Two kinds of idiots

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> 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.

Here's the first one that comes to mind: The real possibility that
some debris could be in the lane you're travelling on.

No point in addressing things in line below - your post indicates
quite clearly that you can't be reasoned with.

Have a nice day, Brent, and please stay away from the streets I drive
on. You're a total menace to society.


(Brent P) wrote in
:

> 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.
>
>
>

Gee, Brent, I guess you just couldn't resist stooping to "character
assassination", as you put it, too.


(Brent P) wrote in news:ks-dnX9DN-
:

>
>
>
> 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.
>>>
>>
>

"ZombyWoof" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 04:07:48 GMT, "Wound Up" >
> wrote something wonderfully witty:
>
>>"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.
>>
> Many fines in Germany, and other parts of Europe are income based, you
> do not want to be in the position of having a really good job and get
> a ticket. Their fines are designed to sting rather badly.

I wasn't aware of that. I did know they were expensive. It's more
equitably expensive that way.

>>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.
>>
> And I would be right behind you backing you up 100%. As a nation on a
> whole compared to the majority of European drivers we really are
> incompetent. When Germans first began importing cars to the US they
> could understand the need for cup holders. One of the reason many
> American drivers multi-process while driving is our speed limits are
> too slow. At 100mph one is fully concentrated on driving and would
> not be talking on a cell-phone, eating a Big Mac and slurp on a Big
> Gulp all at the same time. However, since we are a nation of lowest
> common denominator laws we will always have laws based on the lowest
> skill set as opposed to the highest with no requirement for skills
> improvement. At least Florida has started re-licensing people once
> they reach a certain age and are refusing to renew licenses to those
> who can't maintain even our low ass skill set.

I remember that... Germans said, "you mean, you don't use two hands to
drive" or something like that. I can't stand how complacent people have
become with all their entertainment / distraction devices, hauling ass at 80
in thick traffic, feeling invincable because of "safety innovations" they
purchased. The best investment in safety I ever made was taking a road
racing course and autocrossing for a couple years.

>>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.
>>
> Better policing as well. Right now all the damn cops focus on is
> catching those who are exceeding the speed limit. In the area I live
> in the biggest problem is tailgaters. The two major accidents I've
> been in during the ten years I have lived here have both been
> rear-enders with some idiot running into me both resulting in some
> pretty major damage. I bet easily 80% of the accidents here locally
> are because of tailgating, but the cops never pull anyone over for it.

Without a doubt. I spend the majority of my time on every trip or commute
avoiding tailgaiting. Sometimes you can't, but in doing so I've avoided
some ugly accidents. It's also nice to team up with someone who understands
this, and other good driving concepts and practices as well. You can create
buffers around each other with this understanding. On many road trips I've
done this. One guy even stopped for gas with me and chatted, and we
continued on for another 3-4 hours like that. I wish there were some club
with skill criteria for entry, and a way to indentify one another on the
road.

>>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.
>>
> I think we all have two or three in our families that we could point
> out that shouldn't be behind the wheel of a go-cart, let alone an
> automobile. More and more the manufacturers are focusing on drivers
> like your SIL coming up with traction control systems, anti-lock
> brakes, stabilization control systems, and of course all of the safety
> equipment so that when they are in an accident Darwin doesn't come
> into play and they are naturally selected out.

Undoubtedly we could. I'm glad my wife doesn't share that trait with my SIL
= ). And, the effectiveness all of that safety equipment reaches
diminishing returns quickly when the inputs to the wheel and pedals are
applied with little or no skill.

I'd love to take a car around a track with ABS and stability control.
Sounds like fun!

>>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.
>>
> Me too.
> --
> "Either kill me or take me as I am,
> because I'll be damned if I ever change..."
>
> The Marquis de Sade

In article >, Joe wrote:
> Gee, Brent, I guess you just couldn't resist stooping to "character
> assassination", as you put it, too.

I've never put it that way. I never made the quote you are attributing to
me in this thread.

As I've stated many times, I reflect back at people how they treat me.

>
> (Brent P) wrote in news:ks-dnX9DN-
> :
>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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:

>> 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.

Bicycle = vehicle. Just not motor vehicle. It's the safest way to ride
btw.

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/docs/pamanual.pdf

In article > , Joe wrote:
> (Brent P) wrote in

<snipping what joe is too lazy to trim>

>> 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.

> Here's the first one that comes to mind: The real possibility that
> some debris could be in the lane you're travelling on.

If you only look for debris when there is road construction, you're an
idiot.

In article >, Joe wrote:
> No point in addressing things in line below - your post indicates
> quite clearly that you can't be reasoned with.
>
> Have a nice day, Brent, and please stay away from the streets I drive
> on. You're a total menace to society.

Face saving nonsense above noted.

Seems like that is your prime response when someone points out your
prime character flaws, and you have no legitimate response.

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 13:14:15 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

>In article >, Joe wrote:
>> No point in addressing things in line below - your post indicates
>> quite clearly that you can't be reasoned with.
>>
>> Have a nice day, Brent, and please stay away from the streets I drive
>> on. You're a total menace to society.
>
>Face saving nonsense above noted.
>

Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16

I imagine then that you do a lot of reflecting back. Perhaps it is
because the attitude you present is of a self centered, holier than
thou, egotist, who just wants to see his words in print, and feel that
he is having true communications with others. This may not be who you
are, not what you are about, but it is the way you come across.

It's like the joke about the masochist and the sadist standing on the
corner. The masochist pleads with the sadist, "beat me, beat me". To
which the sadist replies, "NO!".

And on that note, I place you on my ignore list, and say, "no more!".

I would suggest that the others take a similar course. Nothing you say
will alter Brent's view, nor his response to anything you might have
to say.

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 13:03:13 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

>In article >, Joe wrote:
>> Gee, Brent, I guess you just couldn't resist stooping to "character
>> assassination", as you put it, too.
>
>I've never put it that way. I never made the quote you are attributing to
>me in this thread.
>
>As I've stated many times, I reflect back at people how they treat me.
>
>>
>> (Brent P) wrote in news:ks-dnX9DN-
>> :
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>

Hey! Spikey Likes IT!
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
Vintage 40 Wheels 16X8"
w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A Radial 225/50ZR16