handle etc.) much better than the ones on the road when the
> interstate highway system was conceived and designed. This is
> further reason why raising the speed limit to 75-80 mph wouldn't
> cause profits for funeral homes to skyrocket.
>
> Joe wrote:
>> Within the last few years, they raised the speed limit on I-75 down
>> here to 70. It was 65, and everybody did 80-85, so they redid
>> their study and agreed that it was certainly safe to raise it to
>> 70. So now everybody does 80-90.
>>
>>
>> "Michael Johnson, PE" > wrote in
>> news >>
>>
>>>I remember talking to an old VDOT employee several years ago and he
>>>told me how they determined speed limits before the design of
>>>roadways became standardized. They observed the actual traffic
>>>speed, plugged those numbers into an equation (nothing complicated
>>>I'm sure), rounded to the nearest multiple of 5 mph and that number
>>>was the speed limit. Too bad this still isn't the way it is done.
>>>
>>>Joe wrote:
>>>
>>>>"SVTKate" > wrote in
arthlink.net:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Joe" > wrote
>>>>>*snip*
>>>>>| Kate, I really thought you had more sense than this. What did
>>>>>| you tell your kids when they learned to drive? That going 5mph
>>>>>| over the limit is just fine because "everybody does it"? Did
>>>>>| you tell them that the law is only a "suggestion"?
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, Joe, thanks for the kind words. How much sense I have may
>>>>>be questionable at times.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I know the feeling.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>You're right, about it being just a suggestion, and you have an
>>>>>valid point. It IS the law. There is no arguing with that
>>>>>whatsoever.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That's my only point.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>But seriously, how many poeple do you know that do the exact
>>>>>speed limit? I mean that will admit to always going the limit.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>None. Myself included. I've taught my son that it's his duty to
>>>>obey the laws. But when obeying the law puts him at risk, like
>>>>when everybody's doing 90 in a 70, then he should "blend in" with
>>>>the traffic so he doesn't pose a hazard to himself or anyone else.
>>>>I've also told him that while doing so, he (and everyone else)
>>>>risks getting a ticket with points. It's happened to me, and I'm
>>>>sure it's happened to others.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In town, school zones and places like that, I try my damnedest to
>>>>>drive the speed limit.
>>>>>I would say that 95% of the time I am successful.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>In school zones, if you're doing 1 mph over the limit, you should
>>>>be strung up and shot. 2 cents. We're talking about _kids_ here.
>>>>Children, fercrissakes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>BUT, on the freeway?
>>>>>If I'm doing 5-7 mph over I'm still sitting still out there when
>>>>>everyone is wizzing past. I know that because everyone else does
>>>>>it, is not a good excuse, but dangit, I am not going to drive 65
>>>>>while the rest of the world is driving 75-80.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Like I said above, if it poses a hazard to do the limit, then by
>>>>all means blend in. But by doing so, realize that you're also
>>>>putting yourself at risk for getting a ticket with points. Those
>>>>are the facts.
>>>
>>
>