quite obvious...
but then Herb says:
if you have no respect for authority, it seems you would say "screw the law,
i'll drive whenever i want"
these two paragraphs in your letter are just a bit conflicting...me thinks
we have someone here who likes to shoot their mouth off and see it in print. :)
leonard
--
FAX: (606) 323-1978
Sr. Systems Prog. University of Kentucky Computing Center, Lexington, Ky.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Barry Burnett (Zilbandy)
Tucson, Arizona USA
Windows 95!... from the same people who brought you EDLIN!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>And just because you disagree with a law does not give you the right
>to break it. If you disagree with it, try to get it changed! I think
>speeding laws are ridiculous too, but if I get stopped I say yes sir
>and I pay my fine. If you happen to decide *** is ok does that
>give you the right to kill someone?
Actually, it does give me the right to break it as I am a free person not
to be bound by someone elses money-generating schemes. When I speed, the
result is that I get where I'm going sooner. I have in no way infringed on
anyone elses freedoms. *** does however violate anothers freedom to
live so I obviously don't feel free to do it. These are two totally different
situations and it's ridiculous to compare them.
--Dan
P.S. Don't try giving me that "Speeding kills" bullshit either.
We all have the right to disobey/ignore any laws we choose to, but we
have the obligation to accept the responsibility for our actions, also.
That means we must be willing to suffer the consequences, both civil and
criminal, for our decisions.
Stand up for what you believe, but be ready to accept the results of
your actions. If you break the law, be willing to pay the price and/or go
to jail.
Peace,
Pat L.
-- --------------------
: : Unfortuantely, I don't see a non-federal solution to this problem. The
: : second thing to consider is the dismally low level of driver competence we
: : currently have. Getting a license should not be a 10-question multiple
: : choice test and a quick drive around the block. There should be a difficult
: : test where you are required to show knowldege of traffic laws and safety,
: : control of a vehicle under adverse conditions, and the common sense that
: : should be required before you're allowed to drive 4,000 lbs of steel around
: : at 80mph.
: I couldn't agree more with that point.
: : In NH and NY (the only two states where I've seen the driver
: : testing program in action), the tests are a complete joke. IMHO, the lack
: : of good driver education and evaluation programs are our biggest traffic
: : safety problem.
: :
: Add NJ to the joke list. My son and daughter both took their driver's
: test over the last few years. They NEVER left the inspection compound's
: property. What a joke.
As a former Driver Examiner (license tester) for Washington State,
perhaps someone might be interested in my opinions. Perhaps not. Anyway,
I saw the test degraded and simplified to the point almost anyone could
pass it. All that was needed was to keep trying! There was no limit on
the number of times one could attempt the test, only restrictions on the
number of times in a short period. No more than once a day for the
written test, a minimum 3 day wait between driving tests. Even those
restrictions could be gotten around if you went to different offices.
Until a few years ago all drivers applying for a first Wash. license
had to pass the same test. Those coming from other states as well as new
drivers. On any given day, about 20% failed the driving portion of the
test. Now, those from out of state can skip the tests and the tests
themselves are much easier.
Anyway, I'm glad to be out of THAT racket! Now I'm doing something with
less stress and more fun. I teach in a high school.
Pat L.
--------------------
Colorado did away with its safety inspection program over 15 years ago
after studies determined that less than 5% of all accident were due to unsafe vehicles. Within months the accident rate....continued its
decline. Obviously, the program had no effect whatsoever on keeping the
roads safe. The only people who missed it were the hucksters and the
safetycrats. IMNSHO, we definately DO NOT need STRICT motor vehicle
inspection. You also mentioned that we should have more rigorous driver
testing. Maybe. But from talking to people around here, as well as
personal experience, I would recommend: 1) Better road maintenence.
Dodging potholes or driving over washboards at interstate speeds does
not make for a safe driving experience. 2) The reintroduction of common
courtesy on the roadways. When the light goes yellow, SLOW DOWN AND
STOP. That guy waiting in the middle of the intersection to make his
left turn shouldn't have to wait for you to run your red light. And, HE
shouldn't be followed by two more cars! Drive right, pass left. Let
merging traffic in. Mergers should yield. Signal your intentions.
When making a left turn, turn into the leftmost lane. When making a
right turn, turn into the rightmost lane. When passing, use the "two headlight" rule. 3) The next step from "Don't drink and drive" should
be "Don't TALK and drive." Keep off the cell phone, or somehow figure
out a way to make cellphones inoperable at speeds above 5 m.p.h.
Finally, 4) Get rid of compulsory insurance. This scam has managed to
increase the cost of insurance by removing competition ("They have to
buy it; lets raise our rates!") and has increased the cost of repairs
("His insurance is covering it, so...."). It has also contributed to
some of the outrageous liability cases that are now clogging our legal
system. Unfortunately, this last suggestion bucks up against some
pretty formidable opposition (lawyers, insurance companies, safety
nazis), not to mention the general lack of personal responsibility so
rampant in society today.
Jus' tryin' to see your two cents with mine! ;-)
Mark Brauer Crunched 1973 SAAB Sonett III
>: Those who whiningly repeat that same assertion all the time, that we
>: have no right to disobey bad laws, are contemptible cowards, of the
>: same breed as the death camp guards who claimed they were "just
>: following orders."
>True, but the civil rights marchers were prepared to pay the penalty for
>civil disobediance. And they did -- they went to jail. People
>advocating breaking traffic laws seem to think they should be immune from
>penalties just because they don't like the laws.
This issue is somewhat tangential to my point, which is that all
conscious beings have a right and duty to make their own m***
judgements, and therefore to reject imm***laws. Speed laws are
not on par with slavery or gassing of the Jews, I'll grant you.
In the latter cases, people of good conscience had a m***
imperative to fight these evil laws. The gravity of the wrong
associated with arbitrary revenue-enhancing speed laws is not
comparable, so there's no obligation for the average citizen to
lay down his life in protest and resistance; he's just entitled
to ignore them and drive safely, knowing that he is subject to
capricious punishment if he chooses to do so. (If he feels like
putting up more active resistance to the speed laws, he should
perhaps join the NMA.)
-- David Pletcher
--
** ignore below this line -- automatically appended keywords **
kiddie-*** nuclear terrorist AK-47 *** PCP ammonium nitrate
: : : If you happened to believe that slavery was wrong, did that give you
: : : the right to aid and abet runaway slaves? If you happened to believe
: : : that racial discrimination was wrong, did that give you (assuming you
: : : were a minority) the right to sit in the front of the bus? Citizens
: : : have a right to ignore bad laws, and a duty to disobey imm***laws.
: : : Those who whiningly repeat that same assertion all the time, that we
: : : have no right to disobey bad laws, are contemptible cowards, of the
: : : same breed as the death camp guards who claimed they were "just
: : : following orders."
: : True, but the civil rights marchers were prepared to pay the penalty for
: : civil disobediance. And they did -- they went to jail. People
: : advocating breaking traffic laws seem to think they should be immune from
: : penalties just because they don't like the laws.
: Yes they were prepared to go to jail. That doesn't mean they believed they
: deserved to go to jail. My guess would be that the average marcher felt that
: the laws were unjust and they should therefor be immune to prosecution for
: doing it, but at the same time they were prepared for it.
No, I think they felt the law should be changed, but as long as the law
was on the books, they were prepared to pay the penalty. I don't believe
you'll find any civil rights marcher who felt they should be IMMUNE from
prosecution. In fact, they hoped the fact that they were prosecuted and
punished would spur people to change the law.
: In the same way, I speed because I believe that it's a useless, immoral,
: money-collecting law and just as you said, I think I should be immune from
: penalties for doing it. That doesn't mean I'm not prepared to pay the fines
: (as you're suggesting) if caught and found guilty. You're confusing beliefs
: about unjust laws and being prepared to pay the penalties for following your
: beliefs.
And you're confusing thinking a law should be changed with thinking you
should be above that law. One is a m***stand; the other is a selfish
one. What if somebody thinks a law limiting speeds to 15 in a school zone
is immoral? Should they be immune to penalties for speeding through
there? What if a person thinks a law requiring him to stop at a red light
is immoral? Should they be immune from penalties? Who gets to decide
these things? In this country, our elected representatives. Do you want
to meet a driver head on who thinks being required to drive on the right
side of the road is an imm***law?
: --Dan
>Now, if you want to play the blame game, who's fault is the above
>situation? Even if the cop makes a human error in his driving while
>chasing a felon. It's the person who is fleeing's fault! How could
>you possibly blame someone for trying to catch a criminal. That's a
>police officer's job for chrissakes!
I agree with you here. You have a good point.
I certainly did not pass it. And if you say cause of the people I voted
in, I wasn't even born when the law passed.
Sometimes it is a way of protesting the law. I don't think that
segregation and a lot of other stupid sh*t in the South would have been
broken if not for some civil disobedience.
Tigress
--
|\ _,,,---,,_
/,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ Tigress
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) Cat drawn by Felix Lee
>>***ing cops are the losers from grade school who got beat up and the
>only
>>way they could control somebody is with a ***ing badge!!!
>I don't feel that this is either an accurate or a productive comment.
>Most police officers are in the business because they genuinely want to
>help the community. If you knew may officers I think that you would
>find the power freaks or incomptentes are in a very small minority. As
>with any profession, the quality of the staff will vary widely. I have
>gone to excellent mechanics and to shitty mechanics. We all prefer to
>go the the good ones, but we have all gone to bad ones.
Police are now, and have always been throughout history, knaves who
are unable to find regular work, who are commisioned by the
government, king, baron, whatever, to do the governments, kings,
whatevers bidding. Always people with an ax to grind against their
fellow townspeople.
Or are black, Or not driving a late model mom-car, or businessmans
sedan, Or are out after dark, Or have long hair, Or are riding a
motorcycle, Or Or Or Or
Come off that dead child crap, there are those of us who know this
horror, it is a cheap shot.
Unless you are black,Or not driving a late model mom-car, or
businessmans sedan, Or are out after dark, Or have long hair, Or are
riding a motorcycle, Or Or Or Or
Some of us bought that bullshit argument and joined the rank and file
of the law enforcement community. To be sure, the Police officers that
you describe exist, But damned fewer of 'em that you assert. And a
whole crapload fewer with more than 5 years on patrol.
Such as beating blacks, driving drunk with impuity, running down
motorcyclists, etc, , ,
if it were only so, the ocassional bad-apple as you say. it ain't just
ocassional, and damned little of it ever hits the press.
you mean the law that says I must kiss the officers ass?? Sorry
mister, these people are too well paid to act the ruffian. I know the
work is hard.If you don't like it, don't do it. Very many of them in
fact love it. Our Police should be held to much higher standards than
they are, if they were, there would be far fewer of 'em. The work, as
it is, doesn't sit well with many.
We all know stories, some very close to us, that we could relate about
the constant and prevant abuse of public power on behalf of those
commisioned to keep the peace. I need not go into it here. I tell you
this though;
If you are black,Or not driving a late model mom-car, or businessmans
sedan, Or are out after dark, Or have long hair, Or are riding a
motorcycle, Or in some way don't fit the perfect image of a 50's TV
sitcoms idea of a white american, and you are out after dark in
immediate proximity of a police cruiser, your physical well being is
in jeopardy. Be very very very careful. Much more careful than the law
requires of itself.
>--
>___________________________________
>Paul Mahler
<snip>
Agreed.
Good point but I can't help but think that *I* didn't have anything to
do with the current laws I'm forced to obey. I want a chance to vote
on all the laws that currently exist along with the punishments for
breaking those laws (yes, I understand that it's possible with
lawyers, petitions, a shipload of time, etc and is thus impossible for
the average person). IMHO you go to the extreme with your examples as
I believe that laws should be based on logic and common sense rather
than a popular ideal, morality, or belief (read religion). Ideals,
morality, and religion should have no place in lawmaking but get
shoved down our throats every day. Sure, doing 90 in a school zone is
illegal and should be because children generally lack common sense and
probably *will* run out in front of you. However, at 2:00 am when I'm
driving home from work and I'm forced to stop at an intersection for 5
minutes waiting for a stupid light to change all the while nobody has
passed through the intersection. Also, drive through the Salt Flats
in Utah at a steady and legal 65 and we'll see how long it takes
before you kick it up to 75 or 80. Finally, (sorry, it has nothing to
do with autos) consider the current drug laws (another can of worms)
and tell me why alchohol and cigarettes are legal and *** isn't.
Who the hell decided that little contradiction? Oops, I wrote waayyyy
to much to just delete it so I'm gonna have to hit the 'send' button.
Sorry. ;-)
- Alex O.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
! ___ /`|`\ _________________________
! _......_/|__|____\..___../ | | | Alex Olshove |
!\...____/~~~~~\_____..___---.|,/ | http://www.racesimcentral.net/|
! / |~~|__..-` 0 |_________________________|
< | " I believe it's time for
(o) me to fly..." - REO Speedwagon
: : If you happened to believe that slavery was wrong, did that give you
: : the right to aid and abet runaway slaves? If you happened to believe
: : that racial discrimination was wrong, did that give you (assuming you
: : were a minority) the right to sit in the front of the bus? Citizens
: : have a right to ignore bad laws, and a duty to disobey imm***laws.
: : Those who whiningly repeat that same assertion all the time, that we
: : have no right to disobey bad laws, are contemptible cowards, of the
: : same breed as the death camp guards who claimed they were "just
: : following orders."
: True, but the civil rights marchers were prepared to pay the penalty for
: civil disobediance. And they did -- they went to jail. People
: advocating breaking traffic laws seem to think they should be immune from
: penalties just because they don't like the laws.
Yes they were prepared to go to jail. That doesn't mean they believed they
deserved to go to jail. My guess would be that the average marcher felt that
the laws were unjust and they should therefor be immune to prosecution for
doing it, but at the same time they were prepared for it.
In the same way, I speed because I believe that it's a useless, immoral,
money-collecting law and just as you said, I think I should be immune from
penalties for doing it. That doesn't mean I'm not prepared to pay the fines
(as you're suggesting) if caught and found guilty. You're confusing beliefs
about unjust laws and being prepared to pay the penalties for following your
beliefs.
--Dan
>>***ing cops are the losers from grade school who got beat up and the
>only
>>way they could control somebody is with a ***ing badge!!!
>I don't feel that this is either an accurate or a productive comment.
>Most police officers are in the business because they genuinely want
to
>help the community. If you knew may officers I think that you would
>find the power freaks or incomptentes are in a very small minority. As
>with any profession, the quality of the staff will vary widely. I have
>gone to excellent mechanics and to shitty mechanics. We all prefer to
>go the the good ones, but we have all gone to bad ones.
>Police are doing a job most of us are unwilling to do. The arrest real
>crminals that shoot at them. They pick drunks off the street. They
>collect random dead bodies.
>Your contacts with the police seem to be colored from being stopped
>when you are breaking the law. I am supposing when you are remembering
>a time when you were stopped for somthing like speeding and didn't
like
>the cop's attitude. Imagine, for a moment, the same incident from the
>cops viewpoint. They may have just come from an accident where they
>pulled a dead child from a crashed car.
>Sociable ***s in our society rarely come into contact with law
>enforcement or the criminal justice system. This is a system designed
>to hande the exceptions of society. It is an unfortunate artifact that
>we have bizzare laws like speed limits that are artificially low that
>cause those of us who are not criminals in the true sense to become
>enmired in the criminal justice system.
>There are, in our society, as in all others that are or have been,
>people who will not or cannot act as responsible ***s. We need the
>police to deal with these miscreants for us, especially if we are
>unwilling to participate in the solutions to these problems ourselves.
>If you were to read the California criminal code you would find that
>most of the things that are illegal are things that you don't want
>people doing. Hitting people, maiming people, killing people, stealing
>and other anti-social acts are illegal, as well they should be.
>Given that you would, I hope, wish to live in a safe polite society,
>and given that there are people who are unwilling or unable to follow
>the very simple dictums of behavior called out in the penal code, you
>will always need police.
>I have found that in our society we are in fact very lucky to have the
>quality of people we do in police work and the armed forces. It is sad
>that the ocassional bad-apple gets all the press. Try to reflect on
the
>positive aspects of police in our communities instead of getting
pissed
>off because some cop stopped you when you were, after all, breaking
the
>law.
> Gee whiz Paul, having trouble breathing with your nose up a cop's
Dave>
>--
>___________________________________
>Paul Mahler
