 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / December 2006I Hate Speediots, Too
I hate speediots (i.e. drivers who drive too fast for conditions). They endanger everyone with their selfish and reckless driving. It's quite possible to drive fast AND safe, but Speediots never do. They're every bit as bad a Sloth (the people who drive inapprorpiately slowly and needlessly block the paths of other drivers). All who agree with me signify by saying "Aye!"  Signaturehttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9111165305855013700 If you listen carefully, you can hear Carl Troller's wife scream just prior to the impact. Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) - 25 Dec 2006 22:06 GMT Someone wrote: >I hate speediots (i.e. drivers who drive too fast for conditions). >They endanger everyone with their selfish and reckless driving. It's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >All who agree with me signify by saying "Aye!" Aye! --- Don't steal; the government hates competition! > I hate speediots (i.e. drivers who drive too fast for conditions). > They endanger everyone with their selfish and reckless driving. It's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > All who agree with me signify by saying "Aye!" Aye! Scott en Aztl?n wrote: > I hate speediots (i.e. drivers who drive too fast for conditions). Scott, you're almost salvageable, but what's missing? Life itself is a constant "condition," subject to change. ANYONE who is going faster than someone else is MORE OF a speediot than someone driving slower yet _pragmatically fast_. That's because the unexpected is, believe it or not, UNEXPECTED. All risks are relative and should be accepted as such without nitpicking. Arguing whether a posted limit is "fair" misses the point. The laws of physics don't read signs. Physics only dictates that someone who pushes 90 MPH all the time is at more potential risk than a moderate driver. Insurance actuaries know this and it's no conspiracy. Cops know it too (at least the ones who didn't get into it to drive fast legally). Speed-traps or not, those tickets serve a purpose. I don't care how many times you drove over Kanan, singing to your soul and lived to tell of it. Laws get justified when things go WRONG. Most _adults_ accept speed limits as a small price for freedom and are humble when they get a ticket. Anarchy would reign without governmental control of roads, so deal with it. Exact speeds aren't the issue, just the higher energy levels of speeders (same car, same driver, same weather, same road). For once you might want to consider RELATIVE RISKS instead of "me vs. sloths" for every last detail. This debate is more subtle than speed-freaks make it, but it's complicated by egos. The connection between speeding and aggressive driving has unclear boundaries. Many who consider themselves "fast and efficient" are disregarding safety more than they know. Some admit it now and then, but lapse into denial when an Ian Johnston video is shown. That is why you people are so annoying. Just admit that A) the unexpected happens and B) you're at greater risk when it does. And stop the lies about fast driving making you inherently "more alert." It's a zero sum equation because you raise the risk simultaneously. There is no alertness meter to test these claims among daily drivers. Darting your eyes back and forth faster because the scenery is flying past faster is not alertness! A speediot is also someone who thinks they're too cool to make mistakes, even if they're not the most extreme speeder (which seems to Scott in Acidland's profile). It comes down to the DEGREE of RISK one thinks they "deserve" to take - and subject other drivers to. I could care less if speediots kill themselves on private tracks. But on public roads you put others at risk who didn't sign up for your mind games. It's the same reason they ban smoking in restaurants. Another speediot trait is always wanting to be somewhere a few minutes earlier, as if time is ALL that matters. If you enjoy driving so much, shouldn't you want to stay out longer? (Think about that concept). The amount of time saved by speeding in typical commutes isn't worth much, but those with long commutes are taking the same risks over longer periods, making them even more dangerous. There are a thousand other laws they could break that would save time, like cutting in line at a bank. Speeding is just easier to get away with. It's cowardly to let a car do the pushing for you. > They endanger everyone with their selfish and reckless driving. It's > quite possible to drive fast AND safe, but Speediots never do. They're > every bit as bad a Sloth (the people who drive inapprorpiately slowly > and needlessly block the paths of other drivers). > > All who agree with me signify by saying "Aye!" If millions of people didn't overrate their own driving skills and ignore the laws of physics, I might say Aye. If you didn't constantly try to eliminate speeding as a cause in crashes, I'd give you points for being reasonable. But you suffer from the "legend in my own mind" phenomenon and spend too much time defending other speeders, many of whom are the very speediots you claim to hate now! Figure out your motives and you may become a real human. > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9111165305855013700 > If you listen carefully, you can hear Carl Troller's wife scream just prior to the impact. That tag-line makes you creepy no matter how many flashes of insight you have. If I was religious I'd pray for your deviant soul. All of us here need to get out more often and I'll close on that note. Damn me if I keep posting to this crowd. C.T. http://www.geocities.com/aggressive_driving/ Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) - 26 Dec 2006 01:28 GMT Someone wrote: >> I hate speediots (i.e. drivers who drive too fast for conditions). > >Scott, you're almost salvageable, but what's missing? Life itself is a "almost salvageable?" ROTFLMAO. You're too funny, Carl. Scott's miles ahead of you, you have no chance of catching up, and you think he's almost salvageable? >constant "condition," subject to change. ANYONE who is going faster ooh, another "carlism," yay! >than someone else is MORE OF a speediot than someone driving slower yet ANYONE? Why Carl, that just proves you have no grasp on reality. Some drivers are much better than others. Just ask you wife. >_pragmatically fast_. That's because the unexpected is, believe it or >not, UNEXPECTED. All risks are relative and should be accepted as such Here's a hint that might have saved your wife: drive as if the unexpected is expected. >without nitpicking. It's morons like you who come in touting unsafe practices who are doing the nitpicking, retard. Too stupid to recognize that, loser? Thank God for your kids that you didn't have any. >Arguing whether a posted limit is "fair" misses the point. The laws of Wow, now we're discussing the "fairness" of speed limits? >physics don't read signs. Physics only dictates that someone who pushes The laws of physics don't read signs? Wow, Carl, even a stopped clock is correct twice a day. >90 MPH all the time is at more potential risk than a moderate driver. Physics doesn't make that distinction, dullard. Did your parents have any kids that lived? Or were you and your wife brother and sister before ya'll got hitched? >Insurance actuaries know this and it's no conspiracy. Cops know it too >(at least the ones who didn't get into it to drive fast legally). >Speed-traps or not, those tickets serve a purpose. I don't care how >many times you drove over Kanan, singing to your soul and lived to tell >of it. Laws get justified when things go WRONG. Can we ask a Kennedy about that? >Most _adults_ accept speed limits as a small price for freedom and are >humble when they get a ticket. Anarchy would reign without governmental >control of roads, so deal with it. Exact speeds aren't the issue, just >the higher energy levels of speeders (same car, same driver, same >weather, same road). For once you might want to consider RELATIVE RISKS For once you oughta consider a reality check. Or actually, now I think I know why your wife pulled out in front of that speeder. She couldn't figure out any other way to get away from your stupidity. No one denies that there is higher energy transfer with higher velocities, although you keep touting that as the issue. What the more intelligent posters convey, that is too far above your sub-50 IQ to grasp, is that with due diligence you can avoid having to exchange that energy with other vehicles. Your wife would have benefited from such logic, but I digress. >instead of "me vs. sloths" for every last detail. This debate is more >subtle than speed-freaks make it, but it's complicated by egos. The POT. KETTLE. BLACK. >connection between speeding and aggressive driving has unclear >boundaries. Many who consider themselves "fast and efficient" are >disregarding safety more than they know. Some admit it now and then, >but lapse into denial when an Ian Johnston video is shown. Wow, this reminds me of a conversation I had with my ex-wife about 5 years ago when I stopped to pick up my son for a road trip. Mind you, my ex-wife has never exceeded the speed limit, at least not when I was in the car. Her: Don't be speeding! Me: Why not? Her: It's unsafe. Me: We've known each other for a decade and a half; how many automobile accidents have I been involved in since then? Her: None. Me: How many accidents have you been involved in in the last decade? Her: Three Me: How many were you found at-fault for? Her: Three. Me: How many of the vehicles you were operating were total-lossed? Her: Two. Me: How many of the vehicles you impacted were total-lossed? Her: One Me: How many people have you sent to the hospital due to these accidents? Her: Two. Me: So tell me why, with my lead foot, I haven't sent anyone to the hospital, I haven't total-losssed any vehicles, and yet you, with your safety-conscious adherence to the speed limit, can't make the same claim I can? Perhaps, Mr. Troller, that you and my ex-wife can convince me that following your advice will somehow improve my safety record. But considering my ex's driving record, and the fact your wife ain't here to drive, I'm ignoring the ex's and your advice; your advice seems to be rather deadly. >That is why you people are so annoying. Just admit that A) the >unexpected happens and B) you're at greater risk when it does. And stop I'm at MUCH greater risk IF the unexpected happens due to the fact that I'm carrying more energy due to my increased velocity. However, your logic breakdown is on the "unexpected." With due diligence to the task of driving, there is no "unexpected." Since I give more diligence to the task than you, I can identify issues much sooner, given me a better chance of avoiding issues in the first place. >the lies about fast driving making you inherently "more alert." It's a >zero sum equation because you raise the risk simultaneously. There is It's not that big of a deal in my case. Considering driving ahead (and to coin a phrase, driving behind,) my risk is already very low. Otherwise, I would have long been dead due to idiots not paying heed to signals, signs, et al. Speed doesn't scare me in the least; I'm MUCH more afraid of inept, incompetent drivers who "believe" some magic number on a sign is an indication of safety. >no alertness meter to test these claims among daily drivers. Darting Bullshit. Let's take a ride down the street, and see which among us can detect the "stealth buses" first. Here's a hint; I'm going to spot 'em from many blocks away, and take action long before I catch up to them as to minimize their impact (if you'll pardon the pun) on my travels. The majority of other drivers I note don't see these "stealth buses" until they are on their bumper. No problem; I won't be surprised to learn they've joined the 42,000 club. >your eyes back and forth faster because the scenery is flying past >faster is not alertness! There's more than just "darting your eyes back and forth" to driving safely; you have to understand and comprehend your surroundings if you TRULY want to avoid "the unexpected." Sorry you don't have the mental facilities to make such a distinction, much less put the practice to use. Perhaps your wife would have benefited from such a lesson? I guess she learned the hard way., >A speediot is also someone who thinks they're too cool to make >mistakes, even if they're not the most extreme speeder (which seems to >Scott in Acidland's profile). It comes down to the DEGREE of RISK one >thinks they "deserve" to take - and subject other drivers to. I could Well, if you come drive around my neck of the woods, I think you'll find we have much worse issues than "speeders." Around here, you're more likely to get killed by some idiot running a light or sign, or someone who's too busy to be aware of their surroundings. Even if "speeders" were an issue around here, the way I was taught to drive, and the practice that is in use, would reduce my interaction with them. >care less if speediots kill themselves on private tracks. But on public >roads you put others at risk who didn't sign up for your mind games. That's funny. I don't put anyone at risk; they put themselves there due to inattentiveness. Fortunately 42,000 inattentive idiots check out per annum. >It's the same reason they ban smoking in restaurants. > >Another speediot trait is always wanting to be somewhere a few minutes >earlier, as if time is ALL that matters. If you enjoy driving so much, >shouldn't you want to stay out longer? (Think about that concept). The Time is important. Failure to understand that shows your poor grasp of physics; after all, time is a component of velocity. You only have to look at organizations like the UAW, who's majority membership has lost respect for the value of time, and the corresponding result it's had on Ford/GM/et al to see how "lackadaisical performance" is rewarded. In fact 42,000 drivers demonstrate on an annual basis just how lackadaisical performance is rewarded, but that's not my problem. Time is very important. Those who understand that can utilize it to improve processes and effiency, and even create jobs for losers like yourself as a result. >amount of time saved by speeding in typical commutes isn't worth much, >but those with long commutes are taking the same risks over longer I see no reason to have to drive 25mph on a stretch of road that has a 45mph posting, just because some situationally unaware brain-dead motorist thinks it's safe. I also don't see any reason to believe that some gubment flunkie is capable of determining what the safest speed for me to drive in a particular setting is. There's been a number of times that had I been driving at the legal speed limit, I would have been involved in a serious accident. Fortunately due to my situational awareness, my speed was reduced to well below the speed limit, long before the "situations" became serious. >periods, making them even more dangerous. There are a thousand other >laws they could break that would save time, like cutting in line at a >bank. Speeding is just easier to get away with. It's cowardly to let a Cutting in line at a bank is against the law? What law is that, genius? Been out of reality long, loser? >car do the pushing for you. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >ignore the laws of physics, I might say Aye. If you didn't constantly >try to eliminate speeding as a cause in crashes, I'd give you points Speed isn't a cause; it's a component. Too stupid to recognize the difference? Obviously your wife was as well. >for being reasonable. But you suffer from the "legend in my own mind" >phenomenon and spend too much time defending other speeders, many of I don't spend any time defending "other speeders." What I condemn are drivers who are so unaware of their surroundings they shouldn't have a driver's license. Or to put it another way, I've known plenty of "safe, legal" drivers who's driving has scared me FAR more than some of the DUIs I used to ride with years ago. >whom are the very speediots you claim to hate now! Figure out your >motives and you may become a real human. "real human?" I didn't realize I wasn't a real human. Thanks for pointing that out. Fortunately my parents, driving instructor, and several teachers provided me with much better information than you provide. The information provided by said parents, driving instructor, and teachers has, on numerous occasions, saved my life. I can't think of a single case in my quarter century where the information you've provided would have been useful in my avoiding an accident. Perhaps your wife would have benefited from the information provided by my resources; it appears the information you provided to her was worthless. >> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9111165305855013700 >> If you listen carefully, you can hear Carl Troller's wife scream just prior to the impact. > >That tag-line makes you creepy no matter how many flashes of insight It's funny as sh.t, Carl. You come in here spewing crap that even the mildly retarded wouldn't expel, and you expect respect? Come on, Carl, you're killing us! Of course, I guess with your wife dead, you've got to find other targets, eh? >you have. If I was religious I'd pray for your deviant soul. All of us >here need to get out more often and I'll close on that note. Damn me if >I keep posting to this crowd. And yet your dumb a.s will be back so fast it'll make your head spin. Can't figure out why you don't have any credibility, moron? LMAO. Have a Merry Christmas, loser, and say "high" to the wife for me. --- Don't steal; the government hates competition! "Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers)" <stfu@microsoft.com> said in rec.autos.driving: >>ANYONE who is going faster >>than someone else is MORE OF a speediot than someone driving slower > >ANYONE? Why Carl, that just proves you have no grasp on reality. Some >drivers are much better than others. Just ask you wife. Actually, it also proves that, BY HIS OWN DEFINITION, Carl is a Speediot. SignatureCarl Troller's wife catches a train: http://www.zippyvideos.com/119967005339285/faces_of_death_-_women_gets_hit_by_tr ain_funny/ And his girlfriend catches one, too: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/309176/girl_hit_by_a_train/ Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) - 26 Dec 2006 05:38 GMT Someone wrote: >"Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad >Mothers)" <stfu@microsoft.com> said in rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Actually, it also proves that, BY HIS OWN DEFINITION, Carl is a >Speediot. Well, now, at the risk of sounding confrontational... =)) Reminds me of a saying a friend of mine told me years ago when we were driving somewhere. We got blocked behind a LLBer, and my friend yelled "moron." I replied that I was thinking the same thing. He then replied "there are two types of drivers on the road: the idiots who drive faster than you, and the morons who drive slower." I've heard that subsequently from others, so there must be some truth. --- Don't steal; the government hates competition! Ted Kennedy wrote: <brevity snip> > He then replied > "there are two types of drivers on the road: the idiots who drive > faster than you, and the morons who drive slower." I've heard that > subsequently from others, so there must be some truth. I suppose the truth might be they all heard George Carlin say it, or heard it repeated by someone who heard Carlin say it, or... And whether a thing is true or not, how often one might hear it makes no difference either way. But your thinking that it does suggests quite a lot about your thought process. I think you might want to check what you think you know, if you can spare the time from telling us what you think that is. ----- - gpsman Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) - 26 Dec 2006 07:04 GMT Someone wrote: >Ted Kennedy wrote: <brevity snip> > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >I suppose the truth might be they all heard George Carlin say it, or >heard it repeated by someone who heard Carlin say it, or... Well, hats off to Mr. Carlin for whatever his involvement in the creation of the phrase. >And whether a thing is true or not, how often one might hear it makes >no difference either way. But your thinking that it does suggests >quite a lot about your thought process. You should consider that sometime. >I think you might want to check what you think you know, if you can >spare the time from telling us what you think that is. You should consider that sometime. --- Don't steal; the government hates competition! Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) wrote: > Someone wrote: > >Ted Kennedy wrote: <brevity snip> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > You should consider that sometime. Yes, I have. It strongly indicates you think stupidly. Hence, you might consider, you might be stupid. > >I think you might want to check what you think you know, if you can > >spare the time from telling us what you think that is. > > You should consider that sometime. Snappy comeback/s! I can only conclude you are 9 years old. So maybe not as stupid as I thought, but still, you should adjust to the fact that the curriculum of any trade institute of higher learning to which you might be accepted will not include the use of power tools. ----- - gpsman Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) - 26 Dec 2006 15:30 GMT Someone wrote: >Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad >Mothers) wrote: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > >Snappy comeback/s! I can only conclude you are 9 years old. Sorry, I didn't mean to point out your hypocrisy. I know how much it offends morons when they accuse me of a condition they also demonstrate but are too blind to understand. >So maybe not as stupid as I thought, but still, you should adjust to >the fact that the curriculum of any trade institute of higher learning >to which you might be accepted will not include the use of power tools. Fortunately for me, I don't need to engage in the use of power tools for my trade. I mean, who would want to have to downgrade their lifestyle so much? I'd hate to give up my nice office, with the excellent window view, out of the tallest building in town. I get to watch too many morons have accidents out that window. =)) --- Don't steal; the government hates competition! Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) said in rec.autos.driving: > Someone wrote: > >Ted Kennedy wrote: <brevity snip> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Well, hats off to Mr. Carlin for whatever his involvement in the > creation of the phrase. A lot of things are attributed to Carlin that he never said. Signature"If the Tampa Bay Buccaneers are known as the "Buc's," And the Jacksonville Jaguars are known as the "Jag's," Then what does that make the Tennessee Titans?" --George Carlin "Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers)" <stfu@microsoft.com> said in rec.autos.driving: >Reminds me of a saying a friend of mine told me years ago when we were >driving somewhere. We got blocked behind a LLBer, and my friend yelled >"moron." I replied that I was thinking the same thing. He then replied >"there are two types of drivers on the road: the idiots who drive >faster than you, and the morons who drive slower." I've heard that >subsequently from others ...Carl Troller being the most recent... >so there must be some truth. There's a small kernel of truth in there. Someone driving slower than me is not a moron unless he needlessly blocks my path. I don't consider someone driving faster than me to be an idiot, although some do slow down once they pass me and become morons. SignatureCarl Troller's wife catches a train: http://www.zippyvideos.com/119967005339285/faces_of_death_-_women_gets_hit_by_tr ain_funny/ And his girlfriend catches one, too: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/309176/girl_hit_by_a_train/ >> I hate speediots (i.e. drivers who drive too fast for conditions). > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > not, UNEXPECTED. All risks are relative and should be accepted as such > without nitpicking. All I am seeing from you here carl is your lame attempt to justify your speed (70mph) but continue to demonize anyone that drives faster than you. This is just another demonstration that you are nothing but a control freak who has to go first. You don't like speeds over 70mph and you must be first and control everyone, so your crusade continues to be nothing more than 'don't drive faster than Carl'. > Arguing whether a posted limit is "fair" misses the point. The laws of > physics don't read signs. Yet you drive 70mph. Why is that carl? > Physics only dictates that someone who pushes > 90 MPH all the time is at more potential risk than a moderate driver. There is nothing magical about 90mph, 70mph, 150mph or any other number pulled out of your a.s carl. > Insurance actuaries know this and it's no conspiracy. Insurance actuaries generally operate with flawed data sets. > Cops know it too > (at least the ones who didn't get into it to drive fast legally). Which is _all_ the cops I see on the road. > Speed-traps or not, those tickets serve a purpose. To collect revenue for the governments and pull people over for DWB and similiar. > I don't care how > many times you drove over Kanan, singing to your soul and lived to tell > of it. Laws get justified when things go WRONG. Yet you drive 70mph, carl. Why do you drive so fast? > Most _adults_ accept speed limits as a small price for freedom So you'd accept being held in leg irons as a small price for freedom? > and are > humble when they get a ticket. Pay up and shut up. > Anarchy would reign without governmental control of roads, So goes the cries of the control freak. Actually it's the imposition of arbitary control that causes the chaos. The most disciplined place to drive in the world as far as I know is the derestricted areas of the autobahn where there is no speed limit. > so deal with it. Exact speeds aren't the issue, You demonize everyone that drives faster than you, if exact speeds weren't the issue you wouldn't be here. > just > the higher energy levels of speeders (same car, same driver, same > weather, same road). You mean how you drive faster than the other troll(judy)? > For once you might want to consider RELATIVE RISKS I and scott have. Our speeds are chosen accordingly. > instead of "me vs. sloths" for every last detail. Most of the sloths I encounter that are worthy of comment here are slower than me on my bicycle. I don't mind bicyclists going those speeds because bicyclists are easy to pass, however cars aren't so easy to get around and a driver needs to learn there is traffic behind him and how to be courteous by not being a road blocking sloth. Road congestion is a very real safety problem. > This debate is more > subtle than speed-freaks make it, but it's complicated by egos. Nice bit of projection there carl. > The > connection between speeding and aggressive driving has unclear > boundaries. You make your boundaries very clear, you separate the world into 'good drivers' who go slower than you, and 'bad drivers' that go faster than you. > Many who consider themselves "fast and efficient" are > disregarding safety more than they know. That would be you at 70mph. > Some admit it now and then, > but lapse into denial when an Ian Johnston video is shown. Yet you drive 70mph. You haven't taken me up on my challenge to you Carl. Drive your car's driver side A pillar into the rear corner frame of a truck's cargo box at 5kph. (collision location of the 'fast' car in the video at the speed of the slow car in the video) Why don't you go do that and tell us how it works out and post the video. Oh, that's right, the severe injury to your upper body and head, that's what stops you. > A speediot is also someone who thinks they're too cool to make > mistakes, even if they're not the most extreme speeder (which seems to > Scott in Acidland's profile). Carl's projection again.... > It comes down to the DEGREE of RISK one > thinks they "deserve" to take - and subject other drivers to. You mean the kind of risk that comes from unaware idiots like you driving around at 70mph? > I could > care less if speediots kill themselves on private tracks. But on public > roads you put others at risk who didn't sign up for your mind games. > It's the same reason they ban smoking in restaurants. Risk is minimized with lane discipline and strictly following the rules of right of way. You, mr. 70mph don't care about the rules of right of way, all you apparently care about is numerical speed. You want everyone to drive slow so that when you and your kind change lanes improperly, run a red light, and the whole host of other right of way mistakes and MFFY behavior you exhibit on the road, the resulting collisions won't hurt as much. If you'd taken 3 seconds to pay attention here, you'd find that most of the regulars don't care much about numerical speed outside of residential areas but are very concerned about right of way rules. Right of way rules _PREVENT_ collisions, trying to restrict speed only makes collisions hurt less _IF_ successful, which they generally are not. You want to continue following a decades long failed policy of speed control over right of way. We want to end a failed policy and replace it with one that deals with right of way instead of numerical speed. Instead of ticketing some guy for doing 70mph on the interstate at 3am, we'd rather see someone like you who blocks the passing lane to play his little passive aggressive control freak games ticketed. > Another speediot trait is always wanting to be somewhere a few minutes > earlier, as if time is ALL that matters. Actually, I want to minimize my exposure to people like you carl. > If you enjoy driving so much, > shouldn't you want to stay out longer? (Think about that concept). It's nearly impossible to enjoy driving with control freaks like you on the road carl. Bicycling and driving is no where near as enjoyable as it should be because there is always someone out there like you carl who has to try and screw around with me. I'll be minding my own business when some arsehole has to come around and just start playing games. If I am biking he'll try to brush pass me off the road because he doesn't like bicyclists on the road... or when driving there will be someone blocking the left lane or tailgating me for no reason... or at lights some control freak like you will accelerate slowly to make it so people behind him have to wait two cycles... They do it because, like you they have nothing better to do. They are vile mean trolls of people like you. > The > amount of time saved by speeding in typical commutes isn't worth much, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > bank. Speeding is just easier to get away with. It's cowardly to let a > car do the pushing for you. And you are here to endorse all those other behaviors. Just let them do it. Like all speed kills people preach. Everyone drive faster than you and yield to your right of way violations. > If millions of people didn't overrate their own driving skills and > ignore the laws of physics, I might say Aye. If you didn't constantly [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > whom are the very speediots you claim to hate now! Figure out your > motives and you may become a real human. Speed is generally not the issue in multiple vehicle crashes. Someone violated a right of way rule that led to the crash. But you, like all speed kills types, ignore the right of way issue. > That tag-line makes you creepy no matter how many flashes of insight > you have. If I was religious I'd pray for your deviant soul. All of us > here need to get out more often and I'll close on that note. Damn me if > I keep posting to this crowd. You're the one with a crusade.... you better get used to it if you're going to keep being religious. Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Brent P said in rec.autos.driving: > All I am seeing from you here carl is your lame attempt to justify your > speed (70mph) but continue to demonize anyone that drives faster than > you. This is just another demonstration that you are nothing but a > control freak who has to go first. You don't like speeds over 70mph and > you must be first and control everyone, so your crusade continues to be > nothing more than 'don't drive faster than Carl'. Exactly. He is just Aunt Judy at 70 instead of 55. SignatureCarl Troller melts down in another victory for sensible driving over the rabid "slow = safe," nanny-nazis: "I didn't realize this was some teenage head-butting contest. You just made me sick enough to leave for good." --"Brad," (a.k.a. Carl Troller), 12/08/2006 Ref: http://tinyurl.com/ylf955 Message ID: 1165563989.317954.88270@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) - 26 Dec 2006 02:28 GMT Someone wrote: >But you, like all >speed kills types, ignore the right of way issue. I have a feeling reality will teach him otherwise, as it's done his wife. =)) --- Don't steal; the government hates competition! No need to comment on previous comments. I just hate bad drivers. People with the ME FIRST attitude. Those who drive too fast because they are too lazy to leave earlier. Those who must cut in front of you so they can sit in front of you at the next light. Those who see merge lanes with cones and flashing lights, yet go outside the pack, and bully their way into the line farther up. Those with the GET OUT OF MY WAY, KING OF THE WORLD COMING THROUGH attitude. Whether you drive too slow, too fast, don't think the rules apply to you, or think you're the only one on the roadway, you're the problem. Only trouble is, when these morons crash, it's usually into some poor innocent soul who's just sitting there playing by all the rules. Most people think they are much better drivers than they actually are. Steve Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) - 26 Dec 2006 02:54 GMT Someone wrote: >No need to comment on previous comments. > >I just hate bad drivers. Agreed. >People with the ME FIRST attitude. Agreed. >Those who drive too fast because they are too lazy to leave earlier. Agreed. >Those who must cut in front of you so they can sit in front of you at the >next light. Agreed. >Those who see merge lanes with cones and flashing lights, yet go outside the >pack, and bully their way into the line farther up. Agreed. >Those with the GET OUT OF MY WAY, KING OF THE WORLD COMING THROUGH attitude. Depends on whether or not you instigate the situation. Can't figure that out? Then perhaps you need to start studying how to avoid being a "road rage" `victim' >Whether you drive too slow, too fast, don't think the rules apply to you, or >think you're the only one on the roadway, you're the problem. > >Only trouble is, when these morons crash, it's usually into some poor >innocent soul who's just sitting there playing by all the rules. And yet that "poor innocent soul" usually could have avoided the circumstances had they given due diligence to their situation. Ah well, 42,000 morons per year gotta die, they may as well die due to their own ignorance. >Most people think they are much better drivers than they actually are. I don't have that problem. I am, however, a much better driver than those who surround me. --- Don't steal; the government hates competition! "Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers)" <stfu@microsoft.com> wrote > And yet that "poor innocent soul" usually could have avoided the > circumstances had they given due diligence to their situation. Ah > well, 42,000 morons per year gotta die, they may as well die due to > their own ignorance. Ah. Yes. As in my town, Las Vegas, Nevada within the past two weeks. An eight month pregnant woman is driving down the street. A truck coming towards her is driving too fast. It clips a car, and hits her head on. She died. The fetus also. I hope it hits your family this year. It has no respect for intelligence, and am sure that it would sadden your very intelligent gene pool, as it has saddened this ignorant one. Someone whose only ignorance was to be at the wrong place at the right instant in time. And get in the way of a speediot. Steve Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) - 26 Dec 2006 04:15 GMT Someone wrote: >"Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad >Mothers)" <stfu@microsoft.com> wrote [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >towards her is driving too fast. It clips a car, and hits her head on. She >died. The fetus also. What evasive maneuvers did she attempt? Did she even know what the proper response is when you perceive the threat of collision with an oncoming? Or did she just freeze like a deer in the headlights and allow Darwin to work his magic? >I hope it hits your family this year. It has no respect for intelligence, Keep on hopin'. And you're right, it has no respect for intelligent. Especially not for intelligence as low as yours. >and am sure that it would sadden your very intelligent gene pool, as it has >saddened this ignorant one. The vast majority of those in my family know how to drive, and have been accident free for at least two decades. The one exception is my mother, who never speeds, and has no understanding of proper lane displine. Given that we sometimes go places together, at times we chauffeur each other around. My "speeding" scares my mother shitless, in spite of the fact I have not had an accident in so long. In spite of the fact she's had a few accidents in recent years (and again, I haven't), that she doesn't speed is her justification that she's the safer driver. I've told her on numerous occasions she's going to be dead soon if she doesn't get a better handle on her driving, but it falls on deaf ears. Ah well, if she has a serious one, at least she was forewarned. I think everyone else in the family tree has evolved to the point where it's not a concern. You must know that I reside in a state, at least according to a recent newspaper article I posted in this group, that has one of the highest accident rates in the nation. "Safe Driving" in this state isn't an issue of adherence to a speed limit; safe driving in this hellhole is an issue of being so aware of your situation that the red light/stop sign runners aren't going to ruin your day. Don't pay attention at intersections around here, you're on your way to the morgue, no matter what color your signal light is. >Someone whose only ignorance was to be at the wrong place at the right >instant in time. And get in the way of a speediot. Are you an eyewitness to the event, or are you merely rehashing someone else's account? --- Don't steal; the government hates competition! "Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers)" <stfu@microsoft.com> wrote in message news:dr71p255dsl8j44elb6dmq2k5dt06pishr@4ax.com... > Someone wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > Are you an eyewitness to the event, or are you merely rehashing > someone else's account? You seem to be such an expert, and no view other than yours can be valid. What on earth can I possibly say? Nothing. You know it all. I think in her last moments, she was probably thinking something very emotional, like, " I'm not going to live through this." I doubt, as you would have surely done, that she was intellectualizing a lot. I think it was one of those moments when you know you're number is up. You, on the other hand, have something thought out for every scenario. You have your every action so planned that you can offer advice and correction to anyone else in the situation as to what they SHOULD have done, or what you WOULD have done. Trouble is, when you're put into the exact situation, and don't live through it, we will never know what really went through that narrow passage you call a mind. Steve Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) - 26 Dec 2006 05:18 GMT Someone wrote: >You seem to be such an expert, and no view other than yours can be valid. >What on earth can I possibly say? You can offer something credible to refute my claims. >Nothing. > >You know it all. I don't know it all, but I obviously know more than you do. >I think in her last moments, she was probably thinking something very >emotional, like, " I'm not going to live through this." Well, had I been in her situation, I think my last thoughts would have been, in this order: 1: What can I do to get out of this situation, or at the very least, minimize the damage from it? 2: Considering Las Vegas is a city with long, straight streets, how did I allow myself to become so distracted that I missed observing the erratic driving of oncoming traffic? 3: Why didn't I pay more attention/properly utilize driver's educational resources? >I doubt, as you would have surely done, that she was intellectualizing a >lot. Which may explain why she's not around to debate the issue. I know the very last thing you do in an 'accident' situation is to become emotional; you must remain calm and collected, or you will only worsen the outcome. Again, driver training. Furthermore, I've taken the opportunity on numerous occasions to "push" my vehicle(s) in controlled environments, to learn their handling characteristics under duress. >I think it was one of those moments when you know you're number is up. For those unprepared, the number comes up much sooner than for those who are prepared. 42,000 Americans prove this annually. Be part of the problem, or part of the solution; it doesn't matter to me; you'll have no impact on my life (pun intentional). >You, on the other hand, have something thought out for every scenario. You I don't have something thought out for every scenario. But I've encountered enough of them that getting through them is part of my driving routine. I've also read (and subsequently practiced, off of surface streets) about how to react to various common "emergency" issues. One of those issues is oncoming traffic in your lane. Have you ever done such study? >have your every action so planned that you can offer advice and correction >to anyone else in the situation as to what they SHOULD have done, or what >you WOULD have done. Too many drivers find themselves in situations for which they are unprepared to deal with. I don't have that problem. And you fault me? That's funny. Lemmee give you another "what they should have done...." While shopping a few months back, I ran into an ex neighbor of mine. We were chatting, and during the chat he informed me that his daughter's brownie troop just lost one of it's members, as she had been run over by a car. He proceeded to inform me that the girls were in the front yard at one of the girl's houses, playing ball, when the ball went out into the street. As the adults were all inside, one of the girls decided to go get the ball, which wasn't a good idea as the front yard led into a blind curve. Evidently the police officer who reported on the incident felt the curve's steepness was to blame, and not the driver's speed. As soon as this story was recanted, I thought: 1: Why are unchaperoned children being allowed to play in the front yard? My parents refused to allow me to play in the front yard, as it was adjacent to a very busy four lane highway. Well, it started out as a two lane highway, until my school's valedictorian got run over by a garbage truck in front of my house; the response to that "accident" was to widen the road by two lanes???!??!?? 2: Even in the absence of #1 above, why would a child cross a road on a blind curve? Why not get an adult? I would have flogged my son had I seen him do something so stupid, as my parents would have done me when I was that age. >Trouble is, when you're put into the exact situation, and don't live through >it, we will never know what really went through that narrow passage you call >a mind. So, genius, how do you know I haven't already been in the exact situation? How do you know I haven't been in similar situations many times? Come back when you have something better to offer. --- Don't steal; the government hates competition! >>An eight month pregnant woman is driving down the street. A truck coming >>towards her is driving too fast. It clips a car, and hits her head on. She >>died. The fetus also. > What evasive maneuvers did she attempt? Did she even know what the > proper response is when you perceive the threat of collision with an > oncoming? > > Or did she just freeze like a deer in the headlights and allow Darwin > to work his magic? One of the times I was hit by a teenager was when my '73 was sideswiped. Two lane road, gravel shoulder, ditch, and large trees to my right. Car crossing the center line heading for a head on with me. I get as far over to the right as I can... on to the gravel shoulder but not so far as to fall into the ditch or hit one of the trees. I get sideswiped. I also had someone cross over in front of me once and then go into the ditch. But it was far enough ahead and his trajectory almost 90degrees to the road so all I had to do was brake. That said, cross-overs can be surprising, but speed isn't usually the root cause. The root cause is generally stupidity or impairment of some other sort (the teenager that hit me claimed to have been cleaning off his windshield and thusly not paying attention to where he was driving) or that someone violated a right of way rule (in the second case, the guy clipped someone when changing lanes or was clipped by someone changing lanes). And those two are the vast majority of cross overs. If speed is cause, it's because someone was driving too fast for conditions and lost traction. Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) - 26 Dec 2006 04:53 GMT Someone wrote: >That said, cross-overs can be surprising, but speed isn't usually the Which is why you *really* need to be attentive near intersections. Had I towed the same line as the trolls here (safe is legal), I would have died in some of those intersections many times over. Fortunately my parents, and even my educational system, which is constantly ranked worse than 45th in the nation, didn't fail me by trying to teach me that "safe" and "legal" are synonyms. >root cause. The root cause is generally stupidity or impairment of some >other sort (the teenager that hit me claimed to have been cleaning off Yup. >his windshield and thusly not paying attention to where he was driving) >or that someone violated a right of way rule (in the second case, the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >If speed is cause, it's because someone was driving too fast for >conditions and lost traction. And that harkens back to the stupidity issue you mentioned earlier. --- Don't steal; the government hates competition! "Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers)" <stfu@microsoft.com> wrote in message news:0ia1p21teor52m58c7rvmlsoikg6jt4g6d@4ax.com... > Someone wrote: >> >>That said, cross-overs can be surprising, but speed isn't usually the > > Which is why you *really* need to be attentive near intersections. Good Grief, man. Were you born stupid or did you just practice a lot? People have been killed while sitting absolutely still at intersections. Doing the legal thing. Not doing anything wrong. Just being in the path of a moron. And yet, you want to intellectualize it all and tie it to thinking and planning and being such a good driver that when someone impacts your driver's door in a microsecond, you will somehow think your way out of it. Every time I think I have heard everything, someone like you comes along and blows me out of the water. Geez. What's so hard to understand about all the people who are just driving along within all the rules, and two seconds later they are dead? But then, what can I expect with a name like yours? How's Mary Jo? You are dismissed. plonk Steve > People have been killed while sitting absolutely still at intersections. > Doing the legal thing. Not doing anything wrong. Just being in the path of > a moron. Which is why the slow-is-safe crowd is so damn wrong. These people slotherate through intersections... they hang out there in the intersection waiting to be hit. I get on the gas and get out of the intersection ASAP. Most of these slow-is-safe sloths spend more time getting through an intersection than I do on a bicycle. And without the protection of a steel cage I am much more in the mood to yell at the arsehole in front of me who is taking a year and half to make a left turn to get his a.s in gear. >> People have been killed while sitting absolutely still at intersections. >> Doing the legal thing. Not doing anything wrong. Just being in the path [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > arsehole in front of me who is taking a year and half to make a left turn > to get his a.s in gear. Does this include those sitting there just waiting for the light to change? Steve > >> People have been killed while sitting absolutely still at intersections. > >> Doing the legal thing. Not doing anything wrong. Just being in the path [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Does this include those sitting there just waiting for the light to change? Hey Genius, Brent wrote that he was waiting for the driver in front of him to get in gear, NOT to wait for the light to change. Can't you comprehend what you read, moron? No wonder you plonk so many people; you can't understand what you read, and as a result turn into a usenet ass-kicking dummy. Did your parents have any kids that lived, loser? TedKennedy wrote: <brevity snip> > Did your parents have any kids that lived, loser? Correction: 8 years old. ----- - gpsman Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) - 26 Dec 2006 16:56 GMT Someone wrote: >TedKennedy wrote: <brevity snip> > >> Did your parents have any kids that lived, loser? > >Correction: 8 years old. Wow, interesting context change. What meds are you on to get that mix? Years ago, I would have like to experimented with that cocktail. --- Don't steal; the government hates competition! >>> People have been killed while sitting absolutely still at intersections. >>> Doing the legal thing. Not doing anything wrong. Just being in the path [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Does this include those sitting there just waiting for the light to change? Only those waiting for it go from green to red. Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) - 26 Dec 2006 05:28 GMT Someone wrote: >"Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad >Mothers)" <stfu@microsoft.com> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Good Grief, man. Were you born stupid or did you just practice a lot? You would ask that question? ROTFLMAO. >People have been killed while sitting absolutely still at intersections. >Doing the legal thing. Not doing anything wrong. Just being in the path of >a moron. It might be worth mentioning that, even though I've driven in excess of 100mph over the speed limit on occasion, that the only `accidents' any of my vehicles have been involved in during the last 20 years have been when I've been hit from behind, sitting parked at a signal light. You're right, when your velocity is zero, it's difficult to evade some situations. But be realistic, if you can. What percentage of automobile accidents resulting in fatalities involve stationary vehicles? >And yet, you want to intellectualize it all and tie it to thinking and >planning and being such a good driver that when someone impacts your >driver's door in a microsecond, you will somehow think your way out of it. The only way my car gets hit is when it's not moving. I evade the moving issues. Preparation is very helpful. >Every time I think I have heard everything, someone like you comes along and >blows me out of the water. Glad I could be of service to you. Hopefully you'll learn something that might save your life one day. >Geez. What's so hard to understand about all the people who are just >driving along within all the rules, and two seconds later they are dead? Uh, that "driving along within all the rules" doesn't equate to "driving along safely?" I had a civics teacher teach us that in seventh grade; have you learned that lesson yet, moron? >But then, what can I expect with a name like yours? Obviously not much, unless you've done any research. It's obvious you haven't, on a great number of subjects. Say "hi" to "Laura Bush Murdered Her Boyfriend" for me if you see her in these parts, then look up the terms "sarcasm", "irony", and "hypocrisy", if your 'dictionary for dullards' includes those terms. >How's Mary Jo? Dead and unpregnant. >You are dismissed. plonk Gee, Steve, that would hurt if you had demonstrated anywhere along the line that your posts were more than fertilizer. --- Don't steal; the government hates competition! Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Steve B said in rec.autos.driving: > You are dismissed. plonk The feeling is mutual. ** P * L * O * N * K ** Signature-- necromancer Official Overseer Of Kooks And Trolls In rec.autos.driving Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) - 26 Dec 2006 15:42 GMT Someone wrote: >Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Steve B said in >rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >** P * L * O * N * K ** I'm thinking this one might be a chaser...... =)) --- Don't steal; the government hates competition! "Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers)" <stfu@microsoft.com> said in rec.autos.driving: >>An eight month pregnant woman is driving down the street. A truck coming >>towards her is driving too fast. It clips a car, and hits her head on. She >>died. The fetus also. > >What evasive maneuvers did she attempt? My bet is she removed her hands from the steering wheel and threw them up over here eyes, then began screaming. SignatureCarl Troller's wife catches a train: http://www.zippyvideos.com/119967005339285/faces_of_death_-_women_gets_hit_by_tr ain_funny/ And his girlfriend catches one, too: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/309176/girl_hit_by_a_train/ > "Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad > Mothers)" <stfu@microsoft.com> said in rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > My bet is she removed her hands from the steering wheel and threw them > up over here eyes, then began screaming. Now, according to Mr. Kennedy, that could be construed as some idiot who is then blocking traffic by stopping their vehicle. Right? Probably got in the way of Mr. Kennedy on his way to the liquor store. Steve Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) - 26 Dec 2006 21:13 GMT Someone wrote: >"Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad >Mothers)" <stfu@microsoft.com> said in rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >My bet is she removed her hands from the steering wheel and threw them >up over here eyes, then began screaming. I haven't tried that one yet. Gee, I wonder how well that one works? --- Don't steal; the government hates competition! "Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers)" <stfu@microsoft.com> said in rec.autos.driving: >Someone wrote: >>"Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Gee, I wonder how well that one works? If you try it, you'll never know. SignatureCarl Troller's wife catches a train: http://www.zippyvideos.com/119967005339285/faces_of_death_-_women_gets_hit_by_tr ain_funny/ And his girlfriend catches one, too: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/309176/girl_hit_by_a_train/ Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), said in rec.autos.driving: > Scott, you're almost salvageable, but what's missing? Life itself is a > constant "condition," subject to change. ANYONE who is going faster > than someone else is MORE OF a speediot than someone driving slower yet > _pragmatically fast_. That's because the unexpected is, believe it or > not, UNEXPECTED. All risks are relative and should be accepted as such > without nitpicking. Then why the f.ck do you keep whining about "speediots???" Is it that you just want to be the leader all the time or that you want to live in such stupefying safety that nothing can get done or that you have to call anyone whose perceptions of risk (or anything else for that matter) don't agree with yours an "idiot???" > Arguing whether a posted limit is "fair" misses the point. The laws of > physics don't read signs. Physics only dictates that someone who pushes > 90 MPH all the time is at more potential risk than a moderate driver. For the vast majority of vehicles out there, pushing 90MPH for a sustained period is exceeding the vehicle's designed capabilities. > Insurance actuaries know this and it's no conspiracy. Cops know it too > (at least the ones who didn't get into it to drive fast legally). > Speed-traps or not, those tickets serve a purpose. Yeah, to raise money. Replace the fines with jail time and you might convince me otherwise. > I don't care how > many times you drove over Kanan, singing to your soul and lived to tell [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > humble when they get a ticket. Anarchy would reign without governmental > control of roads, so deal with it. Speed limits set by engineers who designed the roads, yes. Speed limits set by politicians for the purposes of revenue generation (again, get rid of the fines and replace them with jail time) and/or pacifying the safety nazis and the chicken sh.t lowest common denominator of soceity, no. > Exact speeds aren't the issue, just > the higher energy levels of speeders (same car, same driver, same > weather, same road). For once you might want to consider RELATIVE RISKS > instead of "me vs. sloths" for every last detail. So, what you are saying is that only the faster vehicle is the dangerous vehicle and that the slower vehicle (even if that vehicle is in the inappropriate lane) is always the safest one. Carl, please do us a favor and get off the road. you are putting the rest of us in danger. > This debate is more > subtle than speed-freaks make it, but it's complicated by egos. The [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > That is why you people are so annoying. No, we are just annoying to you because we refuse to bow down to your opinion like you want us to do. > Just admit that A) the > unexpected happens and No f.cking sh.t, sherlock. > B) you're at greater risk when it does. Then if you want to eliminate all your risk, then stay home. > And stop > the lies about fast driving making you inherently "more alert." It's a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Scott in Acidland's profile). It comes down to the DEGREE of RISK one > thinks they "deserve" to take - and subject other drivers to. You mean like when Loco Laura advocates obstructing the passing lane and forcing faster cars (and maybe even some speediots) to move into the center or right lanes to pass, thereby endangering us sensible drivers who know which lane they are supposed to be in? > I could > care less if speediots kill themselves on private tracks. But on public > roads you put others at risk who didn't sign up for your mind games. And so do sloths who are driving well under the prevailing flow of traffic. They are just as dangerous (if not more so) than the "speediot." But then to you, the cars doing the flow of traffic are just "speediots," for daring to go faster than another vehicle. > It's the same reason they ban smoking in restaurants. Yeah, because the government caved in to a bunch of crybabies who can't tolerate a little adversity. And my recent trip to NC and VA reminded me how much I missed the child free smoking sections in restaurants and the pleasures of a good cigar smell with dinner. > Another speediot trait is always wanting to be somewhere a few minutes > earlier, as if time is ALL that matters. If you enjoy driving so much, > shouldn't you want to stay out longer? (Think about that concept). Depends on the road. If its a winding mountain road or other low traffic situation, then yes. If I am stuck in traffic with all the other 9-5'ers then I want to get it over with ASAP. > The > amount of time saved by speeding in typical commutes isn't worth much, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > bank. Speeding is just easier to get away with. It's cowardly to let a > car do the pushing for you. No, its more like the express line at the grocery store. If you have one or two items, you can get done and get out. Now if the express line and the left lane were just enforced, the world would be a better place. > > They endanger everyone with their selfish and reckless driving. It's > > quite possible to drive fast AND safe, but Speediots never do. They're [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > whom are the very speediots you claim to hate now! Figure out your > motives and you may become a real human. I know what my motives are. What are yours??? SignatureAunt Judy defends a known *drunk driver*: "Almost all vehicle 'accidents' are due to driver recklessness but the Chappaquidick incident is one instance where it may really have been no ones fault except the idiot who built the bridge." --"Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend," 11/10/2005 Ref: http://tinyurl.com/9jtjt Msg ID: 1131599968.267321.318380@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com > For the vast majority of vehicles out there, pushing 90MPH for a > sustained period is exceeding the vehicle's designed capabilities. This may have been true in the 70s, but I hardly think it's true today. A modern car should be more than capable of sustained 90mph travel. > Speed limits set by engineers who designed the roads, yes. You need to watch this... seems many a road engineer believes tables from the 1930s rather than actual data from today. >> Speed limits set by engineers who designed the roads, yes. > >You need to watch this... seems many a road engineer believes tables from >the 1930s rather than actual data from today. Well, they pick and choose. They model a car with the handling of a 1930s vehicle (complete with bias-ply tires; we're lucky they consider pneumatic tires standard...) and the driver position of a modern sports car. Thus, design speeds actually have dropped rather than increased. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. aggressive_driving@yahoo.com said in rec.autos.driving: >> I hate speediots (i.e. drivers who drive too fast for conditions). > >Scott, you're almost salvageable, but what's missing? Life itself is a >constant "condition," subject to change. ANYONE who is going faster >than someone else is MORE OF a speediot than someone driving slower yet >_pragmatically fast_. Why do you assume that I am not driving "Pragmatically Fast" (i.e. Fast But Safe)? My spotless driving record for the last 20 years is proof of my pragmatism and safety. >Arguing whether a posted limit is "fair" misses the point. The laws of >physics don't read signs. Physics only dictates that someone who pushes >90 MPH all the time is at more potential risk than a moderate driver. I agree 100%. >Most _adults_ accept speed limits as a small price for freedom LOL!!! If that were true, then most adults would never exceed the posted limit. >and are humble when they get a ticket. Would you be humble if you were unjustly accused of a crime you did not commit? My bet is you would not go quietly into the night, either, but would hire the best legal defense team you could possibly afford. >Anarchy would reign without governmental control of roads, so deal with it. Our system of government is based on checks and balances. The reason we have three branches of government is so that one branch cannot exercise too much power. What checks and balances apply to local and/or state governments' ability to set speed limits? How do you fight a speed limit that is set artificially low? >Exact speeds aren't the issue, just >the higher energy levels of speeders (same car, same driver, same >weather, same road). It seems to have escaped your notice that nobody is arguing against that statement. What's missing is how you managed to leap from that simple statement of physical fact into this manic blather about "speediots" - for all your talk of logic, there's no logical derivation there that I can see. Back when I took that propositional logic course in college, we had to do a LOT of proofs. If any of us had turned in a "proof" as sloppy as the ones you post to this newsgroup, we would have instantly failed the course. SignatureCarl Troller's wife catches a train: http://www.zippyvideos.com/119967005339285/faces_of_death_-_women_gets_hit_by_tr ain_funny/ And his girlfriend catches one, too: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/309176/girl_hit_by_a_train/ Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) - 26 Dec 2006 05:30 GMT Someone wrote: >My bet is you would not go quietly into the night, either, >but would hire the best legal defense team you could possibly afford. Which, if his logic is any indication, would be the public defender, since it's obvious he's not intelligent enough to hold a job paying much more than minimum wage. --- Don't steal; the government hates competition! > Arguing whether a posted limit is "fair" misses the point. The laws of > physics don't read signs. Physics only dictates that someone who pushes > 90 MPH all the time is at more potential risk than a moderate driver. Some one who drives faster is at greater risk of getting hurt *IF* they have an accident at high speed. What you have to bear in mind though is the competent faster driver will also be the *better* driver with greater situational awareness and will also be concentrating more on their driving. This actually *reduces* the chance of an accident ! Graham > > Arguing whether a posted limit is "fair" misses the point. The laws of > > physics don't read signs. Physics only dictates that someone who pushes [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > What you have to bear in mind though is the competent faster driver will also be the *better* > driver with greater situational awareness and will also be concentrating more on their driving. Spurious conclusion. Nice try, but your "competent faster driver" has no qualifications to be deemed "competent". You just kinda threw him into your argument, after inventing him. Operating at higher velocity does not equal competency, nor impart any factors of competency you describe. AFAIK most drivers have roughly identical qualifications; very basic driver education and a license earned via a very easy test. As competent as one might be, how might that qualify them to operate at higher velocity amongst the incompetent with lesser situational awareness and powers of concentration? > This actually *reduces* the chance of an accident ! Why don't you argue that the faster one drives the less time spent driving and available to be involved in an accident? E x c l a m a t i o n p o i n t. Makes about as much sense. ----- - gpsman Ted Kennedy - President of DDDAMM (Drunk Driving Divers Against Mad Mothers) - 26 Dec 2006 16:48 GMT Someone wrote: >> > Arguing whether a posted limit is "fair" misses the point. The laws of >> > physics don't read signs. Physics only dictates that someone who pushes [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >no qualifications to be deemed "competent". You just kinda threw him >into your argument, after inventing him. They exist, and your denial of such does not alter reality. Why is it that some drivers are smart enough to avoid obstacles observed from blocks away, while other drivers have to get on top of the obstacle before they identify it? By the way, that latter group of drivers are usually the dullard who poke along at the speed limit, but I digress. >Operating at higher velocity does not equal competency, nor impart any >factors of competency you describe. AFAIK most drivers have roughly Wow, you finally got one half-right. Your failure, though, is that you assume your opponents equate "higher velocity" with "higher competency." >identical qualifications; very basic driver education and a license >earned via a very easy test. Some of us have done more. >As competent as one might be, how might that qualify them to operate at >higher velocity amongst the incompetent with lesser situational >awareness and powers of concentration? The fact that those with higher competency are able to avoid accidents cause by those with lesser situational awareness? >> This actually *reduces* the chance of an accident ! > >Why don't you argue that the faster one drives the less time spent >driving and available to be involved in an accident? That's a true statement! You're saying it's not? Damned, you're stupid. >E x c l a m a t i o n p o i n t. > >Makes about as much sense. Wow, you make a true statement, then debunk it as false? Not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed, eh, GPSman? --- Don't steal; the government hates competition! Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Scott en Aztlán said in rec.autos.driving: > I hate speediots (i.e. drivers who drive too fast for conditions). > They endanger everyone with their selfish and reckless driving. It's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > All who agree with me signify by saying "Aye!" Aye! SignatureN ational F ascism L eague >I hate speediots (i.e. drivers who drive too fast for conditions). >They endanger everyone with their selfish and reckless driving. It's >quite possible to drive fast AND safe, but Speediots never do. They're >every bit as bad a Sloth (the people who drive inapprorpiately slowly >and needlessly block the paths of other drivers). But "too fast" is always subjective, right? Regardless of driving conditions -- rain, show, congestion, or nice weather and no congestion -- a lot of people driving slower than you at any given time probably think you're driving "too fast" for conditions. I know Laura would think so. ;-) So rather than forming an opinion on a given driver in terms of speed, I look at it at a higher level -- in terms of safe/good driving. I hate drivers who don't drive in what I consider to be a proper fashion. This includes using turn signals for turns and lane changes, not changing lanes back and forth constantly while accomplishing nothing in terms of position due to shoddy decision making, KRETP, and so on. This keeps me from falling into the "faster than me is too fast" trap. (Though it's not surprising that those who drive faster have historically been very unlikely to signal or KRETP.) -James James Kilton <nope@nope.com> said in rec.autos.driving: >>I hate speediots (i.e. drivers who drive too fast for conditions). >>They endanger everyone with their selfish and reckless driving. It's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >But "too fast" is always subjective, right? Perhaps, but there is usually a strong consensus. That's why the concept of the 85th percentile speed is such a useful tool. >Regardless of driving >conditions -- rain, show, congestion, or nice weather and no >congestion -- a lot of people driving slower than you at any given >time probably think you're driving "too fast" for conditions. I know >Laura would think so. ;-) So would Carl Troller. However, people like them tend to get outvoted. >So rather than forming an opinion on a given driver in terms of speed, >I look at it at a higher level -- in terms of safe/good driving. I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >nothing in terms of position due to shoddy decision making, KRETP, and >so on. I think we can all agree to hate those people. I only focused on Speediots in my post because that's Carl Troller's new pet term. I offer a more rational definition that I believe most people can agree on. SignatureI hate speediots - especially Carl Troller. |
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.