 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / August 2006HA! Ohio cop ticketed for below his own ticketing threshold.
The absurdity of underposted speed limits and personal ticketing thresholds demonstrated: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/12/1298.asp "Immunity from tickets does not apply to out-of state police officers, however, as one Lorain, Ohio officer found the hard way. "They don't give you any leeway," Sergeant Chris Pittak told the East Valley Tribune. "I think it's ridiculous. I wouldn't have stopped or ticketed anyone going 11 mph over the limit."" > The absurdity of underposted speed limits and personal ticketing > thresholds demonstrated: > > http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/12/1298.asp Talk about an article that contradicts itself. First it states that the primary targets of the speed cameras are not local residents, then it states that 79% of the tickets generated go to local residents. (?) -Dave >> The absurdity of underposted speed limits and personal ticketing >> thresholds demonstrated: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > primary targets of the speed cameras are not local residents, then it states > that 79% of the tickets generated go to local residents. (?) -Dave No, it states that 79% went to AZ motorists, not local motorists. Scotsdale runs the cameras, those ticketed are not local to scotsdale. The article makes it clear with this: "Commuters from Phoenix were the number one target." tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in rec.autos.driving: >> Talk about an article that contradicts itself. First it states that the >> primary targets of the speed cameras are not local residents, then it states [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >"Commuters from Phoenix were the number one target." Scottsdale is part of the Phoenix metro area - in fact, they share a common border. That's like saying a RLC in Cicero that mostly catches commuters from Chicago is not catching local residents.  SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! >tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in >rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >common border. That's like saying a RLC in Cicero that mostly catches >commuters from Chicago is not catching local residents. While Scottsdale is close to Phoenix, and even shares a commonborder, they are politically different cities. Just because New Mexico is close to exas, and even shares a common border, you don't think a resident of NM is a local Texan. To a city, local means residents of that city. SignatureBill Funk replace "g" with "a" > >tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in > >rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Bill Funk > replace "g" with "a" No "T" in Texas? I might as well stick with coffee on my next trip there. ;) >> While Scottsdale is close to Phoenix, and even shares a commonborder, >> they are politically different cities. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >No "T" in Texas? I might as well stick with coffee on my next trip >there. ;) I'm not a typist. That should be very obvious! SignatureBill Funk replace "g" with "a" Bill Funk <BigBill@there.com> said in rec.autos.driving: >>>"Commuters from Phoenix were the number one target." >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >border, you don't think a resident of NM is a local Texan. >To a city, local means residents of that city. So let's suppose there is a supermarket at an intersection that is in Scottsdale, right on the border with Phoenix, and that I live one block away from that intersection in Phoenix, and you live 10 miles away on the other side of Scottsdale. In that scenario, the supermarket that is on the corner of that intersection cannot be referred to as my "local" supermarket because it is located across some arbitrary corporate boundary from my home, but it somehow becomes your "local" supermarket because you live in Scottsdale? SignatureI'm a wreckless driver and damn proud of it! >Bill Funk <BigBill@there.com> said in rec.autos.driving: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >but it somehow becomes your "local" supermarket because you live in >Scottsdale? Are you a city? SignatureBill Funk replace "g" with "a" > While Scottsdale is close to Phoenix, and even shares a commonborder, > they are politically different cities. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Bill Funk > replace "g" with "a" Scottsdale isn't "close" to Phoenix. It is ADJACENT to Phoenix, for a very long border. Loop 101, where the cameras are, is part of a major loop around the entire metro area. Many people will be commuting through Scottsdale instead of to or from there. It is one heckuva busy road. Since the majority of valley residents are not Scottsdale residents, it is no surprise that the majority of tickets are written are for "out of towners". "In-towners" would be less likely to be on the freeway, since their commute would be more likely to be between local points. That's why so many people are not against the speedcams there. They keep catching way too many folks doing way over the posted limit. A couple weeks ago they had one gal who has something around 70 tickets. Her excuse was she was always late for appointments. I 'spect she'll be even later, when the take her car away (with my blessings). > residents, it is no surprise that the majority of tickets are written > are for "out of towners". "In-towners" would be less likely to be on > the freeway, since their commute would be more likely to be between > local points. > That's why so many people are not against the speedcams there. Of course, that's how governments rutinely set these traps up, to snare the people who have no way of voting out the those who put them there. No recourse. That's traditionally the way to make normal and reasonable behavior of violation of the law, convince people it's the 'other guy' that will always be nabbed. > They keep catching way too many folks doing way over the posted limit. Like the cop doing a 117mph who didn't get a ticket? > > residents, it is no surprise that the majority of tickets are written > > are for "out of towners". "In-towners" would be less likely to be on [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Of course, that's how governments rutinely set these traps up, to snare > the people who have no way of voting out the those who put them there. Is there an elective office in Chicago or IL for "speed trap setter upper"? > That's traditionally the way to make normal and reasonable > behavior of violation of the law, convince people it's the 'other guy' > that will always be nabbed. When was the last time somebody tried to "traditionally" convince you of that? ----- - gpsman > Of course, that's how governments rutinely set these traps up, to snare > the people who have no way of voting out the those who put them there. No > recourse. That's traditionally the way to make normal and reasonable > behavior of violation of the law, convince people it's the 'other guy' > that will always be nabbed. Each of the drivers has recourse. They can stay within 10 mph of the limit, which really is a cinch. Assuming that most of the "out-of-towners" is still from the valley, if they want to contest the ticket they can. They drove there to get the ticket, they can drive there to get to court. This is a very different scenario from the old "speed trap" type where the cops wrote tickets to WAY out of towners, better yet out of staters, for revenue purposes. Despite the attitude in this ng, that isn't the primary purpose of most agencies. > > They keep catching way too many folks doing way over the posted limit. > > Like the cop doing a 117mph who didn't get a ticket? There is no defense for the cop (unless he had a call, etc.). There is no defense for his not getting a ticket AND a 1 month susupension for setting a bad example. With authority goes responsibility. >> Of course, that's how governments rutinely set these traps up, to snare >> the people who have no way of voting out the those who put them there. No >> recourse. That's traditionally the way to make normal and reasonable >> behavior of violation of the law, convince people it's the 'other guy' >> that will always be nabbed. > Each of the drivers has recourse. They can stay within 10 mph of the > limit, which really is a cinch. You mean .00000000000000000001 mph. because what governments do when they don't collect enough revenue is reduce the tolerance. That's why I started the thread, because some cop was upset that scotsdale didn't share his 'tolerance'. It's why the whole low speed limit and cop tolerance concept is assinine. Not to mention the safety issues of being the slowest driver on the road. > Assuming that most of the "out-of-towners" is still from the valley, if > they want to contest the ticket they can. They drove there to get the > ticket, they can drive there to get to court. And that works so well SNORT! > This is a very different scenario from the old "speed trap" type where > the cops wrote tickets to WAY out of towners, better yet out of > staters, for revenue purposes. Despite the attitude in this ng, that > isn't the primary purpose of most agencies. Time and time again it clearly is about the revenue, so much so, to believe it isn't needs considerable proof. >> > They keep catching way too many folks doing way over the posted limit. >> Like the cop doing a 117mph who didn't get a ticket? > There is no defense for the cop (unless he had a call, etc.). There is > no defense for his not getting a ticket AND a 1 month susupension for > setting a bad example. With authority goes responsibility. Tell that to the cops I see violating the vehicle code every day. Speaking of seeing cops, it's really beinging to feel like a police state around me... I saw about a dozen cops today and all I did was go to work, stop at the bank on the way home, go to radio shack and the grocery store in the same trip and then a short bike ride. Oh... and then there was the one man protest about cops beating him up. Brent P wrote: <brevity snip> > That's why I > started the thread, because some cop was upset that scotsdale didn't > share his 'tolerance'. The tolerance as reported was 11 over. You'd know that if you read the original article and didn't rely on a biased source for your information. > It's why the whole low speed limit and cop > tolerance concept is assinine. Speedometer error is common. > Not to mention the safety issues of being > the slowest driver on the road. I think the safety issues of being the fastest driver on the road would be more consequential. > > Assuming that most of the "out-of-towners" is still from the valley, if > > they want to contest the ticket they can. They drove there to get the > > ticket, they can drive there to get to court. > > And that works so well SNORT! What's wrong with it? > > This is a very different scenario from the old "speed trap" type where > > the cops wrote tickets to WAY out of towners, better yet out of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Time and time again it clearly is about the revenue, so much so, to > believe it isn't needs considerable proof. Why? Do you know one innocent person convicted of speeding? ----- - gpsman > > Each of the drivers has recourse. They can stay within 10 mph of the > > limit, which really is a cinch. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > tolerance concept is assinine. Not to mention the safety issues of being > the slowest driver on the road. The quoted cop complained because they wouldn't give leeway for 11 mph over the limit. That's an awful lot of leeway, IMO. It's not like the SL is a secret or anything. 65mph is a good limit for that road. Don't forget, the cameras there don't trigger unless you exceed 10mph over the limit. The cop had no valid complaint, and his comment was assinine. Your statement that "governments do" something is sometimes true, not the blanket truth you imply. Over the years, I have been stopped a few times, and no ticket was written, though a couple situations would have been indefensible. But the offense was unintended, I was contrite, and off I went. Now, if you have a tendency to blow off speed limits, by more than a trivial amount, you will likely attract attention and develop the predictable attitude toward speed enforcement. Safety issue of being the slowest driver on the road????? SOMEONE has to be the slowest driver, just as SOMEONE will be the fastest driver. If either is sufficiently close to the limits as posted, they will still not attract attention, in most cases. They drove there to get the > > ticket, they can drive there to get to court. > > And that works so well SNORT! Sometimes a ticket gets tossed. It usually doesn't get contested, because it is usually deserved. There are exceptions to be sure, but the general rule would be that you deserve the ticket you get. > Time and time again it clearly is about the revenue, so much so, to > believe it isn't needs considerable proof. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Tell that to the cops I see violating the vehicle code every day. Start complaining to the city. It doesn't do much good here in an ng. > Speaking of seeing cops, it's really beinging to feel like a police state > around me... I saw about a dozen cops today and all I did was go to work, > stop at the bank on the way home, go to radio shack and the grocery store > in the same trip and then a short bike ride. Sounds like a good place for bad guys to not be. Sure beats not having any cops around. Oh, you don't suppose cops just happen to go to banks, grocery stores, amd maybe even radio shack?? > Oh... and then there was the one man protest about cops beating him up. It's not a good idea to beat people up. It's also not a good idea to PO the cops by running when you shouldn't. I'm not going to defend anyone who behaves improperly. >> > Each of the drivers has recourse. They can stay within 10 mph of the >> > limit, which really is a cinch. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The quoted cop complained because they wouldn't give leeway for 11 mph > over the limit. That's an awful lot of leeway, IMO. That's nothing on an underposted interstate. > It's not like the > SL is a secret or anything. 65mph is a good limit for that road. So you think. even the tightest expressways signed at 45mph are good for 65mph IME. > Don't forget, the cameras there don't trigger unless you exceed 10mph > over the limit. The cop had no valid complaint, and his comment was > assinine. The whole concept of underposted speed limits and speed cameras is assinine. > Your statement that "governments do" something is sometimes true, not > the blanket truth you imply. Over the years, I have been stopped a few [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > more than a trivial amount, you will likely attract attention and > develop the predictable attitude toward speed enforcement. Non trivial amount? You mean the 30-40mph commonplace of ISP officers to exceed the speed limit by? > Safety issue of being the slowest driver on the road????? SOMEONE has > to be the slowest driver, just as SOMEONE will be the fastest driver. > If either is sufficiently close to the limits as posted, they will > still not attract attention, in most cases. You want to go for a ride at the speed limit on a chicago interstate with me sometime? I'll put plastic on the passenger seat so you don't mess it up. I'll explain what it feels like... ever see one of those rural divided highways ? Ever ride a bicycle on one? That's what's like driving 55mph on I294. > They drove there to get the >> > ticket, they can drive there to get to court. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > because it is usually deserved. There are exceptions to be sure, but > the general rule would be that you deserve the ticket you get. It's usually not deserved because the speed limit does not reflect what the people find to be reasonable or an outright trap. You sound more like another apologist for corrupt, better than anyone else, rulers. >> > There is no defense for the cop (unless he had a call, etc.). There is >> > no defense for his not getting a ticket AND a 1 month susupension for >> > setting a bad example. With authority goes responsibility. >> >> Tell that to the cops I see violating the vehicle code every day. > Start complaining to the city. It doesn't do much good here in an ng. I'm sorry, that brings laughter if it doesn't bring harrassment by the PD. You seem extremely naive. >> Speaking of seeing cops, it's really beinging to feel like a police state >> around me... I saw about a dozen cops today and all I did was go to work, >> stop at the bank on the way home, go to radio shack and the grocery store >> in the same trip and then a short bike ride. > Sounds like a good place for bad guys to not be. Sure beats not having > any cops around. Oh, you don't suppose cops just happen to go to > banks, grocery stores, amd maybe even radio shack?? They weren't at any of the places I was, except the bank parking lot where the cop had pulled in behind someone to write her a ticket. What we have here is bored cops out collecting revenue. When I was the victim of vandles, the cops couldn't care less. >> Oh... and then there was the one man protest about cops beating him up. > It's not a good idea to beat people up. It's also not a good idea to > PO the cops by running when you shouldn't. I'm not going to defend > anyone who behaves improperly. Nothing I could read on the poster mentioned running. > That's nothing on an underposted interstate. You may think it's underposted, and you are entitled to that. But, it IS posted. Exceed that post at your own risk. > > It's not like the > > SL is a secret or anything. 65mph is a good limit for that road. > > So you think. even the tightest expressways signed at 45mph are good for > 65mph IME. Yep, I do think. Furthermore, it's posted at 65. And that's just fine for an in-town freeway with lots of on- and off-ramps. BTW, there's action being taken against the record-holder, at 147 mph IIRC. He didn't crash, so I suppose he's okay as far as you are concerned. I'm not sure which lane he was in--probably all of them. > The whole concept of underposted speed limits and speed cameras is > assinine. Probably. And once in a while the "officials" get it wrong. Too bad. > Non trivial amount? You mean the 30-40mph commonplace of ISP officers to > exceed the speed limit by? Again, I don't defend that whatsoever. > You want to go for a ride at the speed limit on a chicago interstate with > me sometime? I'll put plastic on the passenger seat so you don't mess it > up. I'm not sure I want to drive in chicago at ANY speed, at any time. Heck, I won't even land an airplane there if I had one to land! > I'll explain what it feels like... ever see one of those rural divided > highways ? Ever ride a bicycle on one? That's what's like driving 55mph > on I294. Everyone running from Daley and his crowd???? > > Sometimes a ticket gets tossed. It usually doesn't get contested, > > because it is usually deserved. ..... > It's usually not deserved because the speed limit does not reflect what > the people find to be reasonable or an outright trap. You sound more like > another apologist for corrupt, better than anyone else, rulers. I don't defend outright traps. But that's not the usual case by far. Nor do I defend corrupt "rulers". (Hint: they aren't rulers. Vote 'em out.) > >> Tell that to the cops I see violating the vehicle code every day. They're your cops. YOU tell 'em. I don't live there, so they won't listen to me. > You seem extremely naive. No, by no stretch. A little idealistic perhaps, but that's something else. I've had to limit the hills I choose to die on. Or the roads. Or the reasons. > >> Speaking of seeing cops, it's really beinging to feel like a police state > >> around me... I saw about a dozen cops today and all I did was go to work, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > They weren't at any of the places I was, except the bank parking lot > where the cop had pulled in behind someone to write her a ticket. Wait a minute. You saw a dozen cops today, but they weren't any where where you were??? What's your brand, dude? > What we have here is bored cops out collecting revenue. When I was the > victim of vandles, the cops couldn't care less. Must be Chicago again. Daley needs the money to renovate the former airport. Slow down and stop contributing. >> That's nothing on an underposted interstate. > > You may think it's underposted, and you are entitled to that. But, it > IS posted. Exceed that post at your own risk. It isn't what I think, it is when well over 95% of drivers are exceeding it. >> > It's not like the >> > SL is a secret or anything. 65mph is a good limit for that road. >> So you think. even the tightest expressways signed at 45mph are good for >> 65mph IME. > Yep, I do think. Furthermore, it's posted at 65. And that's just fine > for an in-town freeway with lots of on- and off-ramps. For you. Yet I'll wager except for where the speed camera is, 90+% of people drive faster. See, like all the speed kills types, you base your judgement on what authority says and what feels good to you. However engineering principle is the real answer, not someone's personal will imposed. > BTW, there's > action being taken against the record-holder, at 147 mph IIRC. He > didn't crash, so I suppose he's okay as far as you are concerned. I'm > not sure which lane he was in--probably all of them. You really want to go that route of debate? >> The whole concept of underposted speed limits and speed cameras is >> assinine. > Probably. And once in a while the "officials" get it wrong. Too bad. "once in awhile" = nearly all the time in the USA. >> Non trivial amount? You mean the 30-40mph commonplace of ISP officers to >> exceed the speed limit by? > Again, I don't defend that whatsoever. Why not? They are the enforcers, the examples of what is safe driving! >> You want to go for a ride at the speed limit on a chicago interstate with >> me sometime? I'll put plastic on the passenger seat so you don't mess it >> up. > I'm not sure I want to drive in chicago at ANY speed, at any time. > Heck, I won't even land an airplane there if I had one to land! So in other words you don't want to see. >> I'll explain what it feels like... ever see one of those rural divided >> highways ? Ever ride a bicycle on one? That's what's like driving 55mph >> on I294. > Everyone running from Daley and his crowd???? No. >> > Sometimes a ticket gets tossed. It usually doesn't get contested, >> > because it is usually deserved. ..... >> It's usually not deserved because the speed limit does not reflect what >> the people find to be reasonable or an outright trap. You sound more like >> another apologist for corrupt, better than anyone else, rulers. > I don't defend outright traps. But that's not the usual case by far. > Nor do I defend corrupt "rulers". (Hint: they aren't rulers. Vote 'em > out.) No, they are rulers now. Voting isnt what it used to be. In C(r)ook county old man stroger barely won over Claypool in the primary. Old man stroger had a stroke. Instead of following what the voters indicated, the democrat canidate is stroger's kid. Haven't you noticed that our voting choices are continually well controlled? The last presidential election was absurd. GWB or his cousin. In any case, can barely keep a lid on more severe corruption let alone traffic tickets. >> >> Tell that to the cops I see violating the vehicle code every day. > They're your cops. YOU tell 'em. I don't live there, so they won't > listen to me. They don't listen to me either. >> You seem extremely naive. > No, by no stretch. A little idealistic perhaps, but that's something > else. I've had to limit the hills I choose to die on. Or the roads. > Or the reasons. You're telling me and everyone else to accept rule from on high as if it was from the devine. It's not. They pulled the number out of their a.s and put it on a sign. Engineering principle gives us a calculated number based on research resulting in the lowest rate of collisions that a speed limit can provide and you defend the number that comes out of someone's a.s and the profits there from. >> >> Speaking of seeing cops, it's really beinging to feel like a police state >> >> around me... I saw about a dozen cops today and all I did was go to work, >> >> stop at the bank on the way home, go to radio shack and the grocery store >> >> in the same trip and then a short bike ride. >> > Sounds like a good place for bad guys to not be. Sure beats not having >> > any cops around. Oh, you don't suppose cops just happen to go to >> > banks, grocery stores, amd maybe even radio shack?? >> They weren't at any of the places I was, except the bank parking lot >> where the cop had pulled in behind someone to write her a ticket. > Wait a minute. You saw a dozen cops today, but they weren't any where > where you were??? What's your brand, dude? Does moving vehicle mean anything to you? Don't play the dumbfuck. >> What we have here is bored cops out collecting revenue. When I was the >> victim of vandles, the cops couldn't care less. > Must be Chicago again. Daley needs the money to renovate the former > airport. Slow down and stop contributing. I'm sorry, I don't want to die or my car wrecked. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov//////tfhrc/safety/pubs/speed/images/fig1.gif http://www.sha.state.md.us/images/85thchart.gif Brent P wrote: <brevity snip> > I'm sorry, I don't want to die or my car wrecked. > > http://www.fhwa.dot.gov//////tfhrc/safety/pubs/speed/images/fig1.gif You don't live in a rural area. > http://www.sha.state.md.us/images/85thchart.gif You don't live in Maryland either... you live in Rationalizationland. ----- - gpsman > Brent P wrote: <brevity snip> > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > - gpsman Well, I grew up in a rural area and currently live in Maryland. In my experience as well speed limits are underposted and compliance is exceptionally poor. nate > Does moving vehicle mean anything to you? Don't play the dumbfuck. Aw, we were doing so good until you cussed at me. >> Does moving vehicle mean anything to you? Don't play the dumbfuck. > > Aw, we were doing so good until you cussed at me. No, we were doing so good until you decided to lower the discussion to claiming I endorse 147mph driving in traffic and accused me of drug use. > >> Does moving vehicle mean anything to you? Don't play the dumbfuck. > > > > Aw, we were doing so good until you cussed at me. > > No, we were doing so good until you decided to lower the discussion to > claiming I endorse 147mph driving in traffic and accused me of drug use. I think an "I'm on drugs" defense for most of the content of your posts might be your best shot at explaining them. ----- - gpsman > > >> Does moving vehicle mean anything to you? Don't play the dumbfuck. > > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > - gpsman Stop being a jackass. If you don't have anything civil or intelligent to say, just shut the f.ck up already. nate > I think an "I'm on drugs" defense for most of the content of your posts > might be your best shot at explaining them. > ----- > > - gpsman Now calm down. He might say the same about me and you and others. If we all said that about each other, I suspect we'd all be wrong. > No, we were doing so good until you decided to lower the discussion to > claiming I endorse 147mph driving in traffic and accused me of drug use. I don't recall you ever writing something that supported any speed limit. Only that you want everyone else to get out of your way in whatever lane you choose. I interpreted your lack of condemnation for the 147 nut to be at least passive approval. I dont' recall what I might have written that would accuse you of drug use. Something where my tongue-in-cheek didn't come across well, perhaps? >> No, we were doing so good until you decided to lower the discussion to >> claiming I endorse 147mph driving in traffic and accused me of drug use. > > I don't recall you ever writing something that supported any speed > limit. Because I don't support an underposted speed limit that gives you the right to create strawmen and make absurd accusations. > Only that you want everyone else to get out of your way in > whatever lane you choose. See, another strawman. f.ck off. > 65mph is a good limit for that road. > Don't forget, the cameras there don't trigger unless you exceed 10mph > over the limit. Then why don't they set the speed limit at 75 mph and allow no tolerance? > > 65mph is a good limit for that road. > > Don't forget, the cameras there don't trigger unless you exceed 10mph > > over the limit. > > Then why don't they set the speed limit at 75 mph and allow no tolerance? Probably because that would be thought unreasonable by most reasonable people. Humans cannot be expected to act perfectly and speedometers can't be expected to be perfect. Some tolerence is a good idea to compensate for human and mechanical error. ----- - gpsman >>>65mph is a good limit for that road. >>>Don't forget, the cameras there don't trigger unless you exceed 10mph [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > - gpsman I've never owned a (unmodified) car that had 10 MPH of speedo error at highway speed. I think it's asinine that people have to guess what the "real" speed limit is. Some places you can get away with 75+ in a 55. Others you can't. Nowhere is it safer to obey the speed limit than to break it. So driving is always stressful... nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > >>>65mph is a good limit for that road. > >>>Don't forget, the cameras there don't trigger unless you exceed 10mph [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I've never owned a (unmodified) car that had 10 MPH of speedo error at > highway speed. You've had every speedo you've owned calibrated? > I think it's asinine that people have to guess what the > "real" speed limit is. It's right there on the sign. You mean guess what the tolerance is? Consider it zero and you'll most likely have no problems. > Some places you can get away with 75+ in a 55. > Others you can't. You can usually count on getting away with 55 in a 55, especially if there are numerous other drivers operating at 75. > Nowhere is it safer to obey the speed limit than to > break it. So driving is always stressful... I have some video I'd like you to see... if I can get it uploaded, servers are busy. My driving experience is occasionally briefly stressful, usually not. ----- - gpsman > > >>>65mph is a good limit for that road. > > >>>Don't forget, the cameras there don't trigger unless you exceed 10mph [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > You've had every speedo you've owned calibrated? It's real easy to do, all you need is an accurate wristwatch with a second hand and a highway with reasonably accurate mile markers. Set cruise at 60 MPH if you don't like doing mental math. > > I think it's asinine that people have to guess what the > > "real" speed limit is. > > It's right there on the sign. You mean guess what the tolerance is? > Consider it zero and you'll most likely have no problems. Well, except for being trapped in the slow lane and tailgated by people's grandmothers. > > Some places you can get away with 75+ in a 55. > > Others you can't. > > You can usually count on getting away with 55 in a 55, especially if > there are numerous other drivers operating at 75. Unless you're pulled over for looking suspicious. All you have to do is be a minority driving an older car. > > Nowhere is it safer to obey the speed limit than to > > break it. So driving is always stressful... > > I have some video I'd like you to see... if I can get it uploaded, > servers are busy. My driving experience is occasionally briefly > stressful, usually not. Then you don't drive any of the same roads that I do, that's for sure. nate >>>>65mph is a good limit for that road. >>>>Don't forget, the cameras there don't trigger unless you exceed 10mph [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >nate My observation, from having lived in a bunch of different states, is that there's not only no rule saying that your speedo must be accurate to any percentage, but that most don't even have a rule saying you must have an operating speedo at all. In order to have a no tolerance rule, there must also be a rule mandating a speedo that accurately reports actual speed. SignatureBill Funk replace "g" with "a" > >>>>65mph is a good limit for that road. > >>>>Don't forget, the cameras there don't trigger unless you exceed 10mph [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Bill Funk > replace "g" with "a" Part of the speedo accuracy problem can be attributed to using a different OD tire than the original mfg. specs. Usually the variance, especially on newer vehicles, is less than 5 mph. Older ones may be as much as 10. Best way to check the speedo is to find a highway with a long level stretch and mile markers, and time yourself between markers. 60 sec between markers=60 mph. 48 sec = 75 mph. 120 sec = 30 mph. Easy to figure. >> >>>>65mph is a good limit for that road. >> >>>>Don't forget, the cameras there don't trigger unless you exceed 10mph [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > 60 sec between markers=60 mph. 48 sec = 75 mph. 120 sec = 30 mph. >Easy to figure. But impossible to regulate by law, which is my point. SignatureBill Funk replace "g" with "a" . Nowhere is it safer to obey the speed limit than to > break it. So driving is always stressful... I can't think of anyplace, at any time, I've ever been, where that statement is true. Now, sometimes it's less stressful, because that idiot behind you is all PO'd and may be armed. But if you decide to follow the limit, and allow the bullies to chase you into the right lane, life's pretty safe and and not all that stressful. Unless you live in chicago, I guess (that's for Brent P ;<) ) > . Nowhere is it safer to obey the speed limit than to > > break it. So driving is always stressful... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Unless you live in chicago, I guess (that's for Brent P ;<) ) Driving the speed limit in the right lane is still unsafe and stressful when everyone else is going 15+ over, tailgating you, making unsafe passes, etc. nate > Driving the speed limit in the right lane is still unsafe and stressful > when everyone else is going 15+ over, tailgating you, making unsafe > passes, etc. Perhaps they'll understand better if they visualize riding a bicycle at 20 mph (my speed, not Brent's ;) ) in 35 to 45 mph traffic. I only ride on roads where I can keep the speed differential at less than 15 mph. If I can't ride fast enough, I generally avoid riding on that road. >> Driving the speed limit in the right lane is still unsafe and stressful >> when everyone else is going 15+ over, tailgating you, making unsafe [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > on roads where I can keep the speed differential at less than 15 mph. > If I can't ride fast enough, I generally avoid riding on that road. I spend a good deal of time in the 20mph area ;) I tried to make that comparison earlier, but it fell on deaf ears. For some reason people who would fear riding a bicycle a great deal slower than the speed of traffic but don't understand the issue when driving. And compartively speaking it's non-issue while biking traffic wise because of the bicyclist's small size. Although it is a rather unpleasant experience for the bicyclist, as it is for someone driving so much under the flow speed. > For some reason people who would fear riding a bicycle a great deal slower > than the speed of traffic but don't understand the issue when driving. And > compartively speaking it's non-issue while biking traffic wise because of > the bicyclist's small size. Although it is a rather unpleasant experience > for the bicyclist, as it is for someone driving so much under the flow > speed. I understand your points about the bicycle in traffic being similar to a car that is much slower than the traffic. In certain respects, it is obviously difficult to disagree. That's one of the reasons I don't bike much--there aren't many safe places aroound here (and it's 110 degrees). But the bike isn't likely breaking the laws, speed or otherwise. In auto-only traffic, it is likely that speed laws are being broken by cars. Put the responsibility for the speed disparity where it belongs: on the speeders. If there is an unsafe situation, they are the cause. If I understand that 85% rule, it's something like: set the limit where 85% of the traffic is. That means 15% are speeding. Ticket them. That'll slow things down. Now ticket the next 15%. That'll slow them down some more. Repeat until traffic is at the proper point. >> For some reason people who would fear riding a bicycle a great deal slower >> than the speed of traffic but don't understand the issue when driving. And [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > But the bike isn't likely breaking the laws, speed or otherwise. Neither is the driver creeping along in the right lane at/below the speed limit. > In auto-only traffic, it is likely that speed laws are being broken by > cars. Only because the speed limits are underposted and don't represent reality. > Put the responsibility for the speed disparity where it belongs: > on the speeders. If there is an unsafe situation, they are the cause. No, on the government which refuses to set the speed limit appropiately according to the best of engineering knowledge and in line with the principle of for the people, by the people. > If I understand that 85% rule, it's something like: set the limit where > 85% of the traffic is. That means 15% are speeding. Ticket them. > That'll slow things down. Now ticket the next 15%. That'll slow them > down some more. Repeat until traffic is at the proper point. It's obvious you don't grasp percentiles and you only wish to force people to follow absurdly low speed limits because that is your will. You're just another control freak. I sometimes wonder why the USA is becoming a facist police state, then I only need read a post from someone like you or one of the two party cheerleaders and it reminds me of why. > > In auto-only traffic, it is likely that speed laws are being broken by > > cars. > > Only because the speed limits are underposted and don't represent reality. But they are posted, and they are real. > > Put the responsibility for the speed disparity where it belongs: > > on the speeders. If there is an unsafe situation, they are the cause. > > No, on the government which refuses to set the speed limit appropiately > according to the best of engineering knowledge and in line with the > principle of for the people, by the people. Appropriate or not, it's set. Follow it, or you are creating the disparity. Then, work to get it changed. If so many people agree with you, you should win. Oh, wait. I forgot. Chicago. Never mind. > It's obvious you don't grasp percentiles and you only wish to force > people to follow absurdly low speed limits because that is your will. > You're just another control freak. I sometimes wonder why the USA is > becoming a facist police state, then I only need read a post from someone > like you or one of the two party cheerleaders and it reminds me of why. I do understand percentiles. But I've never heard of an 85% rule until I see it espused in this ng. I'm far from a control freak. Far, FAR, from a control freak. But the posted laws are there for all, and unless they require you to do something immoral or some such, they should be followed. If you can write your own rules, so can I. You are no safer drivine 85 in a 65 than I am driving 45 in the same road. The driving situation is not evidence that the US is becoming fascist. Jeez, you get fewer cops and lower enforcement all the time. It's more likely that the situation is evidence that the US is falling into anarchy. But that's another discussion. Besides, I think the cop (original topic, remember?) SHOULD get a ticket. And a suspension on top of that. He SHOULD be setting a good example. When he does, I suggest you follow it. >> > In auto-only traffic, it is likely that speed laws are being broken by >> > cars. >> >> Only because the speed limits are underposted and don't represent reality. > > But they are posted, and they are real. Just like the movie 'Star Wars' is real. But it doesn't represent reality any more than the speed limit sign does. >> > Put the responsibility for the speed disparity where it belongs: >> > on the speeders. If there is an unsafe situation, they are the cause. >> No, on the government which refuses to set the speed limit appropiately >> according to the best of engineering knowledge and in line with the >> principle of for the people, by the people. > Appropriate or not, it's set. Follow it, or you are creating the > disparity. Then, work to get it changed. If so many people agree with > you, you should win. Yet another control freak facist. Obey. That's all it comes down to with you and those like you, just obey. That's what you want obedence, control. Has nothing really to do with having rational laws, you want control. >> It's obvious you don't grasp percentiles and you only wish to force >> people to follow absurdly low speed limits because that is your will. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I do understand percentiles. But I've never heard of an 85% rule until > I see it espused in this ng. It's 60+ years old and the references are posted here frequently if you can't google them yourself. > I'm far from a control freak. Far, FAR, from a control freak. But the > posted laws are there for all, and unless they require you to do > something immoral or some such, they should be followed. You're not a control freak, but you demand absolute obedence. > If you can > write your own rules, so can I. I am not 'writing my own rules'. The laws in a nation that values liberty have to be reasonable and make sense. They have to represent what the vast majority find reasonable. If they aren't the vast majority will ignore them. The vast majority ignores interstate speed limits. > You are no safer drivine 85 in a 65 > than I am driving 45 in the same road. Actually I am, because the 85th percentile on such a road is probably 80mph or more. > The driving situation is not evidence that the US is becoming fascist. Haven't seen a checkpoint have you? I have, a few times. > Jeez, you get fewer cops and lower enforcement all the time. Per capita cops is at a high right now I've heard. My own observations match this. > It's more > likely that the situation is evidence that the US is falling into > anarchy. But that's another discussion. Been to an airport recently? > Besides, I think the cop (original topic, remember?) SHOULD get a > ticket. And a suspension on top of that. He SHOULD be setting a good > example. When he does, I suggest you follow it. I'll keep my sheet metal unwrinkled, thanks. > > But they are posted, and they are real. > > Just like the movie 'Star Wars' is real. But it doesn't represent reality > any more than the speed limit sign does. Star Wars was a real....MOVIE. ;<) It was not reality. The signs are REAL. The limits are REAL. The fines are REAL. > Yet another control freak facist. Obey. That's all it comes down to with > you and those like you, just obey. That's what you want obedence, > control. Has nothing really to do with having rational laws, you want > control. Of all the people I know, who know me, I am the LEAST likely to accept control. > You're not a control freak, but you demand absolute obedence. Absolutely not. I expect adherence to law because that is the form of government, however flawed, that we have. If you can break what you want because you think it's stupid, I have the same right/priviledge. Until you get the laws changed, you are under the same obligations as anyone else to follow them, or pay whatever consequences those laws throw at you. > > If you can > > write your own rules, so can I. > > I am not 'writing my own rules'. The laws in a nation that values liberty > have to be reasonable and make sense. That has never happened, and likely never will. Tax laws, OSHA laws, mining and ranching laws, etc. Come up with any field of law that makes complete sense. It won't happen. But we are all obligated to follow what we have. Or your neighbor can write his own exceptions. >They have to represent what the > vast majority find reasonable. If they aren't the vast majority will > ignore them. The vast majority ignores interstate speed limits. The vast majority of people will do what they can get away with. Speed laws, tax laws, drug laws. Whatever your particular interest is, people do what they can get away with. > > You are no safer drivine 85 in a 65 > > than I am driving 45 in the same road. > > Actually I am, because the 85th percentile on such a road is probably > 80mph or more. Then what's the fastest guy drivng? He's nuts. > Haven't seen a checkpoint have you? I have, a few times. I'm in the southwest. Near the Mexico border. You wanna ask that again??????? > > Jeez, you get fewer cops and lower enforcement all the time. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Been to an airport recently? Uh, yup. I do believe I have. :<D But okay, I'll give you a begrudging point on that one. Simply because I don't want ot get sidetracked into that pack of political doo-doo. From any of the parties. > > Besides, I think the cop (original topic, remember?) SHOULD get a > > ticket. And a suspension on top of that. He SHOULD be setting a good > > example. When he does, I suggest you follow it. > > I'll keep my sheet metal unwrinkled, thanks. Me too. If'n some speed freak anarchist doesn't shorten it up from behind. >> > But they are posted, and they are real. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It was not reality. > The signs are REAL. The limits are REAL. The fines are REAL. The limits don't reflect reality. The fines are a tax. >> Yet another control freak facist. Obey. That's all it comes down to with >> you and those like you, just obey. That's what you want obedence, >> control. Has nothing really to do with having rational laws, you want >> control. > Of all the people I know, who know me, I am the LEAST likely to accept > control. You're arguing for speed limits that come out of a ruler's a.s and demanding that we all obey them. >> You're not a control freak, but you demand absolute obedence. > Absolutely not. I expect adherence to law because that is the form of > government, Because it's government we have to obey according to you, that's control. Control based on 'authority'. Authority says, we must do. That's crap. > however flawed, that we have. If you can break what you > want because you think it's stupid, I have the same right/priviledge. You are arguing for control, blind obedence to the state. Sorry, that's not what the founders of this nation intended. > Until you get the laws changed, you are under the same obligations as > anyone else to follow them, or pay whatever consequences those laws > throw at you. Why don't you read what the founders of this nation wrote. They would not accept what has become of this nation's government and wouldn't obey it's laws expecting to fix it from within. They would disobey and revolt. And it's patently asinine to push this 'get the laws changed' sh.t. That's the argument of a control freak who knows it is highly improbable that the system can be reformed in such a manner. It only took over 20 years to repeal the NMSL in some states, a temporary speed limit to save few for a year or so in the 1970s. In more corrupt states like IL, it's impossible to get it repealed. >> > If you can >> > write your own rules, so can I. >> I am not 'writing my own rules'. The laws in a nation that values liberty >> have to be reasonable and make sense. > That has never happened, and likely never will. Tax laws, OSHA laws, > mining and ranching laws, etc. Come up with any field of law that > makes complete sense. It won't happen. But we are all obligated to > follow what we have. No we are not obligated to follow this corrupt government. You're talking like an obedient little sheeple or someone who desires obedence to government. We don't obey government, government has to reflect what we want. The people have voted with their right foot! > Or your neighbor can write his own exceptions. My neighbor speeds on residential streets. She gunned it up to 35mph and brush passed me as I rode my bicycle.... >>They have to represent what the >> vast majority find reasonable. If they aren't the vast majority will >> ignore them. The vast majority ignores interstate speed limits. > The vast majority of people will do what they can get away with. Control freak statement. It's a statement that indicates you feel the people need to be controled by government. > Speed > laws, tax laws, drug laws. Whatever your particular interest is, > people do what they can get away with. Guess you'll have to put viewscreens in every home to get your obedence. A low tax burden that is fair and simple won't likely be evaded. Speed limits that make sense are obeyed. And the government has no business telling people what they may ingest. Do you see your body, yourself as property of the government? >> > You are no safer drivine 85 in a 65 >> > than I am driving 45 in the same road. >> Actually I am, because the 85th percentile on such a road is probably >> 80mph or more. > Then what's the fastest guy drivng? He's nuts. I've been in traffic in IL where 80 was _SLOW_ >> Haven't seen a checkpoint have you? I have, a few times. > I'm in the southwest. Near the Mexico border. You wanna ask that > again??????? Then you shouldn't be making such statements. >> > Jeez, you get fewer cops and lower enforcement all the time. >> Per capita cops is at a high right now I've heard. My own observations >> match this. >> > It's more >> > likely that the situation is evidence that the US is falling into >> > anarchy. But that's another discussion. >> Been to an airport recently? > Uh, yup. I do believe I have. :<D But okay, I'll give you a > begrudging point on that one. Simply because I don't want ot get > sidetracked into that pack of political doo-doo. From any of the > parties. Both parties are about control. >> > Besides, I think the cop (original topic, remember?) SHOULD get a >> > ticket. And a suspension on top of that. He SHOULD be setting a good >> > example. When he does, I suggest you follow it. >> I'll keep my sheet metal unwrinkled, thanks. > Me too. If'n some speed freak anarchist doesn't shorten it up from > behind. Yep, you're a control freak. If you and your government doesn't control people there will be 'anarchy' crapola.... Brent P wrote: <brevity snip> > > The signs are REAL. The limits are REAL. The fines are REAL. > > The limits don't reflect reality. Please expound on this observation. > Why don't you read what the founders of this nation wrote. Reading it is a waste of time if it can't be understood. You don't understand it. > No we are not obligated to follow this corrupt government. I don't think you've seen their cache of weapons. You whine when you receive a traffic ticket... but you didn't really *do* anything about it. You paid the fine and went on your sheeple way... didn't you? > My neighbor speeds on residential streets. She gunned it up to 35mph and > brush passed me as I rode my bicycle.... I guess she voted with her right foot, huh? Drunk drivers vote by driving drunk? Where's your support for them? Where's your support for your neighbor's choice? My guess is she thinks you're a dick... and was casting her vote. > Control freak statement. It's a statement that indicates you feel the > people need to be controled by government. I don't see any difference in your demands that other drivers operate as you see fit. > I've been in traffic in IL where 80 was _SLOW_ All clogged up with LLB'ers, I presume... > Yep, you're a control freak. If you and your government doesn't control > people there will be 'anarchy' crapola.... If you could control everyone they would drive in the idiotic manner you advocate. You really ought to examine your own thought processes before you start whining about "control freaks". ----- - gpsman >Brent P wrote: <brevity snip> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >receive a traffic ticket... but you didn't really *do* anything about >it. You paid the fine and went on your sheeple way... didn't you? I once told the cop the limit was ridiculous and suggested he go to hell. I beat that ticket. In any case, capitulation to overwhelming force is not an obligation. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>Brent P wrote: <brevity snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > In any case, capitulation to overwhelming force is not an obligation. The sniping troll obviously is still at it. I have fought tickets and won, fought tickets and lost. The only I just paid was the very first as a teenager. And yes, capitulation those with the guns is not an obligation. It's coercion. > >> Per capita cops is at a high right now I've heard. My own observations > >> match this. Maybe that explains the lower murder rates. And higher donut sales. > >> Been to an airport recently? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Both parties are about control. Both dominant parties are about power. Sometimes it's the same thing. But they will do whatever it takes to get, and stay, in power. It's been getting worse over the last several decades. I'm thinking that there isn't one person's sense of decency spread out over the whole lot of 535 of them. It's time for some changes, and that's NOT a dem/repub division I'm talking about. > Yep, you're a control freak. If you and your government doesn't control > people there will be 'anarchy' crapola.... You don't wanna be controlled? Drive your car on the left side. They do THAT in some other countries.... I'd prefer you joined the sheeple for some things. >> Yep, you're a control freak. If you and your government doesn't control >> people there will be 'anarchy' crapola.... > You don't wanna be controlled? Drive your car on the left side. They > do THAT in some other countries.... > I'd prefer you joined the sheeple for some things. 1) strawman. 2) just like the overwhelming majority exceed 55mph interstate speed limits they also drive on the right in the USA. Laws need to make sense and be reasonable, reflecting the will of the people. Not the desire of a minority to control the majority. Brent P wrote: <brevity snip> > Laws need to make sense and be reasonable, reflecting the will of the > people. And exactly what is "the will of the people"? May I presume that it is the will that conveniently coincides with your own? What evidence do you have that the majority of people want traffic laws changed? I presume you are sputtering and spitting all over yourself jumping to the conclusion that since so many people operate in excess of the speed limits that they all want the SL increased. I say that since they're doing little or nothing to attain that goal, including you, that isn't true. > Not the desire of a minority to control the majority. You're confused. The opinion of the majority of the public has little to do with making law. The last time it had any effect was the repeal of the NMSL, and I have a suspicion that oil money was a factor. The time before that it was the repeal of Prohibition... I'm counting on somebody to correct me if I'm wrong here. Many people are almost perfect idiots when they're driving, don't tell me you haven't noticed. So you think eliminating speed limits would be best for the nation as a whole? ----- - gpsman > Brent P wrote: <brevity snip> > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the will that conveniently coincides with your own? What evidence do > you have that the majority of people want traffic laws changed? It's probably fair to assume that most of the people do not wish to be defined as breaking the law every time they drive. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > > Brent P wrote: <brevity snip> > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > It's probably fair to assume that most of the people do not wish to be > defined as breaking the law every time they drive. If that were true... wouldn't they not break it...?! ----- - gpsman > > > Brent P wrote: <brevity snip> > > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > If that were true... wouldn't they not break it...?! If a law were passed that you had to hop on one foot every third step while walking on a public sidewalk, would you obey it? If not, would you still be unhappy that the law was enacted? nate > > > > Brent P wrote: <brevity snip> > > > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > nate Hopping on each third step: under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Silly Walks (Monty Python). :) > If a law were passed that you had to hop on one foot every third step > while walking on a public sidewalk, would you obey it? If not, would > you still be unhappy that the law was enacted? > > nate There are a number of choices at least: 1. Follow it. Silently. 2. Don't go on the sidewalks. 3. Follow it, but try to change it. 4. Classic civil disobedience. Break it, with great fanfare so that you DO get the ticket, with as many other people as you can. Pay the fine with great publicity, attracting attention to the supposedly bad law. People love an underdog, especially one railing against the government. If it is bad, you will gain publicity and win. 5. Break the law, but get another law passed that says other people have to assist you in breaking the first law. Then use the second law as a strawman so that people forget you are breaking the first law. 6. Move somewhere where sanity (as you see it) reigns. 7.?? >> If a law were passed that you had to hop on one foot every third step >> while walking on a public sidewalk, would you obey it? If not, would [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >law. People love an underdog, especially one railing against the >government. If it is bad, you will gain publicity and win. Not if the media don't care or are on the other side. Civil disobedience as a tactic has had its day; the system is now armored against it. >5. Break the law, but get another law passed that says other people >have to assist you in breaking the first law. Then use the second law >as a strawman so that people forget you are breaking the first law. >6. Move somewhere where sanity (as you see it) reigns. >7.?? 7. Violate it, and try not to get caught. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > Not if the media don't care or are on the other side. Civil > disobedience as a tactic has had its day; the system is now armored > against it. I don't think so. It's just that people these days aren't thinking about principles, or the good of society as a whole, or being self-reliant. The general population has a "how much can I get" mentalilty, and most politicians have one of "what do I have to give you to buy your vote?" If a real principle is at stake, the most you get now is a few well-written letters to an editor. We're fresh out of Voltaires, Jeffersons, and the like. Our society gives too much ink to paris hilton and the latest drug-induced hallucinoid hollywood nitwit to get drunk, check into rehab for the umpteenth time for meth abuse, and have their third kid with/by a bimbo to whom they weren't married. If speeding were done with a real sense of civil disobedience, it would be done in-your-face, pre-announced, and the speeder would challenge the cops to ticket them. Then they'd go to court with great fanfare, make the case with cameras galore, and prove their point, whatever it was. Most of the media is not about news or importance. It is about ratings (with some exceptions). Raise a big enough ruckus, and the media will be there. If you are not part of the media's current darlings, you'll have to raise a bigger ruckus. Instead, speeding is a game of get-away-with-it. License plate blockers. Radar detectors. That's not civil disbedience as I understand it. It's just MFFY behavior. Civil Disobedience might be compared to "Bare to the Breakers" (about a few thousand nudists on parade in San Francisco); CD is not flashing your neighbor's kids. CD might also be compared to all the parades and demonstrations regarding illegal immigration--with the illegals IN the parade, announcing themselves. I'm not wanting to inject that topic into this ng, but only consider that many people are doing something illegal, and looking for media attention to change things. (Whether you or I do or do not support them is not the issue. It's just an example.) I don't think CD has "has it's day". I do think that our general population has had it easy for too long and has forgotten what a real principle is. >> Not if the media don't care or are on the other side. Civil >> disobedience as a tactic has had its day; the system is now armored [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >about principles, or the good of society as a whole, or being >self-reliant. [...anti-populist blather snipped...] >If speeding were done with a real sense of civil disobedience, it would >be done in-your-face, pre-announced, and the speeder would challenge >the cops to ticket them. Then they'd go to court with great fanfare, >make the case with cameras galore, and prove their point, whatever it >was. Nope. A speeder can go pre-announce that he'll be doing it. Most likely the cops will ignore him... so much for civil disobedience. If they don't, they'll catch him and ticket him. The speeder will then go to court with absolutely no fanfare or cameras (because none of the media really gives a sh.t) and be found guilty along with the all the other speeders there. You can try civil disobedience for speeding, but it'll do no more good than it did Thoreau. (For reference: Thoreau went to jail for not paying a poll tax. No one gave a sh.t except his buddy Emerson, who paid the tax for him to get him out of jail. Thoreau wrote a famous essay about the incident). >Instead, speeding is a game of get-away-with-it. License plate >blockers. Radar detectors. That's not civil disbedience as I >understand it. It's just MFFY behavior. Might want to read that famous essay, then. It's far more radical than the popular version of the concept to which it gave name. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >> Brent P wrote: <brevity snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > It's probably fair to assume that most of the people do not wish to be > defined as breaking the law every time they drive. I think the question is 'prove the sky is blue?'. > >> Brent P wrote: <brevity snip> > >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > I think the question is 'prove the sky is blue?'. As seen by an idiot... ----- - gpsman >>For some reason people who would fear riding a bicycle a great deal slower >>than the speed of traffic but don't understand the issue when driving. And [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > That'll slow things down. Now ticket the next 15%. That'll slow them > down some more. Repeat until traffic is at the proper point. You obviously don't understand the 85th percentile rule, then. It's not designed to "slow them down some more" it's to be set at the 85th percentile in free flowing conditions - and left there. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > You obviously don't understand the 85th percentile rule, then. It's not > designed to "slow them down some more" it's to be set at the 85th > percentile in free flowing conditions - and left there. Perhaps I don't. I've never heard of it except here. But it still sounds like 15% of the folks are speeding. Nail 'em. >>You obviously don't understand the 85th percentile rule, then. It's not >>designed to "slow them down some more" it's to be set at the 85th >>percentile in free flowing conditions - and left there. > > Perhaps I don't. I've never heard of it except here. search the group for references, then - you won't find the originating studies on the web, because they date back to the 1950s if not earlier, but you'll find plenty of supporting studies. > But it |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message