rec.autos.simulators

In a previous article, herb () says:

I have been riding bicycles and various forms of small-engined vehicles
since I was six.  not just pedaling down the block, but testing the
limits and pushing myself and my equipment.  this gave me a keen sense
of moving physics and a respect for speed as it applies to having to
react to panic situations.  (you try stopping a bike from 45mph!)
i know it's apples and oranges, but they're both fruit.
plus, riding your bike across a busy street will really give you
a lot of respect for the turn signal.  especially if you've been
hit a couple times.

also, right from when i started driving, my stepfather has taken me out
in various cars and has encouraged me to try doing stupid (but safe)
things in parking lots and even on low-traffic roads at night, just so
i could get a feel of the car and how it reacts.  when i drive with him
in the car, he doesn't frown on me whomping the throttle in light traffic,
because he knows that a) i can safely handle a car and I know how it will
react to various input, b) i am responsible enough to know the situations
where that can be safely done, c) i will cut my fun off at a respectable
speed (usually 10-20 over the limit, depending on the kind of road), and
most importantly, d) he knows i will get it out of my system eventually,
being the high-po nut i am, and if he allows it, it doesn't give it the
"forbidden fruit" allure.  instead of being some cool studly rite-of-passage
type deal, it's just another driving situation, what's the big deal?

ps - my favorite car to drive isn't the new Grand Am with the throaty
3.3l V6, nor is it my 429 T-bird.  it's my stepdad's '76 Chrysler
big-block wagon.  it's nowhere near as fast as the T-bird or even the
Grand Am, but it's supremely fun to drive.  it's so ponderous and
slack in its steering and suspension movements, it's funny!  how can you
not have fun in a car that doesn't take itself seriously?

--
ayjayninetwothreeatclevelandpointfreenetpointedu (WFO)

    "First of all, torque, from a driver's perspective,
          to use the vernacular, RULES!"

Don't let him off that easy!  It is not a good point.  If it is an
imm***law, *you are above that law*.  (Dumb traffic laws are not of
the same caliber as laws supporting slavery or genocide, for example,
so they do not demand the same sort of active resistance, but citizens
are well within their rights to ignore stupid laws and fight the
system if they are caught.  But citizens are morally obligated to
resist evil laws, such as those that required citizens to turn in
runaway slaves to the authorities.)

Your sentiments and positions are admirable, though I must caution
you that pure democracy has been compared to two wolves and a sheep
voting on who's for dinner.  You wouldn't be too pleased with the
results if America voted on drug policy tomorrow.  I do hope that,
like me, you will keep doing all you can to change our disastrous
drug policy.

You bring up a good point about divorcing morality from the law.
Ideally, the law should forbid entities from violating the rights
of others, without going on to evangelize one paradigm for living
at the expense of non-conforming minorities who are otherwise
minding their own business (e.g. the fundamentalist right
attacking ***s.)

I should mention that when I use the word *moral* and its
derivatives, I'm just talking about the individual's sense of
right and wrong, not the narrow world view espoused by Bill
Bennett and his intolerant, fascist "morality" police.

Don't be sorry!

-- David Pletcher
--
** ignore below this line -- automatically appended keywords **
kiddie-*** nuclear terrorist AK-47 *** PCP ammonium nitrate

.

.
.<snip.
..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.
.
.Agreed.
.
..: 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?
.
.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

Well we live in a *republic* which isnt' set up that way. We elect
officials who (in theory) represent our views and are supposed to
use their time and energy to study and design laws that are in the best
interest of those who elected them! Of course as soon as the politicians
(at least some of them) find out they can use the public trough to bribe
greedy or spoiled voters, things go haywire. There is one party, in
particular, usually working to keep referendum-based issues out of the
voting booths- and since most people don't know diddly about the law,
having them vote on each proposal would likely result in chaos.

.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,

Laws have been based in religion and ethics since day 1. There are some
incredibly dumb laws but the overwhelming majority of them are sensible.

.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

 The notion of *morality having no place in lawmaking* is just plain
 (sorry) silly. You seem to think it would be ok to do 90 thru a school
 zone or other crowded area if people could be trusted to stay out
 your way. I bet you voted for Clinton.

.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.

 Waaaaaaahhhh.
 So you think we don't already have enough whackbutts driving while
 under the influence of <something> and you want to add pot to the pile.
 What percentage of traffic "accidents",train "accidents",boating "accidents",
 and heavy-equipment-related "accidents" already involve achohol? Many
 incidents of "domestic ***" also involve ***. Now you want to
 legalize more brain-erradicator so you can say the playing field is
 "fair"?  Makes sense ;)

.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. ;-)

 Shucks ...

Bill Edison

.
.                - Alex O.
.
.
.-----------------------------------------------------------------------
. !              ___          /`|`\       _________________________
. ! _......_/|__|____\..___../  | |      | Alex Olshove            |

. !\...____/~~~~~\_____..___---.|,/      | http://www.racesimcentral.net/|
. !        / |~~|__..-`   0              |_________________________|
.         <  |        " I believe it's time for
.          (o)          me to fly..." - REO Speedwagon
.
.
.
.

speed does kill.  perhaps not so much that you are going 75 and hit something
vs. going 65 and hit something...

but if everyone is going 65, and some lunatic flies by at 90 that is a
problem...regardless of weather/road conditions.  regardless of their
driving skills.  why?  because the others are not prepared for that
idiots driving.  they may be under full control, but if someone pulls out
in front of him because they are relating their speed to the others around
them, and don't notice the speeder closing faster then they would at 65,
well there could be problems....and this "assumes" that the speeding
vehicle is under control.  MOST, not all, but MOST of the speeders i
see are NOT under control.  they are weaving, slamming on brakes,
tailgating, etc.

i think that a full congested highway can be just as safe at 100 as it is
at 65 IF the people, vehicles, road and weather conditions are all up to
it.  Lots of IFs there.  That would also mean that everyone follow at
safe distances...when was the last time you drove home and EVERYONE
was following at the proper distance....it just don't happen, and it only
takes one bozo to kill someone.

i know what i am talking about..i work the wrecks, i see the damage and
death, i hear the stories....

in a perfect world we would all be great drivers...but that will never
happen.

leonard

ps. to the person that complained about waiting 5 minutes for a light
at 2:00 am when noone is around...i totally agree, that is a waste...but
if you are at a unlighted intersection, even though you are a high trained
and perfect driver, there could still be that *other* bozo on the road
driving with no lights...you pull out in front of him because you don't
see him and bam...i have to get outa bed and pull the bodies out of both
cars....laws help guide us all, and help those that have no common sense
by giving them fewer oportunites to***up...if they follow the laws.

--

  FAX: (606) 323-1978
  Sr. Systems Prog. University of Kentucky Computing Center, Lexington, Ky.

: Sorry, but a law prohibiting you from going 100 mph is not "evil."

Sorry, but it is.  Unless you want to qualify that statement by saying
100 mph in a school zone or in a blizzard or something of that nature.

--Dan

: >
: >>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?
: >
: >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.

: Don't let him off that easy!  It is not a good point.  If it is an
: imm***law, *you are above that law*.  

Sorry, but your desire to go 100 mph has nothing to do with morality!

: (Dumb traffic laws are not of
: the same caliber as laws supporting slavery or genocide, for example,
: so they do not demand the same sort of active resistance, but citizens
: are well within their rights to ignore stupid laws and fight the
: system if they are caught.  But citizens are morally obligated to
: resist evil laws, such as those that required citizens to turn in
: runaway slaves to the authorities.)

Sorry, but a law prohibiting you from going 100 mph is not "evil."

some good points BUT:
1) inspection of motor vehicles in terms of smog control should be
maintained - i am sick of driving behind cars belching out tonnes of
oil etc.
2) no compulsory insurance? then if i happend to be hit by someone who
has no money and no insurance i am SOL????

Nor does your desire that people not drive 100 mph...

-JPC

--
=============================================================================

                "FOSTERS:  Australian for Bud, mate!!"
   "No goats, no boats, no motorcars, not a single 'yes-siree!'"  -BH

They have a nominal responsibility to protect persons in their
custody (often "bad guys"), but no recourse is available to the
citizen who is victimized by the failure of the police to repsond
to, say, a 911 call.  Of course, they have a charter that says
that their role is "To Protect and to Serve", but that daily
application of that is mysterious.

--
--------

                                        http://www.dnai.com/~kudzu/

Could be!  If you didn't have uninsured motorist insurance or money in
the bank to affect repairs.  But what is the difference with compulsory
insurance?  You can still get hit by someone with no money or insurance,
only now you also have increased premiums!  In addition, the mentality
that "someone else will pay", be it an individual or a deep pocket
insurance company, has led to less regard for safety and for personal
responsibilty.  Why can't responsible people take care of themselves
without a "Big Brother" mandate that makes things worse?  "It's always
someone elses fault/responsibility."  (Sigh)

Mark Brauer  Crunched 1973 SAAB Sonett III (The Ultimate Icecar!)

    This thread does not belong in rec.autos.antique.  Please direct
    your followups elsewhere.

    This thread does not belong in rec.autos.antique.  Please direct
    your followups elsewhere.

.

.: Sorry, but a law prohibiting you from going 100 mph is not "evil."
.
.
.Sorry, but it is.  Unless you want to qualify that statement by saying
.100 mph in a school zone or in a blizzard or something of that nature.
.

  That is no basis for your assertion,Dan. When you construct a highway
on your own property, with green stuff pulled from your own wallet,
*then* you can live by your own laws.  Driving on publicly constructed,
maintained, and cleaned highways is not a "right"- it's a priviledge
(like it or not) that can be revoked when the rules are broken.  Your
argument reminds me of situation that's been prevalent in my neck of the
woods for some years now. On Friday & Saturday nights Rodders and other
enthusiasts gather at local hangouts. Eventually, one of the meeting places
becomes "theeee place" and before you know it, upwards of 150 or 200
cars show up. Everything from Stanley Steamers to Ferraris to Cobra/
Countach kits with the usual crowd of pro-streeters, trailer queens,
cars for sale and race cars, not to mention bikes or all shapes and
sizes. At the end of the night, the crowd starts to dissipate and
you hear the customary"tire-chirping"here and there. But problems
start when a few people who, instead of driving away in a calm manner
or with a relatively sedate "c ya next week" chirp, act as if they're
heating 'em up for a 250 mph pass .         They also think it's their
"right" to do anything they want,but it's only a matter of time before
the cops show and the owners of the lot (or whereever) ban *everyone*.
The gathering inevitably moves, but the same characters show up and the
entire scenario is restarted.  It's been going on for at least 15 years
with the same cast, same plot, and same ending. For anyone who knows the
Poughkeepsie, NY area, it started at Denny's Plaza on Rt9 about 15 years
back. Then it was moved (actually "chased") into Wards plaza. After a
while, it dissipated but came back to Jamesway on Rt 9W- complete with
trophies.  It went ok for about 2 years before the same group of juggheads
learned to follow roadsigns     while under the influence and were able
to re-assemble another chapter of "Friday Night Wasteoids",to once
again,piss off the lot owners, bring in the cops, and kill the night(s).
There's been a good one in Middletown on Saturdays for quite a while
now- because it's run by a club who'll not let you in if you seem to have
Dan's attitude. Ever notice that the people who own the nicest cars are
seldom or never the culprit?

Bill Edison

.
.--Dan

You just said it was based on your experience.
Anyways, why was it *** harassment, she didn't say any lewd comments to
you or handle you in any way, or did you leave something out? Just cause
she happened to be female and you male does not count for *** harassment.
Being sexist based on one encounter you have had with a female cop is
extremely stupid and does not make your opinion a fact.
I could say male cops are the worse based on experiences my friend has
had with several stopping her (the first one called her a ***, another
one stopped her for a broken taillight that the mother who was in the car
checked out and it worked). So based on that, I could say that in itself
outnumber your female cop encounters and say that male cops are the worse.
You, sir, need to learn that one encounter does not a fact make, nor the
fact that she was female. After all, a _male_ cop came and tried to help
her arrest you, he was just as bad as she was.
Get a life.

Tigress

--
    |\      _,,,---,,_
   /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_        Tigress

 '---''(_/--'  `-'\_)            Cat drawn by Felix Lee

: >2) no compulsory insurance? then if i happend to be hit by someone who
: >has no money and no insurance i am SOL????
: >
: Could be!  If you didn't have uninsured motorist insurance or money in
: the bank to affect repairs.  But what is the difference with compulsory
: insurance?  You can still get hit by someone with no money or insurance,
: only now you also have increased premiums!  In addition, the mentality

I have uninsured motorist insurance--this insurance covers someone
driving *my* car without having insurance themselves.  It has nothing to
do with an uninsured driver colliding with my car.

And there is one other benifit to compulsory insruance, that being that
if I do encounter an uninsured motorist, s/he will face a stiff penality
for being uninsured, and with a few repeats (in the state of Montana), an
uninsured motorist will find her/himself without license plates and
having to do the SR22 to get a driver's license.

Ed
'42 Ford pickup
Missoula, Montana, where we drive reasonable and prudent