 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / November 2007Cars, speed and entitlement
SECOND OPINION: CRASHES: SPEED TRUMPS SAFETY Car culture recklessly puts all of us at risk ANDRE PICARD November 8, 2007 Three-year-old Bianca Leduc was mowed down on her babysitter's lawn while she was putting up Halloween decorations. An out-of-control car plowed into another car, then careened through a fence. Bianca was pinned under the car and she was dead by the time firefighters could free her. The incident in the bucolic Montreal suburb of Île-Perrot caused widespread outrage in Quebec. Bianca's cherubic face has graced the cover of virtually every newspaper and figured prominently on the TV news during the past week, an image that reminded every parent that it could have just as easily been their child. Print Edition - Section Front Enlarge Image The public railed about police, complaining that there are too few on patrol. The two teenaged drivers allegedly involved in the crash have been widely vilified. They face serious charges, including criminal negligence causing death. According to news reports, the pair are alleged to have been driving through the suburban streets considerably faster than the 30-kilometre- an-hour speed limit. Pierre Joyal, lawyer for one of the accused, said the young man is not a monster, but a victim of circumstance: "It was a tragic accident, but an accident all the same." It is true that terrible things can happen to good people. But, please, let us be gone with that vapid term "accident." Motor vehicle crashes are, overwhelmingly, anything but accidents. They are often explained by the behaviours of drivers. They are usually the result of irresponsible, risky manoeuvres whose potential consequences are largely predictable and avoidable. The broader tragedy here - beyond the death of little Bianca - is the sheer ordinariness of the actions that led to her being killed. Speed limit signs have become purely decorative. Stop signs too. Running a red light is commonplace. Enforcement of the rules of the road is negligible. We have laws to protect the public but, without enforcement, they are hollow words. The deadly Halloween crash, whatever its cause, should remind us that police play an important role in public health - or at least they should. Of course there are demands for more police. But throwing bodies at the problem is not a solution. The real issue is priorities. Enforcement of traffic laws is not a priority with our police forces, nor with their political masters. Everybody wants to catch bad guys such as murderers and be hailed as a hero, not hand out tickets and be spat upon. Politicians puff out their chests and talk about getting tough on crime, but they refuse to bolster the budgets of traffic squads or to implement sound public health measures such as photo radar. There are almost 3,000 deaths in motor vehicle crashes in Canada each year, along with 18,000 debilitating injuries. By comparison, there are about 600 homicides. In the wrong hands, a motor vehicle is a deadly weapon. That cars are a leading cause of death in Canada - among the biggest killers of young people - is no surprise. Everything in our culture encourages the abuse rather than the responsible use of cars and trucks, from the driver's licence as coming-of-age ritual through to TV commercials that sell speed, the fawning admiration of professional race-car drivers and the mass marketing of vehicles able to travel in excess of 200 kilometres an hour. Society itself is built around the car, and vehicles are the ultimate status symbol. What you drive is a rolling testament to your power, position and wealth. And how we drive is symbolic of how we live: always in a hurry and all too often disdainful of others. Speed trumps civility, and individual pursuits trump collective ones. Speed limits are for wimps. Stop signs are for losers. Beating the red is another challenge. The majority of drivers on the country's highways and byways could routinely be candidates for the little-used Criminal Code infraction: operating a motor vehicle in a manner that is dangerous to the public. There is no need to rein in the motor-head impulse to hit the gas instead of the brakes because the odds of being caught are slim to nil. We shun photo radar and red-light cameras - with the welcome exception of a few jurisdictions - saying they violate our civil rights. The right to maim, to kill and to endanger the lives of our fellow citizens? Ah, freedom! Even assuming the worst about them, the death of Bianca Leduc cannot be pinned solely on the actions of the two young men. They are, after all, products of our car culture. Until that culture changes, the quiet carnage will continue unabated, and the bodies will continue to pile up. Zoom, zoom, zoom. > SECOND OPINION: CRASHES: SPEED TRUMPS SAFETY > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > November 8, 2007 <snip crap> Please explain exactly how increased speed inevitably results in increased risk. thank you. nate  Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > > SECOND OPINION: CRASHES: SPEED TRUMPS SAFETY > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > -- > replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel You are kidding right ? If you have to ask, you'll never know. Care to try a physics experiment ? Mind you, relative speed is more dangerous than absolute speed. The world is full of dangerous drivers. They should all have their licenses suspended for life. That would be a start : heavy road tolls, congestion taxes, higher gas taxes, lower speed limits, graduated licenses for younger drivers 16 to 25 years old, massive reinvestment in public transit, dedicated cyclist lanes, mixed use land development, land value taxes to replace property taxes on buildings, thus increasing density, photo radar on all roads, stopping sprawl, etc... I have a dream !!!! >>>SECOND OPINION: CRASHES: SPEED TRUMPS SAFETY >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > I have a dream !!!! I see you have no response to the question posed. The truth is, that PROPERLY SET (not necessarily lower) speed limits encourage a more uniform flow of traffic and fewer collisions. People will drive the speed they feel is safe no matter what you set the speed limit at; the real solution is to a) set the speed limits to reflect reality and b) to educate drivers better so that they are better able to competently judge risk. Also, you may wish to compare and contrast "accident," injury, or death rates of the German Autobahnen to American Interstates to see how flawed your initial premise is. There's plenty of references out there should you care to do more research on the subject. Searching this group would be a good place to start, or perhaps the NMA web site (they have collected synopses of a lot of studies on the subject on their site.) nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > >>>SECOND OPINION: CRASHES: SPEED TRUMPS SAFETY > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > I see you have no response to the question posed. <snip absolute crap> > The truth is, that PROPERLY SET (not necessarily lower) speed limits > encourage a more uniform flow of traffic and fewer collisions. People > will drive the speed they feel is safe no matter what you set the speed > limit at; the real solution is to a) set the speed limits to reflect > reality and b) to educate drivers better so that they are better able to > competently judge risk. SEE ANSWER ABOVE ABOUT SPEEDING, NOT SPEED (relative vs absolute) If it;'s statistics you want, on speeding (not speed) and accidents, I'll be happy to search them out. > Also, you may wish to compare and contrast "accident," injury, or death > rates of the German Autobahnen to American Interstates to see how flawed > your initial premise is. ANSWERED ABOVE > There's plenty of references out there should you care to do more > research on the subject. Searching this group would be a good place to > start, or perhaps the NMA web site (they have collected synopses of a > lot of studies on the subject on their site.) > > nate Are you always this condescending ? In any case, the editorial was in response to teenagers speeding in slow 30mph zone and killing the girl. I suggest perhaps if they had been following the speed limit, she may have survived. Read the full case story. >>>>>SECOND OPINION: CRASHES: SPEED TRUMPS SAFETY >> [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > SEE ANSWER ABOVE ABOUT SPEEDING, NOT SPEED (relative vs absolute) You didn't answer the question at all. > If it;'s statistics you want, on speeding (not speed) and accidents, > I'll be happy to search them out. Please elaborate on your use of the words "speeding" and "speed" since you have not defined them. I don't need statistics (have looked at plenty,) although it appears that you may want to search them out and actually read them. >>Also, you may wish to compare and contrast "accident," injury, or death >>rates of the German Autobahnen to American Interstates to see how flawed >>your initial premise is. > > ANSWERED ABOVE Unresponsive. >>There's plenty of references out there should you care to do more >>research on the subject. Searching this group would be a good place to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Are you always this condescending ? No, sometimes I am exceptionally rude, condescending, and alternately snide and sarcastic to people who say stupid things. You appear to fall into that category. > In any case, the editorial was in response to teenagers speeding in > slow 30mph zone and killing the girl. I suggest perhaps if they had > been following the speed limit, she may have survived. Read the full > case story. Perhaps *you* should stop taking special cases and writing (or copying, as the case may be) editorials about them railing against problems that don't exist. Sure, there are tons of bad drivers out there, but speed isn't the main problem. If it were, there wouldn't be any low speed "accidents." The cause of the specific incident wasn't speed; however fast that driver was going (unstated) there are plenty of people driving that fast safely every day. The cause was "driving too fast for conditions" (which most of the time is completely unrelated to the number on the sign) and/or attempting aggressive maneuvers beyond the capabilities of his vehicle and/or simply not paying attention to what the hell he was doing. You call for lower speed limits. Should I then believe that a driver that doesn't obey a 30 MPH speed limit will suddenly change his behavior when confronted with a 25 MPH speed limit? That's, um, what's the word I'm looking for? Absurd? no, not strong enough. Asinine? Retarded? Nothing quite captures the complete and utter stupidity of that premise. What needs to be done is to set speed limits consistently, across the board, that reflect a true upper bound safe speed with a reasonable margin of safety for the majority of vehicles actually on the road. Then when a driver is confronted with a speed limit that seems low to him he will be inclined to respect it, since his experience will tell him that there is likely a good reason for it, in contrast to today's typical speed limits where in some places you have Interstate highways signed at 55 MPH or less and 4-lane divided arterials at 25 MPH. Of course, if you want to continue to believe that simply obeying the speed limit makes you a good driver, continue to do so. The truth is, you may simply be a poor, slow driver. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel >Are you always this condescending ? Are you always this stupid? >In any case, the editorial was in response to teenagers speeding in >slow 30mph zone and killing the girl. I suggest perhaps if they had >been following the speed limit, she may have survived. Read the full >case story. I suggest if she wasn't allow to play near the road way, she would have survived. Signature"Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS" brags of it's homosexuallity: the guys at the bath-house stopped laughing at my 3 inch weenie. : http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/168e8e621dd649fb?hl=en "Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS" brags of it's ability to operate a vehicle: I must be doing something right to go 3 1/2 years without a fatal crash. : http://groups.google.com/group/misc.transport.road/msg/a376114ee8a61824?hl=en >In any case, the editorial was in response to teenagers speeding in >slow 30mph zone and killing the girl. I suggest perhaps if they had >been following the speed limit, she may have survived. When a car comes to rest on top of you, the speed at which it arrived there is pretty much irrelevant to your survival. Signature"I no longer find MTR and RAD a useful medium" Carl Rogers, 9 September 2007 Message-ID: <t01Fi.49620$Um6.14486@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net> >>In any case, the editorial was in response to teenagers speeding in >>slow 30mph zone and killing the girl. I suggest perhaps if they had >>been following the speed limit, she may have survived. > >When a car comes to rest on top of you, the speed at which it arrived >there is pretty much irrelevant to your survival. That's *WAY* too advanced a concept for retards to comprehend. Signature"Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS" brags of it's homosexuallity: the guys at the bath-house stopped laughing at my 3 inch weenie. : http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/168e8e621dd649fb?hl=en "Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS" brags of it's ability to operate a vehicle: I must be doing something right to go 3 1/2 years without a fatal crash. : http://groups.google.com/group/misc.transport.road/msg/a376114ee8a61824?hl=en >> > SECOND OPINION: CRASHES: SPEED TRUMPS SAFETY >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > You are kidding right ? If you have to ask, you'll never know. Care to > try a physics experiment ? The crash hurts more when driving faster. So what? I care about *NOT* crashing in the first place. That's the problem with speed kills mindset, it accepts the crash as a given. I don't accept the crash as a given and attempts at artifical slower speeds don't make crashes happen less often. > Mind you, relative speed is more dangerous > than absolute speed. And yet you appear to propose driving a 55mph speed limit in a 75-85mph flow? > The world is full of dangerous drivers. They should all have their > licenses suspended for life. And they are dangerous for everything *BUT* speed. If they just drove fast, then they would never be a danger. The stupidity comes from things they can do at any speed that are dangerous at any speed. > That would be a start : heavy road tolls, Would need to replace other taxation. > congestion taxes, Demonstrated failure where it has been tried from what I've read. > higher gas taxes, Why? Roads are being paid for in tolls. You're sounding like an anti-driving advocate. > lower speed limits, Safety negative. See 85th percentile method. > graduated licenses for younger drivers 16 > to 25 years old, Just making more bad drivers who happen to be older. > massive reinvestment in public transit, Government is poor at allocation of resources. This would be no different. Bridge to nowhere. More transit few if any will be able to use. > dedicated cyclist lanes, Bad idea. I've been over it many times. And yes, I am bicyclist. Vehicular bicyclists do not particularly like being stuck in bicycle ghettos. > mixed use land development, Zoning is straight up politics. > land value taxes to replace > property taxes on buildings, Same THING! Both are property taxes. > thus increasing density, Ahh now your true motives are clear. You're just anti-car and want to push a social agenda. > photo radar on all roads, stopping sprawl, etc... > I have a dream !!!! A control freak's dream. On Nov 8, 10:03 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: And yet you appear to propose driving a 55mph speed limit in a 75-85mph flow? No, i am for photo radar and criminalizing multiple or excessive speeding regardless of crash or not It is a public health/safety issue. > > The world is full of dangerous drivers. They should all have their > > licenses suspended for life. > > And they are dangerous for everything *BUT* speed. If they just drove > fast, then they would never be a danger. The stupidity comes from things > they can do at any speed that are dangerous at any speed. This is true, but would you rather have a guy talking on a cellphone hit you at 30mph or 100 ? > > That would be a start : heavy road tolls, > > Would need to replace other taxation. Yes, like income (corportate and individual hopefully) > > congestion taxes, Demonstrated failure where it has been tried from what I've read. One man's failure is another man's utopia. > > higher gas taxes, > > Why? Roads are being paid for in tolls. You're sounding like an > anti-driving advocate. No, i am someone who wishes for true cost pricing of economic externalities. I recognize global warming, and especially coming peak oil. lower speed limits, > Safety negative. See 85th percentile method. Not if strictly enforced, which was really the main point of the article. The article was about selfishness and entitlement over public good, not about speeding. Speeding and this crash was used as one example of society's car dependent ills. graduated licenses for younger drivers 16 to 25 years old, Just making more bad drivers who happen to be older. May have a point there, but young people are most of the bad drivers and cause a large percentage of accidents. massive reinvestment in public transit, Government is poor at allocation of resources. This would be no different. Bridge to nowhere. More transit few if any will be able to use. Total ideological generalization. Studies show that cities with better public transit attract more investment, and get a better return on spending on public transit than they do on widening roads for ever increasing automobiles. dedicated cyclist lanes, Bad idea. I've been over it many times. And yes, I am bicyclist. Vehicular bicyclists do not particularly like being stuck in bicycle ghettos. The way people drive around here in the exurbs, i would kill for wide bicycle lanes. Now, have to ride on sidewalks, which are for pedestrians. Damned if you do, etc... mixed use land development, Zoning is straight up politics. Your point ? land value taxes to replace property taxes on buildings, > Same THING! Both are property taxes. LVT land value taxes tax the land at a given value, giving incentive to developer to build more units of residential or commercial or industrial space on the land, thus increasing density thus increasing density, Ahh now your true motives are clear. You're just anti-car and want to push a social agenda. How is wanting to push a social agenda being anti-car. I have been driving for 25 years, and happily so, but i have my preferences as you do. We all have agendas in the larger sense don't we ? photo radar on all roads, stopping sprawl, etc... I have a dream !!!! > A control freak's dream. I don't see how that is more control than what we have now, we have property developers and zoning and road construction lobbying being pursued for car dependence and dominance. That is a car lover's control wet dream now. All I advocate is a more balance, social equity, less pollution, less congestion, and more public safety, and especially more personal responsibility to be safe on the roads. Next time a vote comes up on photo radar on roads and highways, or on widening roads vs better public transit, ask yourself isn't it just a societal choice of individuals ? Car companies bought out electric rail lines in cities in early 20th century. Created a near monopoly on transportation. Highways were massively subsidized and paid for by government (you know, the ones who are so bad at allocating resources ? LOL Wars have been fought throughout the 20th century over a finite resource, and now the Middle East is coming back to bite us in the a.s. You know CIA coups, covert actions, backing oppressive royal families, dictators, establishing artificial borders and countries, etc... You're right, government has been horrible at allocating resources to car dominance. > On Nov 8, 10:03 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > speeding regardless of crash or not It is a public health/safety > issue. Clearly you don't understand the issue and just want to force people to drive a speed you like. Setting speed limits below the 85th percentile method is safety negative. The more standard devations one drives below the flow speed the more at risk of a crash he is at. The speed limit has little effect on the 85th percentile speed of a road. >> > The world is full of dangerous drivers. They should all have their >> > licenses suspended for life. >> And they are dangerous for everything *BUT* speed. If they just drove >> fast, then they would never be a danger. The stupidity comes from things >> they can do at any speed that are dangerous at any speed. > This is true, but would you rather have a guy talking on a cellphone > hit you at 30mph or 100 ? I'd rather have him not hit me. Your speed limit sign will not change his speed and set the way you propose, a number pulled out of your a.s, actually INCREASES the chance he will hit me. >> > congestion taxes, >> Demonstrated failure where it has been tried from what I've read. > One man's failure is another man's utopia. Well for someone who just wants to punish people for driving. But those people are control freaks IMO. >> > higher gas taxes, >> Why? Roads are being paid for in tolls. You're sounding like an >> anti-driving advocate. > No, i am someone who wishes for true cost pricing of economic > externalities. I recognize global warming, and especially coming peak > oil. Peak oil is a fraud. The amount of oil available on the market is directly related to the bandwidth of production. The world is awash in oil, just that the greatest amounts of it require more infastructure to use. Yet, even in these days of high oil prices when it would be vastly profitable, there is little investment in it. This tells me that there isn't even an issue with the jed-shotgun crude. It tells me that people are affraid the moment they were about to turn on the equipment to use the heavier oil, those with the jed-shotgun-crude like the saudi's would open the valves driving down the price of oil and put them out of business. If we were really running out of oil the investment would be there. Plus look at oil company annual reports. While they push 'peak oil' to the people to get us to accept higher prices (really it's the falling dollar as of late) their annual reports show they are more than replacing the reserves they use. >> lower speed limits, >> Safety negative. See 85th percentile method. > Not if strictly enforced, which was really the main point of the > article. The article was about selfishness and entitlement over public > good, not about speeding. Speeding and this crash was used as one > example of society's car dependent ills. The premise is false. Low speed limits do not create safety. Police state enforcement does not create safety. Proper engineering creates safety. Proper driving not related to speed creates safety. Ever drive the Autobahn in Germany? Safest driving I ever did.... all of it in excess of 90mph. >>> massive reinvestment in public transit, >> Government is poor at allocation of resources. This would be no >> different. Bridge to nowhere. More transit few if any will be able to >> use. > Total ideological generalization. Studies show that cities with better > public transit attract more investment, and get a better return on > spending on public transit than they do on widening roads for ever > increasing automobiles. The government doesn't know how to decide what transit to build. there are many failures of the build-transit-and-investment-will come model. Trains to nowhere. >>> dedicated cyclist lanes, >> Bad idea. I've been over it many times. And yes, I am bicyclist. >> Vehicular bicyclists do not particularly like being stuck in bicycle >> ghettos. > The way people drive around here in the exurbs, i would kill for wide > bicycle lanes. Now, have to ride on sidewalks, which are for > pedestrians. Damned if you do, etc... Sidewalk riding is very dangerous. Bike lanes address hit-from-behind which is rare compared to ride outs and intersection related crashes. Bike lanes complicate intersections and make them less safe. >>> land value taxes to replace >>> property taxes on buildings, >> Same THING! Both are property taxes. > LVT land value taxes tax the land at a given value, giving incentive > to developer to build more units of residential or commercial or > industrial space on the land, thus increasing density > thus increasing density, The developer doesn't give a sh.t about property taxes after he's done. It's not his problem, it's the buyers'. Property tax is one of the most absurd forms of taxation. It effectively means the government owns all property so taxed. >> Ahh now your true motives are clear. You're just anti-car and want to >> push a social agenda. > How is wanting to push a social agenda being anti-car. I have been > driving for 25 years, and happily so, but i have my preferences as you > do. We all have agendas in the larger sense don't we ? I don't try to engineer society. I'm not a control freak. I want a live and let live government out of our lives policy. You like many others want to use the government as a weapon to force people to live in a manner you approve of. >>> photo radar on all roads, stopping sprawl, etc... >>> I have a dream !!!! >> A control freak's dream. > I don't see how that is more control than what we have now, The status-quo isn't good either. We got here due to control freaks. But your incrementalism is noted. > we have > property developers and zoning and road construction lobbying being > pursued for car dependence and dominance. That is a car lover's > control wet dream now. Car lover's dream? Hardly. Everything is so highly regulated I can't even park a car in my driveway without the government's thugs inserting themselves into my life. How a perfectly normal looking car that doesn't leave my driveway is a problem to anyone I don't know, but because it's a car somehow the government feels the need to insert themselves. I have a couple garbage cans that stay out there too and never make it to the curb but the government doesn't bother me about them. > All I advocate is a more balance, social > equity, less pollution, less congestion, and more public safety, and > especially more personal responsibility to be safe on the roads. In other words control and theft. You will tell people how to live and take from some to give to others. > Next time a vote comes up on photo radar on roads and highways, or on > widening roads vs better public transit, ask yourself isn't it just a > societal choice of individuals ? I don't think you understand. It's a scam. Another statist scam played on a weak minded and ignorant population. http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2007/road-eyes.asp > Car companies bought out electric rail lines in cities in early 20th > century. Created a near monopoly on transportation. Highways were > massively subsidized and paid for by government (you know, the ones > who are so bad at allocating resources ? LOL What about the street car lines that died because their agreements with the government required them to maintain the roads? The real history doesn't fit entirely in the Rodger Rabbit model. > Wars have been fought throughout the 20th century over a finite > resource, and now the Middle East is coming back to bite us in the > a.s. You know CIA coups, covert actions, backing oppressive royal > families, dictators, establishing artificial borders and countries, > etc... That was for the profit of insiders. The government does it with everything. But what is your statist solution? more government control over the economy and our lives. Yet we are supposed to believe this time they won't do evil things to line their pockets and the pockets of their friends.... sure not in your control freakism... no, not this time, right? Problem is this time won't be any different than last time. > You're right, government has been horrible at allocating > resources to car dominance. And yet you're too affraid to embrace the real solution which is that of an actual free market. (what the TV tells you is a free market isn't, what history class told you was the evils of a free market wasn't a free market either) >On Nov 8, 10:03 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >speeding regardless of crash or not It is a public health/safety >issue. That has got to be one of the dumbest statements I've read in this group. I've seen far too many incompetent drivers driving exactly the speed limit to believe that speed limits are any good. Indeed, of the people I've ridden with over the years, it's the buffoons who adhere to the speed limit who scare me the most, and, ironically enough, are the same ones who either put their automobiles into the body shops on a regular basis, or are driving around in "beaters." The majority of the drivers I've ridden with who have been more interested in what's going on outside the vehicle, as opposed to what's going on the dash board, seem to have much greater success keeping their cars looking new, without having to send them to the body shop. I would *much* rather ride with those "speeders" than the retards who believe adhering to the speed limit makes them a "safe driver." >> > The world is full of dangerous drivers. They should all have their >> > licenses suspended for life. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >This is true, but would you rather have a guy talking on a cellphone >hit you at 30mph or 100 ? That's a stupid question. I'd rather not be hit, which is why I pay attention to what's going on with the traffic around me. I'd say that it's too bad this concept is beyond your comprehension, but I have a feeling you'll probably die in an automobile accident. Considering that there is enough stupidity in the world, I hope this happens prior to your procreating. >> > That would be a start : heavy road tolls, >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >lower speed limits, That's retarded. There's been times where the speed limits where I was driving were over posted due to circumstances, and prudence saved my life here as well. And yet those speed limit huggers charge blindly in. ROTFLMAO. >> Safety negative. See 85th percentile method. > >Not if strictly enforced, which was really the main point of the >article. The article was about selfishness and entitlement over public >good, not about speeding. Speeding and this crash was used as one >example of society's car dependent ills. Unfortunately, you're under the mistaken impression that speed and competency are causally linked. They aren't. That's your failure, not mine. What you want to do is remove incompetent drivers from the road, and adherence to a number painted on a sign is an extremely poor metric for driver competency. >graduated licenses for younger drivers 16 >to 25 years old, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >May have a point there, but young people are most of the bad drivers >and cause a large percentage of accidents. More diligent instruction and stringent testing would reduce this greatly. >massive reinvestment in public transit, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >spending on public transit than they do on widening roads for ever >increasing automobiles. Yeah, but most North American cities aren't large enough to justify such an investment. As it is in my county, the only public transportation we have is contained within the city limits, and it doesn't go to all the extremes. A majority of my county's residents don't live in the city, so public transportation isn't a viable option for those of us who have to pay taxes. >dedicated cyclist lanes, > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >equity, less pollution, less congestion, and more public safety, and >especially more personal responsibility to be safe on the roads. The reason it's a control freak's dream is that you obviously have a very reduced reasoning ability, and, as such, are wanting to impose that reasoning ability on everyone else. Face it; not everyone is as mentally deficient as you are. >Next time a vote comes up on photo radar on roads and highways, or on >widening roads vs better public transit, ask yourself isn't it just a [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >etc... You're right, government has been horrible at allocating >resources to car dominance. Signature"Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS" brags of it's homosexuallity: the guys at the bath-house stopped laughing at my 3 inch weenie. : http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/168e8e621dd649fb?hl=en "Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS" brags of it's ability to operate a vehicle: I must be doing something right to go 3 1/2 years without a fatal crash. : http://groups.google.com/group/misc.transport.road/msg/a376114ee8a61824?hl=en >On Nov 8, 10:03 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) >wrote: > >One man's failure is another man's utopia. Far as I know, all attempts at utopia have ended in failure. >No, i am someone who wishes for true cost pricing of economic >externalities. I recognize global warming, and especially coming peak >oil. Ahh, the "true cost" determined by making stuff up. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >> land value taxes to replace >> property taxes on buildings, > >Same THING! Both are property taxes. Yes, but land value taxes punish you MORE than conventional property taxes for failure to keep up with the neighbors. A single family home on a lot across the street from a New Urbanist Wet Dream Multi-Family Dwelling on the same sized lot would be taxed exactly the same as that lot. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>> land value taxes to replace >>> property taxes on buildings, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Multi-Family Dwelling on the same sized lot would be taxed exactly the > same as that lot. That explains why certain people keep pushing for 'land taxes'. Just another social agenda being pushed through taxation. >> > SECOND OPINION: CRASHES: SPEED TRUMPS SAFETY >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > >I have a dream !!!! I have a dream, too. It's called an "educated driver." Obviously if you're equating velocity to safety, you're not educated. Oh well. Signature"Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS" brags of it's homosexuallity: the guys at the bath-house stopped laughing at my 3 inch weenie. : http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/168e8e621dd649fb?hl=en "Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS" brags of it's ability to operate a vehicle: I must be doing something right to go 3 1/2 years without a fatal crash. : http://groups.google.com/group/misc.transport.road/msg/a376114ee8a61824?hl=en >You are kidding right ? If you have to ask, you'll never know. Care to >try a physics experiment ? Are you a Carl Troller sock puppet? Signature"I no longer find MTR and RAD a useful medium" Carl Rogers, 9 September 2007 Message-ID: <t01Fi.49620$Um6.14486@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net> > > > SECOND OPINION: CRASHES: SPEED TRUMPS SAFETY > > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > I have a dream !!!! Yup. You're an anti-car zealot, alright. I'd be the first one to insist on lower speed limits... ...on residential streets. How crazy is it that the street on which I live with insufficient width for two cars to pass each other when cars are parked on both sides has precisely the same speed limit -- 50kph -- as arterial roads with three lanes in each direction? Of course I'd lower the limit on residential streets, but I'd also raise the limit on the arterial roads as well. And then I'd enforce the law as much on the side streets; if not more. SignatureAlan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia "If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard." > > SECOND OPINION: CRASHES: SPEED TRUMPS SAFETY > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > -- > replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel You are kidding right ? If you have to ask, you'll never know. Care to try a physics experiment ? Mind you, relative speed is more dangerous than absolute speed. The world is full of dangerous drivers. They should all have their licenses suspended for life. That would be a start : heavy road tolls, congestion taxes, higher gas taxes, lower speed limits, graduated licenses for younger drivers 16 to 25 years old, massive reinvestment in public transit, dedicated cyclist lanes, mixed use land development, land value taxes to replace property taxes on buildings, thus increasing density, photo radar on all roads, stopping sprawl, etc... I have a dream !!!! >> > SECOND OPINION: CRASHES: SPEED TRUMPS SAFETY >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >try a physics experiment ? Mind you, relative speed is more dangerous >than absolute speed. Only if you're too stupid to avoid the accident in the first place. Darwin's a bitch, eh? >The world is full of dangerous drivers. They should all have their >licenses suspended for life. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >I have a dream !!!! Sounds like a wet dream; you might want to check your underwear. Signature"Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS" brags of it's homosexuallity: the guys at the bath-house stopped laughing at my 3 inch weenie. : http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/168e8e621dd649fb?hl=en "Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS" brags of it's ability to operate a vehicle: I must be doing something right to go 3 1/2 years without a fatal crash. : http://groups.google.com/group/misc.transport.road/msg/a376114ee8a61824?hl=en > > SECOND OPINION: CRASHES: SPEED TRUMPS SAFETY > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > nate I won't snip your crap. I'm too polite, but glad to field your question. Speed increases the amount of time it takes to react to trouble ahead, requires more time to stop and amplifies any mistakes drivers make. Above 100 mph, the chances of dying in an accident also go up exponentially. You're welcome Nate. >>>SECOND OPINION: CRASHES: SPEED TRUMPS SAFETY >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > You're welcome Nate. You're not polite at all; you're preachy, condescending, and more importantly, don't know what you're talking about. You certainly sound like one of those do-gooders who want to legislate away all the world's problems without having the proper engineering background to properly evaluate exactly *how* to solve said problems, and if you eventually do get your way you only make things worse than they already are. My apologies if I have misinterpreted you, but I don't honestly think that I have. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > >>>SECOND OPINION: CRASHES: SPEED TRUMPS SAFETY > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > -- > replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel When you can't win the message, attack the messenger huh ? Charming >> >>>SECOND OPINION: CRASHES: SPEED TRUMPS SAFETY >> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > >When you can't win the message, attack the messenger huh ? LMAO. You're too funny. >Charming Signature"Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS" brags of it's homosexuallity: the guys at the bath-house stopped laughing at my 3 inch weenie. : http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/168e8e621dd649fb?hl=en "Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS" brags of it's ability to operate a vehicle: I must be doing something right to go 3 1/2 years without a fatal crash. : http://groups.google.com/group/misc.transport.road/msg/a376114ee8a61824?hl=en > >>>SECOND OPINION: CRASHES: SPEED TRUMPS SAFETY > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > nate You <snipped crap> first. I would be careful calling others condescending or rude. Furthermore, society is already legislated and engineered for total car dominance, you perhaps just don't see it. I am simply arguing for a different type of social engineering that is less to your liking (more balance between private and public, costing out externalities, and slowing down emissions, pollution, congestion and increasing safety.) Such is my right in a democracy. I apologize if preachy, it is simply your way of reading my strong opinion. We'll have to agree to disagree. You need not have <snipped my "crap">, and invite such perceived condescension. >>>>>SECOND OPINION: CRASHES: SPEED TRUMPS SAFETY >> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > You <snipped crap> first. I would be careful calling others > condescending or rude. When you make a condescending post, expect a reply in kind. > Furthermore, society is already legislated and engineered for total > car dominance, you perhaps just don't see it. I can't argue with that, what's your point? It's an efficient, convenient mode of transportation that the majority of the public seems to have embraced. > I am simply arguing for > a different type of social engineering that is less to your liking > (more balance between private and public, costing out externalities, > and slowing down emissions, pollution, congestion and increasing > safety.) No, you're using fear-mongering to push your agenda (by proxy, unless you are the author of the article you quote.) If you wish to legislate lower speed limits for emissions reasons, that may be a valid argument. However, congestion and safety are NOT valid reasons and the fact that you bring them up leads me to believe that you are not as informed as you could be about the volumes of research already done on the topic. > Such is my right in a democracy. As is my right to point out the flaws in your "arguments." > I apologize if preachy, it is simply your way of reading my strong > opinion. > > We'll have to agree to disagree. You need not have <snipped my > "crap">, and invite such perceived condescension. I didn't invite condescension; your original post invited it by posting such a sensational piece of dreck. I didn't have to read farther than the headline to recognize it for what it was. It's a common response to a tragic "accident" for people to believe that lowering a speed limit will prevent such incidents in the future. Unfortunately for M. Picard's article, generally the primary response to such an action is erosion of respect for speed limits. nate -- http://members.cox.net/njnagel >> >>>SECOND OPINION: CRASHES: SPEED TRUMPS SAFETY >> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] >and slowing down emissions, pollution, congestion and increasing >safety.) A great deal of North American cities aren't large enough to support a decent public transportation infrastructure. So either the fees associated with such a moronic idea would be astronomical, or taxes would need to be levied somewhere. I personally think it's more prudent to teach people to drive, and let those who aren't interested in learning die. >Such is my right in a democracy. As is our right to scorn and ridicule stupid people. >I apologize if preachy, it is simply your way of reading my strong >opinion. You know, opinions are like a.s holes. >We'll have to agree to disagree. You need not have <snipped my >"crap">, and invite such perceived condescension. Why not? It was crap. That you are incapable of recognizing that doesn't change the fact. Signature"Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS" brags of it's homosexuallity: the guys at the bath-house stopped laughing at my 3 inch weenie. : http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/168e8e621dd649fb?hl=en "Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS" brags of it's ability to operate a vehicle: I must be doing something right to go 3 1/2 years without a fatal crash. : http://groups.google.com/group/misc.transport.road/msg/a376114ee8a61824?hl=en > Speed increases the amount of time it takes to react to trouble ahead, No it doesn't. The amount of time one takes to react either stays the same or goes down (given the fact that people tend to pay more attention to the task of driving the faster they go). > Above 100 mph, the chances of dying in an accident also go up > exponentially. But the chances of being involved in one do not necessarily change. [snip] > Speed increases the amount of time it takes to react to trouble ahead, > requires more time to stop and amplifies any mistakes drivers make. So do cell phones, medication and old age. Why is the subject line about speed? SignaturePaul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ APL is a write-only language. I can write programs in APL, but I can't read any of them. -- Roy Keir > [snip] > > Speed increases the amount of time it takes to react to trouble ahead, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > can't read any of them. > -- Roy Keir Simple...speed's the easiest thing on which LEOs can focus. "Speed Limit: (n) The minimum speed by which ticket revenues may be generated." -- Devil's Missouri Road Dictionary at http://www.mylandofmisery.com/roads/mo/mo-devil.htm >> [snip] >> > Speed increases the amount of time it takes to react to trouble ahead, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >generated." > -- Devil's Missouri Road Dictionary at http://www.mylandofmisery.com/roads/mo/mo-devil.htm It seems to me that if we wanted to remove incompetent drivers from the road, we could start by: Revoking the driving privilege of someone who's mental facilities prevent them from understanding the proper use of a turn signal. If they aren't smart enough to operate a simple lever, they can't be smart enough to operate a motor vehicle. Revoke the driving privilege of any retard who think's it's "safe" to pace the vehicle beside them. Revoke the driving privilege of any retard who waits until the last possible moment to cross across all lanes of traffic, so they can make a turn off the road they're traveling. Any others? Signature"Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS" brags of it's homosexuallity: the guys at the bath-house stopped laughing at my 3 inch weenie. : http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/168e8e621dd649fb?hl=en "Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS" brags of it's ability to operate a vehicle: I must be doing something right to go 3 1/2 years without a fatal crash. : http://groups.google.com/group/misc.transport.road/msg/a376114ee8a61824?hl=en Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein): > It seems to me that if we wanted to remove incompetent drivers from > the road, we could start by: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > they aren't smart enough to operate a simple lever, they can't be > smart enough to operate a motor vehicle. AMEN to that!! > Revoke the driving privilege of any retard who think's it's "safe" to > pace the vehicle beside them. IAWTP. The ones who hang off the corner are the worst. > Revoke the driving privilege of any retard who waits until the last > possible moment to cross across all lanes of traffic, so they can make > a turn off the road they're traveling. Again, agreed. > Any others? 1) Dullards who can't properly maintain their car, such as burned out headlight(s), inoperative dash lights, sandpaper threaded tires.... 2) Anyone who calls a tire a, "tar." 3) Anyone who does an excessive* amount of, "spit takes." *Excessive defined as more than one in a lifetime, certain TV/movie actors/ actresses exempted if the spit take was part of their job. 4) Anyone who uses the term, "US Federal Route," and expects to be taken seriously. -- necromancer Official Overseer Of Kooks And Trolls In rec.autos.driving > It seems to me that if we wanted to remove incompetent drivers from > the road, we could start by: > > Revoking the driving privilege of someone who's mental facilities > prevent them from understanding the proper use of a turn signal. They shouldn't pass the driving tests if they can't use turn signals properly. > Revoke the driving privilege of any retard who think's it's "safe" to > pace the vehicle beside them. What is this "pacing" thing about? I had another one of these idiots yesterday that was blocking a line of traffic in the left lane. It wanted to go 70 in a 100 zone. I wanted to go 80. After I caught up to the LLB and passed it, the LLB sped up to drive next to my rear door. It appeared to have its high-beams on and it was blinding me. I tried slowing down, but the LLB matched speeds. Since there was a gap in the traffic flow, I played a game of Slower Is Safer by moving in front of the LLB and decreasing speed to a very-safe 50. The LLB started tailgating me, which blocked its high-beams. The odd thing was that the LLB refused to move over and pass me, but it wouldn't stop tailgating me. I lost this high-beams LLB by accelerating away and letting the approaching traffic speed past the obstruction. > Revoke the driving privilege of any retard who waits until the last > possible moment to cross across all lanes of traffic, so they can make > a turn off the road they're traveling. This particularly applies to the idiots that like to block the left lane until they want to use a right exit or right-turn lane. Then they swerve across multiple lanes of traffic and expect everybody else to "accommodate" them. > Any others? I was almost hit by a merge-impaired SUV driver yesterday. On the acceleration lane, all of the cars in front of the SUV were able to accelerate to my speed of 110. The SUV driver wrongly-assumed that it was not required to accelerate like everybody else, and instead merged into my side at a speed of about 80. It lost the lane as I refused to move completely into the left lane, but unfortunately it also caused a traffic jam. Then there's the related problem of yielding on secondary roadways. Some idiots don't seem to understand that "yield" means "stop" when traffic is on the roadway. It does not mean that they should ignore the yield sign and attempt to disrupt the traffic flow with their MFFY behaviour. If approaching traffic is signalling a right turn for the lane that is also an acceleration lane, drivers must stop and wait for the exiting traffic to pass. Doing this makes gaps that can be merged into. Not yielding causes a traffic jam, as the exiting traffic can't exit and the merge-impaired driver can't merge without hitting a car in the lane. "Yield" means "stop" unless the lane is empty or there is no turning traffic and the entering driver can merge properly. >> It seems to me that if we wanted to remove incompetent drivers from >> the road, we could start by: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >They shouldn't pass the driving tests if they can't use turn signals >properly. I think a lot of them will use the signals during the driving test, but as they get older and lazier, they forsake that habit. >> Revoke the driving privilege of any retard who think's it's "safe" to >> pace the vehicle beside them. > >What is this "pacing" thing about? I had another one of these idiots >yesterday that was blocking a line of traffic in the left lane. It One? That's the status quo in my region. >wanted to go 70 in a 100 zone. I wanted to go 80. After I caught up to >the LLB and passed it, the LLB sped up to drive next to my rear door. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >wouldn't stop tailgating me. I lost this high-beams LLB by accelerating >away and letting the approaching traffic speed past the obstruction. I've recently begun using similar techniques to dislodge inept drivers. Honestly, given the fact that the idiot didn't move to pass, I believe you were interacting with one of those idiots who focuses solely on the lane in front of them, and are oblivious to what's going on around and behind them. >> Revoke the driving privilege of any retard who waits until the last >> possible moment to cross across all lanes of traffic, so they can make [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >swerve across multiple lanes of traffic and expect everybody else to >"accommodate" them. Exactly. This is a common occurrence on my daily commute as well. >> Any others? > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >the lane. "Yield" means "stop" unless the lane is empty or there is no >turning traffic and the entering driver can merge properly. These are good points, too, IMO. Plus, think of all that extra gas that has to be burned by the stalled drivers behind these retards! One reason our fuel consumption is so high is because so many inept drivers are on the roads, causing needless delays and unnecessary fuel consumption. Part of my commute finds me traveling through a number of signal lights spaced closely together. If traffic is right (ie, there is none in front of me) then I can catch the first light, and driving at just a tad over the posted limit, make it through the remainder of the lights without getting caught. Otherwise, I'm going to have to stop and idle at each and every light, which ain't good for fuel consumption. Signature"Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS" brags of it's homosexuallity: the guys at the bath-house stopped laughing at my 3 inch weenie. : http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/168e8e621dd649fb?hl=en "Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS" brags of it's ability to operate a vehicle: I must be doing something right to go 3 1/2 years without a fatal crash. : http://groups.google.com/group/misc.transport.road/msg/a376114ee8a61824?hl=en >What is this "pacing" thing about? I had another one of these idiots >yesterday that was blocking a line of traffic in the left lane. It >wanted to go 70 in a 100 zone. I wanted to go 80. After I caught up to >the LLB and passed it, the LLB sped up to drive next to my rear door. >It appeared to have its high-beams on and it was blinding me. I tried >slowing down, but the LLB matched speeds. We call that a "duckling" - it's a driver that imprints on you like a baby duck does to its mother. Some people do this because they don't want to think for themselves - by keeping station with another vehicle, they can simply mirror its moves and don't have to do any thinking. The other class of duckings are people like Aunt Judy who want to form a rolling roadblock and "slow down those evil speeders." >Since there was a gap in the traffic flow, I played a game of Slower Is >Safer by moving in front of the LLB and decreasing speed to a very-safe >50. The LLB started tailgating me, which blocked its high-beams. The >odd thing was that the LLB refused to move over and pass me, but it >wouldn't stop tailgating me. I lost this high-beams LLB by accelerating >away and letting the approaching traffic speed past the obstruction. That's always my #1 tactic for shaking a duckling loose. In general, if you drive outside of a duckling's comfort zone, you can leave them in your dust and they will go imprint on someone else. >> Revoke the driving privilege of any retard who waits until the last >> possible moment to cross across all lanes of traffic, so they can make [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >swerve across multiple lanes of traffic and expect everybody else to >"accommodate" them. Had one dumbass try that yesterday. On approach to a T intersection with three lanes, where the left lane must turn left, the right lane must turn right, and the center lane can turn in either direction, dipshit Sloth in the left lane suddenly realizes it needs to turn right, so it stops about 10 carlengths back from the lead car at the red light and starts waiting for someone in the center lane to let it in. Amazingly, no one did, so it had to make a U-turn and go around for another try. Signature"I no longer find MTR and RAD a useful medium" Carl Rogers, 9 September 2007 Message-ID: <t01Fi.49620$Um6.14486@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net> On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 23:31:20 -0500, "Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver (Hector Goldstein)" <drunk_and_distracted@the_wheel.com> wrote: >It seems to me that if we wanted to remove incompetent drivers from >the road, we could start by: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Any others? Revoking driving privileges does no good if non-drivers have no transportation alternatives. If they still have access to a vehicle, they WILL get into it and drive it. They will justify it by saying things like "I have to get to work!" and "I have to go to the doctor!" The government knows this, which is one of the reasons they are less than aggressive about revoking licenses (the biggest reason, of course, is that people who don't drive don't generate all those lucrative speeding and red light camera fines). If you want to get the incompetent off the road, you MUST provide them an alternative way to get around. Public transit, subsidized taxis, robotoc cars, SOMETHING - otherwise they will remain seated formely behind the wheel. Either that, or impound and crush every vehicle they get caught driving in without a license. Eventually they will run out of cars to drive and friends from whom to borrow. Signature"I no longer find MTR and RAD a useful medium" Carl Rogers, 9 September 2007 Message-ID: <t01Fi.49620$Um6.14486@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net> >> > SECOND OPINION: CRASHES: SPEED TRUMPS SAFETY >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >Speed increases the amount of time it takes to react to trouble ahead, >requires more time to stop and amplifies any mistakes drivers make. No sh.t? Wow, you've got one right, Sherlock. What you've missed is the issue of avoiding the mistake to begin with. Adherence to a number painted on a sign doesn't address that; it only reduces the amount of damage caused when you screw up. I prefer not to screw up; you should try it sometime, if you're capable, which it doesn't sound like you are. >Above 100 mph, the chances of dying in an accident also go up >exponentially. LMAO. It's a truthful statement without the 100mph qualifier, dullard. Pay attention to EVERYTHING that's going on around you, and don't drive faster than you can process that information. Failure to do so will result in a much greater chance of you or one of your loved ones dying in an "accident." Signature"Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS" brags of it's homosexuallity: the guys at the bath-house stopped laughing at my 3 inch weenie. : http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/168e8e621dd649fb?hl=en "Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS" brags of it's ability to operate a vehicle: I must be doing something right to go 3 1/2 years without a fatal crash. : http://groups.google.com/group/misc.transport.road/msg/a376114ee8a61824?hl=en >>Above 100 mph, the chances of dying in an accident also go up >>exponentially. > >LMAO. It's a truthful statement without the 100mph qualifier, dullard. It's not a true statement. For chance of dying in an accident to go up exponentially with speed, it would have to increase without bound as speed increased without bound. Chance of dying in an accident, however, is inherently limited to 100%. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>>Above 100 mph, the chances of dying in an accident also go up >>>exponentially. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >as speed increased without bound. Chance of dying in an accident, >however, is inherently limited to 100%. Good point, and thanks for the correction to my correction. :-) -- Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people. - Admiral Hyman Rickover, U.S. Navy >Above 100 mph, the chances of dying in an accident also go up >exponentially. Impossible. Mathematically impossible. Next time you make something up, try it in somewhere no one else knows the meaning of the words you use either. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >> SECOND OPINION: CRASHES: SPEED TRUMPS SAFETY >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >thank you. If you've got an IQ lower than your shoe size, then you need to be retard your speed so that you won't get overwhelmed by your circumstances. In the event you're still overwhelmed, you need those slower speed limits to minimize the damage that results due to your incompetence. Fortunately there's only a couple of dullards I can think of who have such a diminutive intellectual capacity that they need to retard themselves with speed limits. Signature"Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS" brags of it's homosexuallity: the guys at the bath-house stopped laughing at my 3 inch weenie. : http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/168e8e621dd649fb?hl=en "Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS" brags of it's ability to operate a vehicle: I must be doing something right to go 3 1/2 years without a fatal crash. : http://groups.google.com/group/misc.transport.road/msg/a376114ee8a61824?hl=en > > SECOND OPINION: CRASHES: SPEED TRUMPS SAFETY > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Please explain exactly how increased speed inevitably results in > increased risk. DUH-uh. KE = ½mv² It appears the equation is beyond your comprehension, by a few light years.. At what velocity do you think, eventually, you might perceive the risk/ s relative to velocity that are obvious to smarter, or simply more observant persons who may even be severely retarded and still able to grasp those irrefutable and most basic laws of physics? 100mph? 150mph? 300mph? 600mph? 1200mph? 2400mph? Risk is not increasing? Stop me when I get close... 4800mph? 9600mph? 19,200mph? 368,640,000mph...? If velocity is completely irrelevant to risk, as you maintain, one might operate on any road, under any conditions, at any velocity, up to and including the speed of light, with no increase of risk. Since that premise is obviously incredibly imbecilic, and you adhere to it, so are you, and so is anyone else who believes it, and so is anyone who places the slightest faith in your claim to be, or to have ever been any type of "engineer", except of any and all forms of, inclusively, bullshit, chickenshit, and horseshit. You are a moron of extraordinary caliber, and too stupid to discern it after it's been pointed out to you innumerable times, and too stupid not to repeatedly shout it at the top of your lungs on usenet for all the world to hear. Lucky for you that besides being absent the most primitive of cognitive abilities, any capacity for embarrassment is also impossible. ----- - gpsman > > > SECOND OPINION: CRASHES: SPEED TRUMPS SAFETY > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > - gpsman Thanks for your support. LOL I didn't think the editorial was saying anything really controversial. I'm outta here. > > > > SECOND OPINION: CRASHES: SPEED TRUMPS SAFETY > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Thanks for your support. LOL 'Welcome, I'm sure, but completely unintentional. I just despise idiots, and the idiotic things they are not at all embarrassed to post. > I didn't think the editorial was saying anything really > controversial. Eh, then you didn't bother to read much before posting. Welcome to rec.autos.driving.k00ks This group must be, I hope, uniquely "opposite-land". Speed is safe; the faster, the safer, slow is dangerous (slower drivers can not be avoided being collided with by the safer, faster drivers). Stupid is brilliant, common sense is retarded; mountains of evidence amount to less than nothing, singular occurrences are accepted as irrefutable proofs refuting the mountains of evidence, without exception, and most importantly, without question (coincidences, likewise). 7 criteria are interpreted as 1, always, forever and repeated ad nauseum (the other six are irrelevant since they justify the prudence of lower velocities); tailgating is the solution to being forced to tailgate; bicycle helmets are useless since they will not protect you from having your chest crushed by a semi; the obvious does not exist, and the impossible is commonplace. In fact, it is routine to read multiple examples of mind reading here, in a single post, as well as complaints of travel delays measured by one second, or fractions thereof. The general r.a.d. consensus is that driving education and testing are wholly inadequate and most drivers are totally incompetent. Unless they are operating at 85mph in a 55 zone, then they're all "perfectly safe" experts. Unless they happen to come upon a vehicle entering the highway at 70, at which point those "perfectly safe" expert drivers don't know what the f.ck to do and become complete idiots (lifting off the throttle is certain to cause a traffic jam at best, and very likely a fiery death for all within a 1/2 mile radius at worst) (among all those expert drivers, I feel compelled to add) and all that is entirely the fault of that single "impaired merger" unable or unwilling to merge at the perfectly safe and reasonable speed of traffic. All these perspectives are formulated, of course, with the same inadequate training and testing that qualify being awarded the identical Class D licenses as the "expert drivers" /slash/ "complete idiots", except these r.a.d. idiots are not idiots, they are the exceptions, without exception, because they "think" so, and "think" so of one another. These... are the driving experts of usenet. Oh, I almost forgot, they're also experts on road and highway design and engineering (they don't even have to see it, they know what's wrong with it); crash reconstruction and analysis (they can do so via mere "news" reports, no matter how contradictory or vague); law and law enforcement (laws they ignore are made deadly by enforcement; any violation of law that hinders their violation of law is likewise deadly, but enforcement of that violation can only lead to more safe driving conditions for those who would violate the laws that should be violated, under the guise of "safety"); and, like many 15 year old males, are far better versed in any and every discipline, you name it, than any and every person who might be actually so employed. What you might learn here is practically infinite, unless it concerns driving. > I'm outta here. Well, ok... I hope it wasn't something -I- said. But if your hobby is abusing complete idiots on usenet there could - not- be a more target rich or enjoyable place to do it. ----- - gpsman >> > > > SECOND OPINION: CRASHES: SPEED TRUMPS SAFETY >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >idiots, and the idiotic things they are not at all embarrassed to >post. What's it like to be consumed by self-loathing? >> I didn't think the editorial was saying anything really >> controversial. [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > >- gpsman Signature"Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS" brags of it's homosexuallity: the guys at the bath-house stopped laughing at my 3 inch weenie. : http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/168e8e621dd649fb?hl=en "Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS" brags of it's ability to operate a vehicle: I must be doing something right to go 3 1/2 years without a fatal crash. : http://groups.google.com/group/misc.transport.road/msg/a376114ee8a61824?hl=en > > > > > SECOND OPINION: CRASHES: SPEED TRUMPS SAFETY > > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > drivers can not be avoided being collided with by the safer, faster > drivers). Sorry, but I've never seen anyone claim that. <snip a whole lot of nonsense> SignatureAlan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia "If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard." >> Speed is safe; the faster, the safer, slow is dangerous (slower >> drivers can not be avoided being collided with by the safer, faster >> drivers). > >Sorry, but I've never seen anyone claim that. The only ones who make such claims are the strawmen that GPSTroll and Carl Troller create. Signature"I no longer find MTR and RAD a useful medium" Carl Rogers, 9 September 2007 Message-ID: <t01Fi.49620$Um6.14486@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net> >> > > SECOND OPINION: CRASHES: SPEED TRUMPS SAFETY >> [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > >Thanks for your support. LOL Yeah, you won the support of a troll. That's a *REAL* accomplishment. >I didn't think the editorial was saying anything really >controversial. > >I'm outta here. Run like the loser you are! Have fun at the fry vat! Signature"Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS" brags of it's homosexuallity: the guys at the bath-house stopped laughing at my 3 inch weenie. : http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/168e8e621dd649fb?hl=en "Speeders And Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS" brags of it's ability to operate a vehicle: I must be doing something right to go 3 1/2 years without a fatal crash. : http://groups.google.com/group/misc.transport.road/msg/a376114ee8a61824?hl=en PaulB: > Thanks for your support. LOL > > I didn't think the editorial was saying anything really > controversial. > > I'm outta here. I'd been staying out of this, but inlight of the DQE, I dedicate this video to the poster: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McNU5b2-7bc Again, its more for the song than it is for the video (unless you are into aerial shots of Hong Kong from a 747 at night) SignatureLoco laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE shows us how stupid it really is and that foreign royalty deserves preferential treatment: "This driver killed two people!! Don't portray her as representing the american people!!! I hope she's locked up forever and i don't care if she killed a king or a homeless bum." -- laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE, 7/13/06 Ref: http://tinyurl.com/g2fea Message ID: fsscb21skmba6iegemv0u6f3n1obeoj53r@4ax.com > > > > SECOND OPINION: CRASHES: SPEED TRUMPS SAFETY > [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > Thanks for your support. LOL Oh, wow, you've got the support of the dumbest person to post to RAD since Aunt Judy. Congratulations. > I didn't think the editorial was saying anything really > controversial. That's because you obviously don't have the background to evaluate it. If you have a real interest in the subject, I'd like to invite you to stick around for a while. We can get you up to speed (heh.) > I'm outta here. Or perhaps you are interested only in pushing |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message