 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / June 2006Too Old
Long story short. Yesterday, on a little-used side road, I came up behind a vehicle stopped at a flashing red light. We sat and sat. Nothing coming. I thought maybe the lady had car trouble. I went to her and the car was running and I asked if she had car trouble. She said "No, the light is red". I explained the purpose of a flashing red. The lady appeared to be around 90 years old. IMHO, I don't believe she should be driving. Took license number and visited local PD. Informed that other complaints received. >Long story short. >Yesterday, on a little-used side road, I came up behind a vehicle [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >license number and visited local PD. Informed that other complaints >received. Yeah someone like that shouldn't be driving. But what about drunk drivers and speeders doing 30 mph over the limit?. Now there's a public menace and yet they seldom lose their license. >>Long story short. >>Yesterday, on a little-used side road, I came up behind a vehicle [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Yeah someone like that shouldn't be driving. But what about drunk > drivers and speeders doing 30 mph over the limit?. Now there's a ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > public menace and yet they seldom lose their license. Only ones of those I see are cops... everyone else only does maybe 20 over. nate  Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > >Long story short. > >Yesterday, on a little-used side road, I came up behind a vehicle [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > drivers and speeders doing 30 mph over the limit?. Now there's a > public menace and yet they seldom lose their license. Even most people exceeding the speed limit by 30 mph are seldom involved in accidents. > > >Long story short. > > >Yesterday, on a little-used side road, I came up behind a vehicle [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Even most people exceeding the speed limit by 30 mph are seldom involved > in accidents. True, the idiots who FUBAR other cars in wrecks are quite a small percentage of the overall. Here's an idea...since legally it requires a license to drive, the assumption is a certain level of skill is demonstrated in the driving test. I recommend a road test every other license renewal to age 63 and every renewal afterwards. The addendum: for any traffic conviction less than 5 years old, a road test every time. Ever notice that many severe violations are caused by people driving without a license? That should be an automatic year's incarceration if convicted. >>>>Long story short. >>>>Yesterday, on a little-used side road, I came up behind a vehicle [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > without a license? That should be an automatic year's incarceration if > convicted. The only problem with that is that suspending one's driver's license for non-driving-related offenses (underage drinking even if driving is not involved, nonpayment of child support, etc.) however if those issues are rectified I don't have a problem with that especially since getting a license in the first place is so trivial that pretty much anyone can do it. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel >> Ever notice that many severe violations are caused by people driving >> without a license? That should be an automatic year's incarceration if [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > non-driving-related offenses (underage drinking even if driving is not > involved, nonpayment of child support, etc.) I fail to see the problem. brink >>>Ever notice that many severe violations are caused by people driving >>>without a license? That should be an automatic year's incarceration if [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > brink Um, a 20-year-old having a beer is not a problem, outside of our overly Puritanical society. It certainly has nothing to do with his or her ability to safely operate a motor vehicle. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > Nate Nagel said in rec.autos.driving: > > I fail to see the problem. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Puritanical society. It certainly has nothing to do with his or her > ability to safely operate a motor vehicle. I get a laugh out of the hypocrisy surrounding taking away the license of someone who is behind on his child support. Let me see if I have this straight: the guy is having trouble paying and having to choose between paying the child support or to paying into the bush war fund so he can drive to work to earn money, so, lets take away his drivers license so he can't get to work at all, and just let the kid starve if he can't pay the support because he can't get to work. Now, this doesn't apply to the CEO who just is too cheap and/or amoral to keep up his obligations. If the father is able to pay his support, but refuses to do so, then his a.s should be locked up and the money taken from his account by court order if needed. -- "You jump in front of my car when you, you know all the time that Ninety miles an hour, girl, is the speed I drive" --Jimi Hendrix > I get a laugh out of the hypocrisy surrounding taking away the license > of someone who is behind on his child support. Let me see if I have this [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > he can't get to work at all, and just let the kid starve if he can't pay > the support because he can't get to work. As you illustrate, the logic is flawed. It may be just a way of establishing the method of using this for other things to come later. After all, teenage drinkers and child support dead beats aren't going to get any support. Makes it easy to establish the method. Of course this wouldn't occur at all if the dangerous driving-is-a-government-granted privilege thing hadn't been started. > Brent P said in rec.autos.driving: > As you illustrate, the logic is flawed. It may be just a way of > establishing the method of using this for other things to come later. > After all, teenage drinkers and child support dead beats aren't going to > get any support. Makes it easy to establish the method. True, then it will be extended to other "offenses," that might get support if we weren't a bunch of sheep; say, pay your taxes or lose your DL. Or better yet, criticize the president or congress and you lose your DL (better watch out, Loco Laura ;) ).... > Of course this wouldn't occur at all if the dangerous > driving-is-a-government-granted privilege thing hadn't been started. Unfortunately, We The People, have evolved (devolved?) to the point where we're so dependent on the benevolence of government (and the corporate cabal) that's its sickening. I guess we as a nation have not listened to Franklin's words... Signature-- "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." --Benjamin Franklin >> Brent P said in rec.autos.driving: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > DL. Or better yet, criticize the president or congress and you lose your > DL (better watch out, Loco Laura ;) ).... Hey, it's already illegal to "annoy" someone anonymously on the nternet. -Dave >>> Brent P said in rec.autos.driving: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Hey, it's already illegal to "annoy" someone anonymously on the > nternet. -Dave I thought that failed to pass. > I get a laugh out of the hypocrisy surrounding taking away the license > of someone who is behind on his child support. Let me see if I have this [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > but refuses to do so, then his a.s should be locked up and the money > taken from his account by court order if needed. We need to just end child support since it's nothing but wife support. > > I get a laugh out of the hypocrisy surrounding taking away the license > > of someone who is behind on his child support. Let me see if I have this [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > We need to just end child support since it's nothing but wife support. Whoa, wait a minute...that makes too much sense...won't fly in this society...:) >> > I get a laugh out of the hypocrisy surrounding taking away the license >> > of someone who is behind on his child support. Let me see if I have this [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >Whoa, wait a minute...that makes too much sense...won't fly in this >society...:) I know it. Lawyers make a fortune off the child support racket. >>>>Ever notice that many severe violations are caused by people driving >>>>without a license? That should be an automatic year's incarceration if [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Puritanical society. It certainly has nothing to do with his or her > ability to safely operate a motor vehicle. How about a 16-year-old having a beer? Problem? brink > "Nate Nagel" <njnagel@flycast.net> wrote in message >> Um, a 20-year-old having a beer is not a problem, outside of our overly >> Puritanical society. It certainly has nothing to do with his or her >> ability to safely operate a motor vehicle. > How about a 16-year-old having a beer? Problem? How about a 10-year-old on behavior/mood/personality alterating drugs? We're in a society that sees little problem with drugging grade school children but has a problem with 16-20 year olds having a beer. Actually IMO, most of the drinking problems of teenagers has to do with the forbiden nature of it. It's not a big deal if you don't grow up with it being 'wrong'. > Actually IMO, most of the drinking problems of teenagers has to do with > the forbiden nature of it. It's not a big deal if you don't grow up with > it being 'wrong'. If you spend any time outside of the U.S. in any country with no minimum drinking age, that point is perfectly clear. Where it is legal for people of any age to drink, hardly anybody under the age of 21 drinks. And when they do, it's not to get drunk. Like a glass of wine with dinner, while everybody else is drinking the same glass of wine. -Dave >> Actually IMO, most of the drinking problems of teenagers has to do with >> the forbiden nature of it. It's not a big deal if you don't grow up with [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > they do, it's not to get drunk. Like a glass of wine with dinner, while > everybody else is drinking the same glass of wine. -Dave Maybe at the particular day in that particular restaurant but most drinking Europeans stay somewhat drunk. that's why driving on many of their roads after dinner is an adventure. >> >Long story short. >> >Yesterday, on a little-used side road, I came up behind a vehicle [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Even most people exceeding the speed limit by 30 mph are seldom involved > in accidents. Most people driving while drunk are seldom involved in accidents. brink > Most people driving while drunk are seldom involved in accidents. > > brink Most people driving sober are seldom involved in accidents, too. Usually the sober drivers can get out of the way in time. But a higher percentage of drunks have accidents. Frequently, more than one accident. Lock 'em up. With excessive speeders. Lock 'em up. With excessive speeders. speed is not the problem, speed does not kill, running into things kills. stop running into things > SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim said in rec.autos.driving: > Lock 'em up. With excessive speeders. > > speed is not the problem, speed does not kill, running into things kills. > stop running into things Careful. Your logic might be over the heads of the "speed kills," crowd. Scratch that, your logic is *way* over their heads. SignatureGet back under your bridge, troll! "Hey stupid - I've tried to fix it and i can't. The cable adjusting nuts are rusted solid." --Laura Bush - Vehicular Homicide (a.k.a. Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend, Pride of America, aunt millie and Judy Dairya, among others. See: http://tinyurl.com/ahphj), 6 Apr 2005 11:05:54 -0700 Ref: or9851dpb7a4s8fduf7bf83gab02t9u...@4ax.com Ref: http://tinyurl.com/8exv3 > Lock 'em up. With excessive speeders. > > speed is not the problem, speed does not kill, running into things kills. > stop running into things speed does not kill...the idiot who speeds kills...especially when running into things... >> Lock 'em up. With excessive speeders. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >speed does not kill...the idiot who speeds kills...especially when >running into things... Speed does not kill. Speeders do not kill. SLOTH KILLS. Sloth gets in the way. Sloth is an obstacle to the natural flow of traffic. And, like a boulder that rolls down onto Pacific Coast Highway, when drivers run into a Sloth, they often die. SignatureWhat the heck, I'll play too. - Dave > >Long story short. > >Yesterday, on a little-used side road, I came up behind a vehicle [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > drivers and speeders doing 30 mph over the limit?. Now there's a > public menace and yet they seldom lose their license. Is there anything else you ever think about? > Long story short. > Yesterday, on a little-used side road, I came up behind a vehicle [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > license number and visited local PD. Informed that other complaints > received. Others have complained about this same person? Damn, that must be some pretty shitty driving. So bad that you and others have actually written down the plate and visited the local PD to complain. >> Long story short. >> Yesterday, on a little-used side road, I came up behind a vehicle [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > pretty shitty driving. So bad that you and others have actually > written down the plate and visited the local PD to complain. Stopped by the local PD yesterday and spoke with Sgt. The lady's license was revoked in 1998. That's all he would tell me. > >> Long story short. > >> Yesterday, on a little-used side road, I came up behind a vehicle [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Stopped by the local PD yesterday and spoke with Sgt. The lady's license > was revoked in 1998. That's all he would tell me. You know, what do you do with a person like that? She's 90, throw her in jail? >> Stopped by the local PD yesterday and spoke with Sgt. The lady's license >> was revoked in 1998. That's all he would tell me. > > You know, what do you do with a person like that? She's 90, throw her > in jail? Sell her car for her. Since she is precluded from driving it legally. They do it (in OR) if you get caught in an unrelated vice arrest, why not for a driving offence? (they did for awhile in WA) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.