Two kinds of idiots

In article >, Joe wrote:
> (Brent P) wrote in
> :
>
>> In article .net>,
>> SVTKate wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Yep. Most of the construction zones can support 60+mph traffic
>> safely when nobody is around. And that's when I normally drive them,
>> when nobody is around. On weekdays, traffic will naturally slow to
>> below 45mph.
>>
>>> 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****.
>>
>> Exactly. And in IL, there will be a piece of blocked off 100 ft of
>> shoulder with no workers at night on a sunday and the construction
>> zone speed limit is valid and may be enforced.

> It's unbelieveable that neither of you realize the possible dangers of
> going through a construction zone whether workers are present or not.
> Common sense alone dictates caution when passing through any kind of
> construction site, whether it's in a car or on foot. You guys sound
> just like 16-year olds who just got their license.

<joe mode> It's unbelievable that you don't understand the possible
dangers of kicking someone in the head. </joe mode>

There are various levels of construction zones. Some I won't want to go
more than 35mph through, and they are posted at 45mph. Others, are posted
at 45mph, yet have zero impact on the road surface or anything near it.

For instance, the shoulder work I mentioned. It's 3am on an IL interstate.
all regular lanes are open, same normal road surface, there is a few feet of
shoulder blocked off with cones. There are no holes in it. Just some
cones off the side of the road and a 45mph construction zone speed limit.

Do you think that the speed limit on an interstate should drop to 45mph
if a car is parked on the shoulder?

The parked car on the shoulder is more of a hazard than these
'construction' sites.

In article >, Joe wrote:
> (Brent P) wrote in
> :
>
>> In article > , Joe
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I fully understand what you wrote. I simply put it in extreme
>>> terms to make my point.
>>
>> So you are doing character attack by strawman.
>
> A typical paranoid response. Goes right along with the whining about
> all the laws you don't like.

Same deal, character attack. Can't deal with things in the realm of
ideas.

>> Lame.
>
> Want to see lame? Have a good look in the mirror.

*yawn*

>> When you can
>> handle actual debate, let me know.

> You've shown nothing that indicates you're even capable of a debate.
> All you've been doing is whining.

I've put forth many a logical, reasoned arguement. Thus far I am the only
person to present cites supporting my statements. Let me know when you
get around to something above name calling and other nonsense methods.

In article >, Joe wrote:

>>> 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.
>>
>> You don't seem to understand the problem wrt liberty here. You can
>> choose to disobey the law and be a violator. Or you chould choose to
>> obey the law and be a suspected criminal.

> Brent, has anybody told you that you're paranoid?

Trust you police department, they're your friend. They will only punish
bad guys. Have you read about the cops in NY recently?

Your trust in authority is unfounded. I merely believe as the founders of
this nation did. You'd rather trust in authority. I hope that authority
is used against you unfairly so you'll understand.

>> I find it remarkable that
>> this catch 22 is perfectly acceptable to you.

> It's only a catch-22 to you.

You do have problems with the english language.

>> I suppose that's
>> because you've never been pulled over when you haven't violated any
>> aspect of the vehicle code. I have, on more than one occasion.

> It's all part of living in a country with laws. Sounds like you need
> to be on your own desert island.

Sounds like you need to be on board a ufo with the greys giving you an
anal probe.

>>>>> 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.
>>
>> IF that is the case, then they are failing miserably. Time to try
>> something else.

> Consider how things would be if they didn't exist.

No speed limits? things would probably be considerably better. The truely
reckless drivers would still be that way, everybody else would be the way
they are, except those affraid of enforcement would likely go a tad
faster and lane blocking would decrease.

>> Or make the punishment considerably more harsh. If
>> it was about safety, the fine shouldn't be so low. It should be high
>> enough that it would be worth fighiting a speeding ticket.

> I don't know what it's like where you are, but you're well into three
> figures and possibly four if you're speeding far above the posted
> limit on a highway, not to mention points. Forget it if you get
> nabbed for racing.

No, make 1mph over jail time with multi thousand dollar fines. Not just
for street racers and people doing a 100 over the limit. But regular old
speeding as being discussed. If it's such a safety issue, it should be
jail time.

In article >, Joe wrote:
> (Brent P) wrote in
> :
>
>> In article >, Joe
>> wrote:
>>> (Brent P) wrote in
>>> news:F_adnZhhB- :
>>>
>>>> In article >, RichA
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> That would be excellent. But the problem is, it would mean
>>>> enforcing speed limits for safety instead of profit. Enforcing for
>>>> safety
>>> costs
>>>> money, enforcing for profit makes money.
>>>
>>> Another newsflash: There aren't enough cops to enforce the speed
>>> limit, whether it's for money or safety. There will _always_ be
>>> more speeders and wreckless drivers than police to catch them.
>>
>> Make a speeding conviction a prison sentance and there won't need to
>> be.
>
> Brent, you need to make up your mind. First, you say you're against
> the laws. Now you want to send speeders to jail. Schizo or what?

You have a problem with the context and the english language. Go get some
adult education courses at the local HS under your belt.

>> There are very few truely reckless drivers. There are lots of
>> wreckless drivers. Note the difference. Why you'd want punish
>> drivers for not having wrecks, I have no idea.

> In addition to being schizo, now you're not even making sense.

Read the paragraph of yours I was responding to. wreckless and
reckless. You wrote 'wreckless'.

You're a selfish asshole that doesn't care. Yep, I get it. Your
projections all make sense now.


In article >, Joe wrote:
> Glad you finally get it.
>
>
> (Brent P) wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> That explains a lot.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> In article >, Joe
> wrote:
>>> (Brent P) wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You don't seem to understand how things work.
>>>
>>> I understand very well how things work. What you don't seem to
>>> understand is how things _don't_ work.
>>>
>>>> You don't care.
>>>
>>> Bingo! Give the man a cigar.
>>>
>>> After all, it's only USENET.
>>>
>>>> It's
>>>> all about your ease of doing things, just like most top posters.
>>>> Just push the work on other people.
>>>
>>> Dude, if you had read, you'd have seen that I top post to other
>>> people's top posting. I bottom post to other people's bottom
> posts.
>>> I'm flexible.
>>>
>>>> And it seems you have a inability to read and pay attention.
>>>
>>> It seems that way because _you_ aren't reading and paying
> attention.
>>>
>>>> I start
>>>> top posting in threads about top posting. Because it's the best
> way
>>>> to demonstrate my points.
>>>
>>> LOL! Whatever. As you said above, I really don't give a rat's
> ass.
>>
>

In article >, Joe wrote:
> (Brent P) wrote in
> :
>
>> In article >, Joe
>> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> But joan claybrook et al believe that forcing faster traffic to
>> weave through was -safer- because it made them go slower.
>>
>> I don't believe that, but that's the tennet of lane blocking in the
>> speed kills religion.
>>
>>> 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...
>>
>> See the following chart:
>>
>> http://www.fhwa.dot.gov//////tfhrc/s...mages/fig1.gif
>> http://www.sha.state.md.us/images/85thchart.gif
>>
>> I like to base my risk assement on actual data than warm fuzzy
>> feelings.
>
> I like to base my risk assesment on actual experience rather than old
> charts off a website.

You might want to read whole posts before replying.

>> I've experimented with various travel speeds and concluded that this
>> chart matches well with my experience. I've nearly been killed on
>> more than one occasion because I was following the speed limit that
>> was severely underposted. Our lady of blessed acceleration is what
>> saved me.
>
> So take the bus.

Nahh, speeding like everyone else is easier.

"Brent P" > wrote
| I don't give in so easily. I also am capable of out performing most
| drivers in city/suburban traffic. In other words, the cars in front of me
| slow me down. Drivers may pass me mid-block, but I will usually stay on
| the same light cycle as them for miles on end.


Brent ...
We ain't talking suburbia here...
This here is whatcha call a RURAL area.

Narrow, winding, two lane roads with people that drive all over them. No
lights, nothing other than the other guy that crosses into your lane when he
is rounding a turn. Ot just not paying attention.

People out here get hit by cars all the time when they are walking down the
side of the road.
People get hit while they are checking their mailbox... three last year that
I am aware of.

Lots of elders and youngins out here. Not many in the middle it seems.

No way am I gonna ride a bike on the road under those conditions.

Kate

"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, RichA wrote:
>
>> who think
>> 40mph can mix with 60mph without problems.
>
> On a limited access highway where lane discipline is practiced, a wide
> speed variance is easy and safely delt with. Only in the USA is this a
> problem, because lane discipline is practically non-existant in much of
> the nation.
>
> Lane discipline is why a 911 and 2CV can be on the autobahn at the same
> time.

Yes, the concept of "Rechtfahren" (sp?), "drive right", even though a law,
doesn't concern most people in the US. One reason said autobahns are safer
than US interstates is the German police take this VERY seriously.

I knew a German woman who was pulled over in the far left for going 140kmh -
90mph - because prevailing traffic is about 160-180kmh in that lane. Too
slow at 90, move over, here's your expensive ticket. Makes complete sense.
Also, people there (and in France, and others) have to take a lengthy
course, and actually know how to drive a car, not just point and shoot,
before they are permitted on the road.

Driving is a privelege. If I were in the proper rank of governmental
authority for a week, I would compel the entire nation to begin this
process. Don't pass? Don't drive. Sorry, too bad, so sad. Carpool or
take a bus until you do, or don't drive at all. I would have no sympathy or
grandfather clauses. Why should there be? Fewer (incompetent) drivers =
fewer accidents that competent drivers have to deal with. "Oh, I'm broke, I
don't have time, I got five kids". I don't give a ****. You've got a
lethal weapon. And, outlaw all cellphone use with $1000 fines and
suspensions for the third offense. The human mind only has a finite amount
of conscious attention to devote to any give set of activities. Splitting
it further and further and putting less of it to the important task - not
talking on the ****ing phone - makes you dangerous. Period. Basic
psychology tells us this.

You want a body count from me from this ****? It's sickening. Add the
people who have been maimed or paralyzed, and it's even moreso. Think about
it a minute yourselves. Think about all the near misses you've had, maybe
even today. The answer is clear - stiff penalities, and tests that are
actually difficult, and that actually test driving skill.

My sister-in-law shouldn't drive; she's absolutely freaking dangerous.
She's totally absent-minded, and has no clue how to catch a skid. She's
wrecked more cars than I can count, and only hasn't killed herself or others
by the grace of God. Then she cries (literally) that the car was to blame.
I won't ride with her. And I'd feel safer if people like her weren't out
there, able to buy and drive cars with (in this context) frightening
performance potentials.

There are many kinds of idiots. And then there are many other, more
dangerous kinds out there. Take a good number of 'em off the ****ing roads,
I say.

--
Wound Up
ThunderSnake #65

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 04:07:48 GMT, "Wound Up" >
wrote:

>"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >, RichA wrote:
>>
>>> who think
>>> 40mph can mix with 60mph without problems.
>>
>> On a limited access highway where lane discipline is practiced, a wide
>> speed variance is easy and safely delt with. Only in the USA is this a
>> problem, because lane discipline is practically non-existant in much of
>> the nation.
>>
>> Lane discipline is why a 911 and 2CV can be on the autobahn at the same
>> time.
>
>Yes, the concept of "Rechtfahren" (sp?), "drive right", even though a law,
>doesn't concern most people in the US. One reason said autobahns are safer
>than US interstates is the German police take this VERY seriously.
>
>I knew a German woman who was pulled over in the far left for going 140kmh -
>90mph - because prevailing traffic is about 160-180kmh in that lane. Too
>slow at 90, move over, here's your expensive ticket. Makes complete sense.
>Also, people there (and in France, and others) have to take a lengthy
>course, and actually know how to drive a car, not just point and shoot,
>before they are permitted on the road.
>
>Driving is a privelege. If I were in the proper rank of governmental
>authority for a week, I would compel the entire nation to begin this
>process. Don't pass? Don't drive. Sorry, too bad, so sad. Carpool or
>take a bus until you do, or don't drive at all. I would have no sympathy or
>grandfather clauses. Why should there be? Fewer (incompetent) drivers =
>fewer accidents that competent drivers have to deal with. "Oh, I'm broke, I
>don't have time, I got five kids". I don't give a ****. You've got a
>lethal weapon. And, outlaw all cellphone use with $1000 fines and
>suspensions for the third offense. The human mind only has a finite amount
>of conscious attention to devote to any give set of activities. Splitting
>it further and further and putting less of it to the important task - not
>talking on the ****ing phone - makes you dangerous. Period. Basic
>psychology tells us this.
>
>You want a body count from me from this ****? It's sickening. Add the
>people who have been maimed or paralyzed, and it's even moreso. Think about
>it a minute yourselves. Think about all the near misses you've had, maybe
>even today. The answer is clear - stiff penalities, and tests that are
>actually difficult, and that actually test driving skill.
>
>My sister-in-law shouldn't drive; she's absolutely freaking dangerous.
>She's totally absent-minded, and has no clue how to catch a skid. She's
>wrecked more cars than I can count, and only hasn't killed herself or others
>by the grace of God. Then she cries (literally) that the car was to blame.
>I won't ride with her. And I'd feel safer if people like her weren't out
>there, able to buy and drive cars with (in this context) frightening
>performance potentials.
>
>There are many kinds of idiots. And then there are many other, more
>dangerous kinds out there. Take a good number of 'em off the ****ing roads,
>I say.

I agree with you completely. In the vast majority of cases where
accidents happen, it's the driver's fault and there are too many
who shouldn't be on the road. But in American (and Canada) driving
is looked at as some kind of God-given right, which it isn't.
I drive always assuming that the worst possible thing can happen
because of what's around me.
In more cases than I can recall, I've seen what "could" have happened
had I been nonchanlant about driving.
You want a good indication of a bad driver? Someone who says
that Mustangs are bad winter cars. This tells you right off that that
person likely drives thoughtlessly since they expect the vehicle to
drive for them.
But first things first; There is now study after study proving cell
phones pose a huge risk to motorists. It's time to ban their use
when driving, everywhere.
-Rich

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article >, Joe
> wrote:
>> (Brent P) wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> In article
>>> .net>, SVTKate
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "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?
>>>
>>> The day before it got cold again. Tuesday.
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> I don't give in so easily. I also am capable of out performing
>>> most drivers in city/suburban traffic. In other words, the cars in
>>> front of me slow me down. Drivers may pass me mid-block, but I
>>> will usually stay on the same light cycle as them for miles on
>>> end.
>>
>> This speaks volumes about you, Brent. You equate giving in to
>> being outperformed on the street.
>
> You have trouble with the english language that's for sure. There is
> no statement of equilvence there. There are two separate statements.
> The separation of these statements is made clear with the word
> 'also'. In addition to, not equal to. I don't give in so easily in
> that I don't quit riding because of other people. But that's easier
> for me because I _also_ out perform most drivers when I am using a
> _bicycle_.
>
> You don't seem to grasp that, I'm on a bicycle, they are in their
> cars. I can turn and accelerate better on a _bicycle_ than they do
> with their cars. You know what a bicycle is right? A two wheeled,
> human propelled vehicle. What do you think I put out? a 1/4 hp?
>
>> One more newsflash: Laws exist to protect most people from the
>> likes of you. Given your attitude you portray in here, you're
>> downright dangerous on the street.
>
> Oh yeah... my 35mph top speed on bicycle is such a threat. I'll
> wager I commit fewer moving violations than you do. I am not talking
> being caught, but actual moving violations. See, I pay a great deal
> of attention to that other part of the vehicle code that doesn't
> have to do with speed. I even signal turns and lane changes when
> using a bicycle.

Dude, if you're on a bicycle in a lane that vehicles use, you're a
complete idiot.