rec.autos.simulators

So what?  In PA and MD, they won't issue registration if you don't
have insurance.  I drove anyway -- first on my old expired plates,
then (when they demanded some back) on some temporaries I saved for
that particular purpose.  If they pulled my license, I'd drive anyway.
The uninsured penalty, if I had hit someone, would have been trivial
compared to the damage. It is also trivial compared to the cost of insurance.

In any case, whether or not there is mandatory insurance, if you hit
someone who is judgement proof and lacks insurance, you are SOL.
--

"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."

--

: 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????

You should just lecture him/her on personal responsibility.  Obviously
the insurance requirement is a liberal/socialist plot by the same people
who are planning a UN takeover of this country!

And here I thought my tax dollars helped build public roads and pay for
the land they sit on.  That's not the point though.  I never claimed that
using public roads wasn't a proviledge or that you won't have to pay the
price if caught breaking the rules.  Nor did I have any part in deciding
what the speed limits should be.

: 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).

So what your're saying here is that a crowd of people got out of hand by
drinking and whatnot and decided to start chirping the tires, disturbing
the peace, and racing (presumably at 100 mph so this has something to do
with what I said) each other down the street.

Well obviously the police should intervene cause they're posing a threat
to others on the streets.  Why should that prevent me from doing 100 mph
cruising down the interstate through the desert with little to no traffic?
Seems to me the laws should target the drunks and irresponsible people you
describe rather than people that drive fast in safe conditions.

: 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?

Hmm...  Let's see.  They think it's unsafe to drive 100 mph in every
situation and they drive the nicest cars.  Sounds like a club for the
politicians that passed the damn laws to begin with.  Sorry, but it
doesn't really hurt my feelings that I wasn't invited.  BTW, did I ever
say I supported the actions of the group you've described above or are you
just trying to subtly imply it?

:  
: Bill Edison
:  

And finally...

I said previously

: .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.

And you replied

:   That is no basis for your assertion,Dan. When you construct a highway

If it's not, Then why did you go into your big long spiel about drunken
street racers.  Sounds like a qualifing statement to me.

--Dan

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

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

But I've never claimed it does.  OTOH, the speed zealots are claiming the
speed limit is an imm***law and they have a m***obligation to break it.

: 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.

Sorry, it's not.  Evil laws are ones like segregation and slavery. To
suggest a speed limit law is evil is ludicrous!

: }: 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.

: Then your state has odd insurance terminology.  In most states,
: "uninsured motorist insurance" means your insurance company pays for
: damage done by an uninsured driver colliding with your 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.

: So what?  In PA and MD, they won't issue registration if you don't
: have insurance.  I drove anyway -- first on my old expired plates,
: then (when they demanded some back) on some temporaries I saved for
: that particular purpose.  If they pulled my license, I'd drive anyway.
: The uninsured penalty, if I had hit someone, would have been trivial
: compared to the damage. It is also trivial compared to the cost of insurance.

Any legislators reading this, how about adding serious jail time to the
penalty for driving without insurance?  Maybe incarceration in a prison
with lots of big ugly felons would make an impression on Matthew!

: : : >We have all had our runins with the pigs!  They treat everyone as though
: : : >they are guilty regardless of the situation.  
: : :  
: : :   Oh, do they?
: : :  
: : :   I was pulled over in the City of Rochester in a '71 Duster I'd just

: : You are one of the lucky ones!!  Seriously, I have never been pulled over or
: : checked and NOT given a ticket.

: I've been driving for almost 40 years and have come across both rogues
: and good guys.  That is the problem, you never know.  The bottom line
: today, at least as it relates to most speed enforcement, is that
: it has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with $$$$.

I Totally Agree.  If you have ever bought a radar detector, there is usually
a letter that explains the $$$$ involvement.  Here's the real catcher, The
insurance companies buy the scanners (or pay to have more research into
making better ones) and give them to the police for a certain trade
agreement.  The agreement is that they (the cops) use them and give out as
many ticket as possible.  This gives the insurance companies the excuse to
raise the premiums (don't believe me, get a few speeding tickets and watch
you insurance rates sour).  Also, this allows the cops to increase revenues.
I'm just curious where all this money ends up?  BTW, it has been shown that
todays automobiles are much safer at higher speeds.  But increasing the
speed may adversly effect this "monopoly" that the insurance and police have
created.   so what is a the little guy supposed to do?

: : >We have all had our runins with the pigs!  They treat everyone as though
: : >they are guilty regardless of the situation.  
: :  
: :   Oh, do they?
: :  
: :   I was pulled over in the City of Rochester in a '71 Duster I'd just

: You are one of the lucky ones!!  Seriously, I have never been pulled over or
: checked and NOT given a ticket.

I've been driving for almost 40 years and have come across both rogues
and good guys.  That is the problem, you never know.  The bottom line
today, at least as it relates to most speed enforcement, is that
it has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with $$$$.

Speed enforcement is lazy law enforcement given that it takes no
effort to sit there with the latest techno speed measuring devices
and nail speeders since the speed limits are so unrealistic.  
That is the damn problem.  Why everyone accepts increased safety
measurers in aircraft and also increased aircraft speeds (and
the higher aircraft speeds have a somewhat mitigating impact on
the safety improvements) yet they seem to say...hey any increased
safety measures due to vehicle improvements, road improvements,
etc. should not allow higher speeds.  Why the hell not.

--
Cheers, ---------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

: Most cops I've known hate it when you refer to hired security people
: (non-sworn persons) as rent-a-cops.  They are not cops, do not associate
: the two.  

But many of the senior security types are former/retired police
themselves.  I know two retired police officers who are both now
doing security work.  One of them became a Lietenannt for a mall
security outfit.

--
Cheers, ---------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

        And it's this purported 'kills' that cause my insurance to skyrocket
whenever I drive 45 on a 5-lane road that the town sets the speed limit to 30
and hangs cops like Christmas lights??

        I suggest you check out the studies done by the US Gov't regarding this
outdated (I'd call it ignorant too, since I'm sick of getting ***ed by
insurance companies) 'logic'. I don't give a shit about the thruways- if
somebody dies because he's going to hit a bridge pillar at 90MPH, he'd be just
as dead at 40MPH. You want safer roads?? Educate the idiots that shave, read
novels, drive slow in the passing lane, and nail their brakes when a cop is
nearby AND THEY'RE UNDER THE SPEED LIMIT ALREADY. Don't *** about the people
who speed over some legislation-induced 'limit' that feeds the insurance
companies and suck you dry. Ticket people for slowing up traffic. If they can't
drive, GET THEM OFF THE ROAD. If they can't handle driving the limit, they need
to find a person that does. The rest of the world shouldn't have to deal with
some idiot AARP loser strung out on Xanax driving slow in the left lane in a
Lincoln Towncar. Ticket that moronic bozo, and then watch the fatalities/mile
drop even lower.

        Until you develop an understanding for the word 'correlation', I
suggest you check your sources before you start blowing smoke about pulling
bodies from wrecks, etc. Did you do an analysis of the skidmarks?? Was the car
in good repair?? Did one of the drivers have his head up his ass while shaving
and covering 90 feet/second?? Take a good look at accident reports, and see how
many are blamed on 'excessive speed'. Then look for 'driver error'. Here endeth
the lesson....

.




.
.: : : .We have all had our runins with the pigs!  They treat everyone as though
.: : : .they are guilty regardless of the situation.
.: : :
.: : :   Oh, do they?
.: : :
.: : :   I was pulled over in the City of Rochester in a '71 Duster I'd just
.
.: : You are one of the lucky ones!!  Seriously, I have never been pulled over or
.: : checked and NOT given a ticket.
.
.: I've been driving for almost 40 years and have come across both rogues
.: and good guys.  That is the problem, you never know.  The bottom line
.: today, at least as it relates to most speed enforcement, is that
.: it has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with $$$$.
.
.I Totally Agree.  If you have ever bought a radar detector, there is usually
.a letter that explains the $$$$ involvement.  Here's the real catcher, The
.insurance companies buy the scanners (or pay to have more research into
.making better ones) and give them to the police for a certain trade
.agreement.  The agreement is that they (the cops) use them and give out as
.many ticket as possible.  This gives the insurance companies the excuse to
.raise the premiums (don't believe me, get a few speeding tickets and watch
.you insurance rates sour).  Also, this allows the cops to increase revenues.
.I'm just curious where all this money ends up?  BTW, it has been shown that
.todays automobiles are much safer at higher speeds.  But increasing the
.speed may adversly effect this "monopoly" that the insurance and police have
.created.   so what is a the little guy supposed to do?

  The lobby most responsible for lowering the limits was the "save fuel"
  contingency of the late 70's. Remember the phony gas crisis that was
  used to raise prices and lower the speed limit?
  But there are also a lot of police agencies that endorsed raising of the
  speed limit. As for those that didn't, that was their "official position"
  whether they really advocated it or not- that's because their money
  is "encumbered" by some governmental agency who you can be they didn't
  dare oppose. There are also many "$$$$"-oriented places that endorse
  raising the limit. In fact, so many "$$$$"-oriented (as you say) are
  in favor of raising it- especially any business that can profit
  by shipping via truck, including UPS, FeDex, AirBorne and who knows
  how many others, that they probably far outweigh any revenue gained
  by ticket-writing, especially since taxpayers ultimately pay for higher
  activity in the court systems.  Lastly- you seem to imply there is a
  *** to "get the little guy" who simply finds himself breaking
  speed limits thru no fault of his own.  Why not test your intelligence
  by coming up with your own *** to***the big bad insurance
  companies? Perhaps you could try your hand and not speeding instead
  whining about cops and insurance companies?

Bill Edison

my gosh this place is full of idiots...but i guess i should have known
the mentality of *most* of the posters given the topic.

your such a moron.  why don't you learn how to read and comprehend before
you spout off more useless dribble.

i was saying that the speed didn't matter as much as the control of the
driver.  whats worse, driving off a cliff at 10mph, or 100?  NONE.  you
die you die...regardless of anything else.  my point was that if everyone
on the road had a vehicle capable of driving, say 100, and the weather and
road permited, it comes down the ALL the drivers.  the one in front, beside,
behind, and yourself.  if any of you make a mistake its all over.  at a
slower speed people with slower thought processes, such as yourself, will
have more time to react to a bad situation.  although with some of the
posts on here, i don't think a few of you could deal with it at 10mph
muchless at 75 or higher.

shove that why don't you.

leonard
--

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

i am not qualified to say where safe is or isn't....and i suspect that many
if not all the people posting on here aren't either.  

if a speed limit is posted, and you ignore it, you are endagering other
people...simple as that.  whether you think you *should* be able to drive
so fast or not is of concern at that time or place.  if you want a higher
speed posted, lobby those that can control it.  to do anything else is
futile.

leonard

--

  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.
..
..Sorry, it's not.  Evil laws are ones like segregation and slavery. To
..suggest a speed limit law is evil is ludicrous!
.
.        But a law condoning insurance company ripoffs and tax collection under
.the guise of breaking a 'law' is?? Wake up.

  People are aware of the ramifications of getting speeding tickets. That
leaves little excuse for whining. There are mechanisms which allow laws
to be changed but in this case it's doubtful; insurance companies are
ripped-off on a daily basis by their own policy holders, and for amounts
that dwarf an  increase in your rate because you were dumb enough to be
caught speeding. If you owned an insurance company, you wouldn't exactly
be giving a 'pat on the back' to people who won "Leadfoot  of the week"
awards.

Bill Edison