Cops That Tailgate (Was: Cars that Get Stopped)

} } }>}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. } }>Hmmm, lets see, positive aspects of police.... nope, can't think of }>any that aren't accounted for by their mere presence. }Maybe you would prefer to live in a country where if you broke }the law (or where the cop thought you broke the law) they would }just shoot you. No thanks, I don't want to move into the city of Philadelphia. Taxes are too high. What, the fact that the cops could be worse is supposed to be a positive aspect of the police? -- "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue."

: 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. In the beginning, but unfortunately the role of too many police ecomes one of focusing on motor vehicle situations rather than patroling neighborhoods. That is not simply the cop on the beat's fault, but rather the politicos and higher ups that view the motorists as cash cows for revenue generation. : If you knew may officers I think that you would : find the power freaks or incomptentes are in a very small minority. But even one is too many, and I've met several. : 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. All part of the job. : 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. What difference should that be. The bottom line, at least as it realtes to speed enforcement, is that most speed limits (highway especially) are unrealisticly low and serve as revenue generators. See the January Car & Driver article by Patrick Bedard on the reality of speed limits versus the insurance industry (often backed up by law enforcement) safety crap. : 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. Ecactly the point...when artifical speed limits bearing no reality to what should be exist, then we all take on an attitude of: The hell with the cops, they are just going along with the easy way of being productive. Take one drunk off the road is far more beneficial to all of us than the generation of 100 speeding tickets (IMHO). : 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. Again, right on and further justification of why society views police today in such a bad light. I have never met anyone that has been ticketed for speeding who honestly believed they were operating their vehicle in a dangerous fashion. I'm taking herre of the typical ticket for doing 70 in a 55...or even doing 80 in a 55. Today's vehicles far surpass the roadworthyness of older vehicles and yet most states still impose totally unrealistic highway speed limits. This may sound elitist, but if one is uncapable of driving any properly maintained auto at highway speeds of up to 70 or 80 mph (daylight hours) then that individual really doesn't belong on the interstates. If you don't feel comfortable at those highway speeds, then either take alternative roadways or at least stay to the extreme right lane (how many times have you encountered the turtle driver who refuses to stay to the right)? : 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. Agreed. Ditto here on the east coast. : 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. Agree again. : 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. But we all should get pissed off for the continued focus on speed enforcement laws rather than on enforcement of those laws that will make society better for all. Additionally, speed enforcement is often very discriminitory in who gets stopped (i.e. BMWs and sports cars versus typical sedans and mini-vans doing the exact same speeds.) -- Cheers, --------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Quoted text (13 lines)

>Again, right on and further justification of why society views police >today in such a bad light. I have never met anyone that has been >ticketed for speeding who honestly believed they were operating their >vehicle in a dangerous fashion. I'm taking herre of the typical >ticket for doing 70 in a 55...or even doing 80 in a 55. Today's vehicles >far surpass the roadworthyness of older vehicles and yet most states >still impose totally unrealistic highway speed limits. This may sound >elitist, but if one is uncapable of driving any properly maintained auto >at highway speeds of up to 70 or 80 mph (daylight hours) then that >individual really doesn't belong on the interstates. If you don't feel >comfortable at those highway speeds, then either take alternative >roadways or at least stay to the extreme right lane (how many times >have you encountered the turtle driver who refuses to stay to the right)?

While I'm all for increased speed limits in some areas, it's important to consider two things: First, regardless of driving ability, there are many motor vehicles which simply are not safe at these speeds. Even if we exclude vehicles not capable of maintaining 80mph (like my trusty old VW Bus, may it rest in peace.), ridiculously lax (or nonexistent in some places) motor vehicle inspections mean that many vehicles aren't safe at normal city speeds, much less 80mph. IMHO, we need a STRICT motor vehicle inspection. However, with the current trend toward giving things back to the states, I don't think this is going to happen. Is a state with strict inspections going to forbid uninspected vehicles from other states (which have no inspection) from travelling on their roadways? Of course not. Do cops have the time to do roadside inspections whenever they stop a vehicle? No. 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. 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. Just my $0.02 worth, plus tax. - Tom -- --

Quoted text (15 lines)

>>}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. >>Hmmm, lets see, positive aspects of police.... nope, can't think of >>any that aren't accounted for by their mere presence. >>-- >>"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit >>of justice is no virtue." >Maybe you would prefer to live in a country where if you broke >the law (or where the cop thought you broke the law) they would >just shoot you. Maybe you're post today is because you don't live >in such a country. Think about it.... I'd rather have them, even >with the occasional "bad cop", than not have them.

The sad truth is that there are many more "Bad cops" out there then u would want to belive.. Now I have nothing against cops.. a good friend of mine IS a cop.. BUT.. When cops target young males driving perfectly safe, going along with the flow of traffic, ESPECIALLY young BLACK males.. that pisses me off. If you are going to pull over the young black kid, you better pull over the old jewish mother putting on makeup passing him in the right lane. And to tell ytou the truth, most cops will not do it. I also think that PA and MD are absolutely dispicable about their lack of listining to the public about changing the speeding limits in the states. They are speedtraps, it is dishonest, and just plain dirty. True I dont want to be shot for speeding, but I dont want a ticket which costs 150 face value, plus makes my insurance go up 100 on both my car and my bike which after 10 years gputs me 2k in the hole. A speeding ticket should be the 50 bucks, and thats it. NOT 2150 and anyone can do the math, that IS what a speeding ticket will cost you. And if a cop tailgates me and I am in the right lanes, I WILL slam my brakes. I will sue his ass till he is out on the street fighting with the homeless for a bite of food. Tailgating is ***ing DANGEROUS, speeding is NOT what kills, its stupidity and/or alchohol in almost EVERY case.

Usually if I get tailgated by some ass, I just let go of the gas and slow down without using the brake, they can pass me if they don't like it. My question is how low below the speed limit are you allowed to go before a cop would pull you over? Eric -- Eric Lorenzo <http://rintintin.colorado.edu:10000/>

>Having followed this thread for a few days now, I'm quite perplexed: I always >thought that the citizens of the USA had the best protected individual rights >in the world! Thanks for letting the rest of the world know that this is not >so. Maybe now I'll appreciate my own country more... We have rights; we just have to sue to get 'em enforced. :) -- 1995 Dodge Neon 1969 Dodge Polara "Anyone who drives slower than you is an idiot; anyone who drives faster than you is a maniac." - George Carlin (paraphrased)

: >Again, right on and further justification of why society views police : >today in such a bad light. I have never met anyone that has been : >ticketed for speeding who honestly believed they were operating their : >vehicle in a dangerous fashion. I'm taking herre of the typical : >ticket for doing 70 in a 55...or even doing 80 in a 55. Today's vehicles : >far surpass the roadworthyness of older vehicles and yet most states : >still impose totally unrealistic highway speed limits. This may sound : >elitist, but if one is uncapable of driving any properly maintained auto : >at highway speeds of up to 70 or 80 mph (daylight hours) then that : >individual really doesn't belong on the interstates. If you don't feel : >comfortable at those highway speeds, then either take alternative : >roadways or at least stay to the extreme right lane (how many times : >have you encountered the turtle driver who refuses to stay to the right)? : While I'm all for increased speed limits in some areas, it's important to : consider two things: First, regardless of driving ability, there are many : motor vehicles which simply are not safe at these speeds. Even if we : exclude vehicles not capable of maintaining 80mph (like my trusty old VW : Bus, may it rest in peace.), ridiculously lax (or nonexistent in some : places) motor vehicle inspections mean that many vehicles aren't safe at : normal city speeds, much less 80mph. IMHO, we need a STRICT motor vehicle : inspection. However, with the current trend toward giving things back to : the states, I don't think this is going to happen. Is a state with strict : inspections going to forbid uninspected vehicles from other states (which : have no inspection) from travelling on their roadways? Of course not. The truth is, however, that mechanical failure or problems have almost no relationship to auto accidents. If they did, your weworry of poorly maintained vehicles would have more credibility, but the facts don't bear it out. : Do : cops have the time to do roadside inspections whenever they stop a vehicle? : No. Nore should we be harrased by such roadside stops. I am perfectly willing to be responsible for my vehicles. Odds are any poorly maintained vehicle would involve others in an accident of major consequences and rarely with speed as a factor. : 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. -- Cheers, --------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------

I think that cops in general probably have a neurotic need for power that they couldn't get any other way than to get their bronze badge. I truely believe this to some extent for most cops. Sure there may be that 1 in a 100 that just wants to serve the public and protect and all that, but I really think that they all need to have this power over people. Yes I have a problem with authority. The problem is I don't respect somebodys power over me unless I feel they should have power over me. This brings up another point. Maybe we need to have stricker liscencing in this country. How many times have you seen an elderly person causing a dangerous situation by driving way to slow, or not being aware of his surroundings. Had I not been paying close attention to my driving and the road I would have had several accidents due to elderly unawarness. I DO NOT drive fast where I can't see far enough to stop, or where something could jump out in fromt of me. I do however speed when I feel it is safe, and I have control of my car. I can't believe we let kids drive just because they are 16. As I look back I know I wasn't a resposible driver until I was well into my 20s (when I started racing motorcycles and cars). Now not everybody needs to be a racing driver capable of recovering from any mishap (they can't even do that). But after learning where the limits are and how to react to unwanted oversteer, I am SO much safer. As a 16 year old male I wanted to find these limits, and the easiest way was on public roads. Maybe it's like sex, you want to find out a about it, and if nobody ever talks to you about it, you might make some mistakes while experimenting. We need strickter training and we need to be able to take liscenses away from the elderly (I know that's cruel, but what is more cruel, that or killing some young woman just starting her life because grandma shouldn't have been behind the wheel?) O.K. bye

[snip] >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. I have to agree. NJ's driver's test and inspection system are contradictory. I friend of mine had to get their license, but couldn't find anyone with a car... except me. I warned her, because it probably wouldn't work since my car was in sad shape: No inspection for several months, uh, er. ummm... and uh, bad brakes. (I was using the car for emergency trips only at the time, to bide my time until I got them fixed.) So against my better judgement, we went out to show her how bad they were and then tried the test. The driving tester came out, MUST have seen the sticker, and then did a test of the car: He told me to depress the brake, and he checked the taillights!!! And off they went, and she passed, while I chewed my nails. What drives me nuts is that Jersey is increasing the emission requirements through the roof, but is cutting back on safety inspection... You can't fail for burnt out bulbs anymore...now you receive a verbal warning! I hate getting behind a newer car, with nonfunctional tailights at night, esp. if its Mrs. Obvious (aged 81) doing 40 in the left lane of the Parkway (i.e. 75 mph traffic). ----Steve Stephen Amadei Dandy Connections Atlantic City, NJ

It depends where you live, really. In Cleveland, large city, it can take the police a half hour or more to get to your house. In the suburb I live in, it's five seconds. Run a red light and there's three cop cars, a helicopter, and news teams from two major TV networks on the scene. In Cleveland, they really don't give a rat's ass, they're too busy trying to break down another crack house on West 88th or something. Funny, a house that sells for $40k in Cleveland would go for $120-150k in my suburb, and I live in one of the cheapest suburbs... I guess people value their right to live peacefully. ...and those that can't afford to live here, buy shotguns. -- ayjayninetwothreeatclevelandpointfreenetpointedu (WFO) "First of all, torque, from a driver's perspective, to use the vernacular, RULES!"

>>Also, if you are in Georgia, well we have this stupid law. Government >>vehicles don't have to pay your damage, even if it is their fault!!!!!!!!! >>I just heard about this, anyone from Georgia have any comments as to this >>law (is it totally untrue, exagerated, or exact?)? In Tennessee we have been having a debate over a similar law. I am not an expert but I believe that the law gives people the power to sue the police in the case of an accident. Although I can see why this might sound like a good idea, just take a minute to think about the results. Several city police forces are under orders NOT to chase stolen vehicles!! This is because they do not want to take the chance of being sued out of existence. If they were in an accident involving a fatality can you imagine what would happen? The family would sue the police department for every penny they could get. 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! The world is not always fair but we do the best we can. If you are an innocent bystander and your car is damaged, sue the BAD GUYS! Would you rather restrict the police from doing their job? And as far as speeding goes, do you think the police passed the speeding laws?? Perhaps you think they enforce them only to collect revenue. Do you think the cop on the street is some great entrepenuer who is trying to raise revenue for his company? No! He is doing his job and enforcing the law, laws that we and our representatives passed, not the police! We are in a democracy not a police state, but we do need people to enforce the laws that WE pass. 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? Unfortunately, there are bad people out there. As a democracy we pass laws about what is right and wrong. The police just do their job. Maybe they are sometimes arrogant but do you want some kiss ass out there protecting you? Sorry for the long post, I just read this thread and I guess I had a lot to say.

. ..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. . .I think that cops in general probably have a neurotic need for power that .they couldn't get any other way than to get their bronze badge. I truely .believe this to some extent for most cops. Sure there may be that 1 in a .100 that just wants to serve the public and protect and all that, but I .really think that they all need to have this power over people. Yes I .have a problem with authority. The problem is I don't respect somebodys .power over me unless I feel they should have power over me. They generally don't have any power over you. Tehy're out there as agents in law enforcement. I agree that some are brain-damaged but no profession is without brain-damaged people. Cops who stop and harrass people without cause are themselves breaking the law. One who views police only as people who get badges in an effort to control the lives of others has a narrow view indeed. I'd suggest that politicians, especially liberal ones, are much more likely to have the 'control neuroses' than are cops- they *make* the laws. . ..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. . .This brings up another point. Maybe we need to have stricker liscencing .in this country. How many times have you seen an elderly person causing a .dangerous situation by driving way to slow, or not being aware of his .surroundings. Had I not been paying close attention to my driving and the .road I would have had several accidents due to elderly unawarness. I DO .NOT drive fast where I can't see far enough to stop, or where something .could jump out in fromt of me. I do however speed when I feel it is safe, .and I have control of my car. Ah. But since your idea of 'safe' may not match the law, any cop who stops you is doing so becuase he's/she's has an obvious need to control you... . .I can't believe we let kids drive just because they are 16. As I look .back I know I wasn't a resposible driver until I was well into my 20s .(when I started racing motorcycles and cars). Now not everybody needs to .be a racing driver capable of recovering from any mishap (they can't even .do that). But after learning where the limits are and how to react to .unwanted oversteer, I am SO much safer. . .As a 16 year old male I wanted to find these limits, and the easiest way .was on public roads. Maybe it's like sex, you want to find out a about .it, and if nobody ever talks to you about it, you might make some mistakes .while experimenting. . .We need strickter training and we need to be able to take liscenses away .from the elderly (I know that's cruel, but what is more cruel, that or .killing some young woman just starting her life because grandma shouldn't .have been behind the wheel?) . We do need strictertraining. But you just implied that kids shouldn't be given licenses just because they've turned 16. Then only a few sentences later, you said we should be able to take someone's license just because they *reach* a certain age. hey...wait a minute...you're not thinking of becoming a liberal politician...;-)=) Bill Edison .O.K. bye .

>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. You've confused two unrelated propositions: * All illegal acts are antisocial; * All antisocial acts are illegal. Neither is substantially true, though the latter is less far-out. For the obligatory example, consider laws against consensual sex. Not that I'm advocating it, but *** (consensual) is still a felony in California. Why? I can name many other flagrantly unnecessary victimless "crimes" proscribed by law, but don't feel like rehashing the whole spiel right now. I reject the notion that a society whose only m***compass is a bloated collection of legal proscriptions will be a safe, polite society. The law should deal with the most flagrant abuses and offenses, not matters of etiquette. Police show up after the fact to investigate the crime. They have no legal responsibility to protect citizens, regardless of the motto on the side of the car. If you are counting on the law and the police to protect you from wrongdoing, you've placed your faith where it does not belong. I think that most police make a diligent effort to investigate crimes and bring criminals to justice, but then the ***ers and rapists are released from prison in less than three years so we can make more room in the prisons for pot smokers. -- David Pletcher -- ** ignore below this line -- automatically appended keywords ** kiddie-*** nuclear terrorist AK-47 *** PCP ammonium nitrate

>Maybe you would prefer to live in a country where if you broke >the law (or where the cop thought you broke the law) they would >just shoot you. Maybe you're post today is because you don't live Country? They do that here in Atlanta. in public, with the innovent bystander /victim lying on the ground, pleading not to be shot..

: > : >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? : 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.

Herb says: ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 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.

>>Maybe you would prefer to live in a country where if you broke >>the law (or where the cop thought you broke the law) they would >>just shoot you. Maybe you're post today is because you don't live >Country? They do that here in Atlanta. in public, with the innovent bystander >/victim lying on the ground, pleading not to be shot.. Sorry, we've got some real rednecks here, too. :^) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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? 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." -- David Pletcher -- ** ignore below this line -- automatically appended keywords ** kiddie-*** nuclear terrorist AK-47 *** PCP ammonium nitrate

: 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.

: 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." 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. --------------------

Quoted text (8 lines)

>While I'm all for increased speed limits in some areas, it's important to >consider two things: First, regardless of driving ability, there are many >motor vehicles which simply are not safe at these speeds. Even if we >exclude vehicles not capable of maintaining 80mph (like my trusty old VW >Bus, may it rest in peace.), ridiculously lax (or nonexistent in some >places) motor vehicle inspections mean that many vehicles aren't safe at >normal city speeds, much less 80mph. IMHO, we need a STRICT motor vehicle >inspection.

(SNIP) 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

Quoted text (13 lines)

>: > >: >And just because you disagree with a law does not give you the right >: >to break it. >: 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.

What, and civil rights marchers thought they deserved to be throw in prison? What a stupid position. Of course I will be forced to pay the penalty if I am caught breaking some worthless law, committing a victimless "crime". But I won't welcome punishment for my "wrongdoing", just as civil liberties advocates like Gary Kiczenski (sp?) and the other members of Three Hawk Stand used their day in court to fight charges stemming from their symbolic protest of laws against hemp cultivation (and the jury let them off, in a grand display of jury nullification.) 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

: : : > : : : >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? : : : 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. But what I was stating about the Georgia law is not directed at cops. It's directed at the state government who has decided that if any of their vehicles cause an accident (like maybe a MARTA bus), they don't have to pay if they don't want to. 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

Quoted text (11 lines)

>>***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.

I killed my first reply cause it was a flame. Lemme put it this way, you are being hoplessly naive. 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 | !\...____/~~~~~\_____..___---.|,/ | [link lost in import: /|] ! / |~~|__..-` 0 |_________________________| < | " I believe it's time for (o) me to fly..." - REO Speedwagon

: : > : : >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? : : 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

says... >>***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

Quoted text (13 lines)

>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

Quoted text (29 lines)

>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 ass? Get real bub! I suppose you never had these cynical ***s for your relatives. I have. And let me tell you something, they all skirt the law themselves, setting up their "sacred brotherhood" to the point they are rarely convicted or even charged with crimes that they DO in fact commit. One of these relatives of mine took possession of an M-14 automatic rifle shipped in from Vietnam back in the late 60's via his brother. BATF showed up, and offered him a deal, "quit the force, and he would not go to jail". Everytime I have been stopped by a highway patrolman in California, they HAVE ALWAYS TREATED ME LIKE SHIT. And you wonder why folks want to kick their asses? Now tell me something, do you think they would be as kind to you or me? NO WAY. You live in a utopian fantasy world if you think they are mostly good folks. That's just plain crap. The truth of the matter is this: it's just another government "good Ol' boy" program, with occassional merits for doing what they are paid to do. CATCH THE REAL CRIMINALS, not Joe Blow that creeps up to 62 in a 55 zone, or sucking down donuts at the local coffee shop swapping stories on how they nailed some poor slob for (shudder) breaking a speed limit. Ooooh, I feel real safe when they do that. Shit, I can protect myself, and I know what is safe when driving. The problem with cops is the same thing that is wrong with bureaucrats. They think the world will fall apart without them. Wrong. We could do without the highway patrol instantly. They are nothing but a bunch of tax collectors with guns. I have absolutely no respect for cops that get their rocks off on harrassing folks for some arbitrary bullshit reason like 7 mph over the speed limit. And bub, as long as you keep kissing their ass like that, they will continue to keep on truckin' just like they always have. Dave> >-- >___________________________________ >Paul Mahler

It happened in Jersey a year ago...The Deputy DA and a cop decided to spend the afternoon in the local bar. 9 that night after a little rain and Ice they drove headon into a stationwagon with a school teacher and three kids inside. Both the DA and the cop are dead. The school teacher and a child are dead. All this while on the City payroll, and in a City owned Caprice. If they are exempt from the rules than we all should be. Do as I say, not as I do... First Reports in the paper were that locaL Heros die in car crash.Then when the *** tests were back from the lab..guess who was drunk? Absolute power corrupts absolutely

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!"

Quoted text (12 lines)

>>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*. (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 | . !\...____/~~~~~\_____..___---.|,/ | [link lost in import: /|] . ! / |~~|__..-` 0 |_________________________| . < | " I believe it's time for . (o) me to fly..." - REO Speedwagon . . . .

Quoted text (16 lines)

>: 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.

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/

>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 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!)

>>: > >>: >And just because you disagree with a law does not give you the right >>: >to break it. >>: Those who whiningly repeat that same assertion all the time, that we >>: have no right to disobey bad laws, are contemptible cowards, of the This thread does not belong in rec.autos.antique. Please direct your followups elsewhere.

>: : : > >: : : >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 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

> Female cops are the worst and I this is based on my experience and it > is a fact, whether the women like it or not. Talk about *** harassment. 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

} }: >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. 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. 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."

>I also had a bad opinion about female cops. When I was in college, >they had a female security officer (most rent-a-cops already have >bad attitudes to begin with) who tried to act so tough. 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. --

: >safetycrats. IMNSHO, we definately DO NOT need STRICT motor vehicle : >inspection. You also mentioned that we should have more rigorous driver : >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. : 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!

: : . : .: 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 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 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!

: } : }: >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. : 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, --------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------

: >I also had a bad opinion about female cops. When I was in college, : >they had a female security officer (most rent-a-cops already have : >bad attitudes to begin with) who tried to act so tough. : 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.

Quoted text (7 lines)

>>Sorry, but your desire to go 100 mph has nothing to do with morality! >Nor does your desire that people not drive 100 mph... >-JPC >--

i may have missed it, and i am sorry if i did....but i don't recall anyone saying that there should not be a speed limit of 100mph, where it is safe. 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

But a law condoning insurance company ripoffs and tax collection under the guise of breaking a 'law' is?? Wake up.

While I hate the speed limit laws, I have to agree with Lloyd here. Stupid and useless yes, evil, no. Tigress -- |\ _,,,---,,_ /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ Tigress '---''(_/--' `-'\_) Cat drawn by Felix Lee

Quoted text (7 lines)

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

it doesn't belong in any of these groups.... -- FAX: (606) 323-1978 Sr. Systems Prog. University of Kentucky Computing Center, Lexington, Ky.

(SNIP) Not neccessarily. The danger is in not keeping with the flow of traffic by either going too fast or too slow. The speed limits for the interstate and interstate-like highways around here (Denver, CO) are set at 55; outside of urban areas it is 65. Thanks to the recent and large influx of Californians (actually, I don't mind this particular driving habit, 8-)), going the speed limit is actually MORE dangerous than going with the traffic flow, about 10 to 20 mph faster. I agree. Let's get the speed limits to reflect the actual speeds being driven. Mark Brauer Crunched 1973 SAAB Sonett III

(BIG SNIP) Yeah! Let's start filling our already crowded prisons with people who don't have car insurance! Those are REAL criminals! Mark Brauer Crunched 1973 SAAB Sonett III

>>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! >Yeah! Let's start filling our already crowded prisons with people who >don't have car insurance! Those are REAL criminals! Last year I was hit by an uninsured driver. My insurance was around $3000 short of the actual repair cost for my car. Because _his_ only income is federal aid, I have no monetary recourse. My face was also nicely rearranged by my steering wheel, resulting in two dozen stitches to put my lip back together and several weeks of excruciating pain. Had he stolen $3000 in cash from me, that's grand theft. Had he physically beaten me with his fist, that's ***. Both punishable by jail time. Because he used a car, it's a suspended license. You show me where the justice is in that. Then you can tell me driving without insurance isn't criminal. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Frank Filipanits Jr. "Show me kindness, show me beauty, show me truth..." Audio DSP Engineer '68 Mustang BS EE Caltech [link lost in import: /~franko] '68 Charger MS MuE U. Miami -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Frank Filipanits Jr. "Show me kindness, show me beauty, show me truth..." Audio DSP Engineer '68 Mustang BS EE Caltech [link lost in import: /~franko] '68 Charger MS MuE U. Miami

> >Sorry, it's not. Evil laws are ones like segregation and slavery. To > >suggest a speed limit law is evil is ludicrous! > While I hate the speed limit laws, I have to agree with Lloyd here. > Stupid and useless yes, evil, no. Depends where you live, we used to have fines that *started* at $350, I'd call that pretty evil. How about $512 for no front plate, $89-Jaywalking.

No need to fill anything up with criminals. A $.50 bullet will do nicely!

}>>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! } }>Yeah! Let's start filling our already crowded prisons with people who }>don't have car insurance! Those are REAL criminals! }Last year I was hit by an uninsured driver. }My insurance was around $3000 short of the actual repair cost for my car. }Because _his_ only income is federal aid, I have no monetary recourse. }My face was also nicely rearranged by my steering wheel, resulting in }two dozen stitches to put my lip back together and several weeks of }excruciating pain. }Had he stolen $3000 in cash from me, that's grand theft. }Had he physically beaten me with his fist, that's ***. }Both punishable by jail time. }Because he used a car, it's a suspended license. Because it was negligence and not willful misconduct, it wasn't a criminal offense and there's no jail time. Had he deliberately hit you with his car, it would have been *** with a deadly weapon and he could have gone to jail. Even if he could afford to pay for the damage. There ain't no justice. With insurance costs being what they are, there can be no justice. When I drove uninsured, it was because I couldn't find a company willing to write me -- I was dumped into the ***ly expensive high-risk pool. Of course it is criminal. The state defines it as such. But when I was driving without insurance, I didn't hit anyone. Were I to hit someone now, most likely their repair bill would exceed my insurance limit ($5000). His bodily injury would not be in any way reduced because I have insurance. -- "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue."

Quoted text (13 lines)

>} >}: >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. >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.

In CA, only if you can identify the other driver, i.e. make him/her stop and give you the personal info without getting shot at first ;-) For a hit and run you need something else. Yes, there is no protection from irresponsible people. Therefore the 3 strikes law should apply to these people as well!! Idiots who don't behave needs to be put away for good, so decent citizens can enjoy the society :-) --

You are a ***ing idiot. What has breaking the speed limit got to do with endangering other people. Have you ever seen a section of road have the speed limit was changed? Say from 35 to 40. So yesterday when I was going 36 in the NOW posted 40, I was endangering somebody? Pull your head out buddy, there's a BIG difference between breaking the law and endangering people.

Then why have you been posting to it so many times. Go away.

Minor nitpick here: Unless you're talking about allowing supersonic flights over land, increased aircraft speeds -- particularly in a busy airport's traffic pattern -- tend to INCREASE aircraft safety, not decrease it. One of the things air traffic controllers do when an airport starts to get a lot of air traffic is to ask the pilots to fly faster, thus freeing up slots in the pattern for inbound traffic more quickly. Currently, there is a 250 knot "speed limit" in the traffic area around any airport. Allowing air traffic controllers to ask jets to fly at 300 knots in such areas would increase their safety margin. -- -------------+---- I'm not flying fast, just orbiting low ------------------- MSTie #38808 | Quick-N-Dirty Aviation | "Trading altitude for airspeed since 1992"

> 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? The OPEC oil embargo of 1973 was very, very real. (Of course, when OPEC *lifted* the embargo and U.S. gasoline prices *stayed* high, that's another story.) -- -------------+---- I'm not flying fast, just orbiting low ------------------- MSTie #38808 | Quick-N-Dirty Aviation | "Trading altitude for airspeed since 1992"

: >: : 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. You wake up. Insurance companies can raise your rate if they don't like what you eat for breakfast! And if you object to paying them and the local gov't extra money, there's a simple solution -- don't break the law! (Or use a little intelligence and don't get caught.)

. .. .. 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? . .The OPEC oil embargo of 1973 was very, very real. Not to the extent which it was used as a level to raise prices. Not when you come out of work one day and there are gas lines 15 deep that formed on the spur of the moment. . . .(Of course, when OPEC *lifted* the embargo and U.S. gasoline prices .*stayed* high, that's another story.) It was actually a huge part of the same story. OPEC is not the world's only producer of oil- at that time- the USSR was just as big. In fact, a seldom-reported fact was that the Reagan administration successfully lobbied OPEC to change their oil prices, undercutting those of the USSR. For every $1 decrease in the price of barrel of oil, the USSR to approximately a $1 billion dollar hit. . . .-- .-------------+--- I'm not flying fast, just orbiting low ------------------- .MSTie #38808 | Quick-N-Dirty Aviation . | "Trading altitude for airspeed since 1992"

: }>>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! : } : }>Yeah! Let's start filling our already crowded prisons with people who : }>don't have car insurance! Those are REAL criminals! : }Last year I was hit by an uninsured driver. : }My insurance was around $3000 short of the actual repair cost for my car. : }Because _his_ only income is federal aid, I have no monetary recourse. : }My face was also nicely rearranged by my steering wheel, resulting in : }two dozen stitches to put my lip back together and several weeks of : }excruciating pain. : }Had he stolen $3000 in cash from me, that's grand theft. : }Had he physically beaten me with his fist, that's ***. : }Both punishable by jail time. : }Because he used a car, it's a suspended license. : Because it was negligence and not willful misconduct, it wasn't a : criminal offense and there's no jail time. Had he deliberately hit : you with his car, it would have been *** with a deadly weapon and : he could have gone to jail. Even if he could afford to pay for the damage. : }You show me where the justice is in that. : There ain't no justice. With insurance costs being what they are, there : can be no justice. When I drove uninsured, it was because I couldn't : find a company willing to write me -- I was dumped into the ***ly : expensive high-risk pool. : }Then you can tell me driving without insurance isn't criminal. : Of course it is criminal. The state defines it as such. But when I : was driving without insurance, I didn't hit anyone. Were I to hit : someone now, most likely their repair bill would exceed my insurance : limit ($5000). His bodily injury would not be in any way reduced : because I have insurance. : -- : "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit : of justice is no virtue." And do you have resources to make up the difference? If not, why are you driving? It is the height of irresponsibility to drive around without the means to take car of any accidents you cause.

: > > : > >Sorry, it's not. Evil laws are ones like segregation and slavery. To : > >suggest a speed limit law is evil is ludicrous! : > : > While I hate the speed limit laws, I have to agree with Lloyd here. : > Stupid and useless yes, evil, no. : Depends where you live, we used to have fines that *started* at $350, I'd : call that pretty evil. How about $512 for no front plate, $89-Jaywalking. And you're equating that with slavery or segregation? Or the laws regarding Jews in Nazi Germany? Do you have any idea what "evil" means? It doesn't mean your pocketbook is lighter for breaking a law! It means loss of human rights or your life.

: (BIG SNIP) : >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! : Yeah! Let's start filling our already crowded prisons with people who : don't have car insurance! Those are REAL criminals! : Mark Brauer Crunched 1973 SAAB Sonett III They are. If you hit me and don't have insurance, who pays for my damage and injuries? I do. Either directly if I don't have uninsured motorist insurance, or indirectly if I do. People who can't take responsibility for their potential actions should not be allowed to drive. Simple.

Quoted text (12 lines)

> : > >Sorry, it's not. Evil laws are ones like segregation and slavery. To > : > >suggest a speed limit law is evil is ludicrous! > : > While I hate the speed limit laws, I have to agree with Lloyd here. > : > Stupid and useless yes, evil, no. > : Depends where you live, we used to have fines that *started* at $350, I'd > : call that pretty evil. How about $512 for no front plate, $89-Jaywalking. > And you're equating that with slavery or segregation? Or the laws > regarding Jews in Nazi Germany? Do you have any idea what "evil" means? > It doesn't mean your pocketbook is lighter for breaking a law! It means > loss of human rights or your life.

Lets see here $512, thats more than a months rent, I call that pretty evil. But, hey, I could always plead down to possession of a controlled substance(less than an ounce), it's only $250. So, your a guy whos married and 2 kids busting his ***to make that *massive* $8.00 and hour. Some***head city runs speedtraps and soaks this guy for $500. He now must work a *minimum* of 62.5 Hrs because I'm using $8 before taxes. This guy is a slave of the damn city. $50 is reasonable, $150 is not. Outrageous fines are evil.

It seems this sad tale only goes to prove my point that compulsory insurance laws should be abolished. Obviously, it didn't help you. It makes everyone pay more, and bumps those on the edge of affordability into being uninsured, and criminals. Mark Brauer Crunched 1973 SAAB Sonett III (The ultimate snow car, but where's the snow?)

. .. : . .Sorry, it's not. Evil laws are ones like segregation and slavery. To .. : . .suggest a speed limit law is evil is ludicrous! .. : . While I hate the speed limit laws, I have to agree with Lloyd here. .. : . Stupid and useless yes, evil, no. .. .. : Depends where you live, we used to have fines that *started* at $350, I'd .. : call that pretty evil. How about $512 for no front plate, $89-Jaywalking. .. .. And you're equating that with slavery or segregation? Or the laws .. regarding Jews in Nazi Germany? Do you have any idea what "evil" means? .. It doesn't mean your pocketbook is lighter for breaking a law! It means .. loss of human rights or your life. . .Lets see here $512, thats more than a months rent, I call that pretty evil. .But, hey, I could always plead down to possession of a controlled .substance(less than an ounce), it's only $250. So, your a guy whos .married and 2 kids busting his ***to make that *massive* $8.00 and .hour. Some***head city runs speedtraps and soaks this guy for $500. He .now must work a *minimum* of 62.5 Hrs because I'm using $8 before taxes. .This guy is a slave of the damn city. $50 is reasonable, $150 is not. .Outrageous fines are evil. No- they're designed to be a disincentive and they've been around more than long enough for everyone to know they exist. The guy who is married and making $8 an hour is already a dummy to try and raise 2 kids on THAT salary. He's a***head if he piles speeding tickets on top of it. Too bad the "damn city" forced him to speed. Bill Edison

> >>Sorry, but your desire to go 100 mph has nothing to do with morality! > > > >Nor does your desire that people not drive 100 mph... > if not... etc. etc. etc... Continue to insert quote after quote after quote just to make sure it's sunk in... > > > > <Er... snip!!!> Nothing personal to anyone here who's contributed to this drawn-out discussion, but I seem to remember a lot of people getting agitated about these crazy crosspostings before Christmas time... Er, I see it's still going on then. I mean, you'd think these spewing cross-posters would have been mail-bombed off this _simulators_ newsgroup weeks ago... what went wrong??? - cooler --

OK, this is a totally anoying thread. I keep seeing it and seeing it, so I finally read it. Titaled "Cops that Tailgate" posted in the "rec.autos.4x4" newsgroup and I read 21 POSTS!!!! Not one mentioned cops tailgating that I saw, and with the possable exception of one guy talking about driving off a cliff at 100 miles an hour, I didn't see any off road merit to the whole thing. Isn't there an alt.auto.insurance thread you can take this discussion that I find absoutly as exciting as "what day as trash day at your house" to? If there isn't a alt.auto.insurance group, this thread sure is an indication there should be, I doesn't belong here in my opinion.

>Please check your posting.. We really don't give a *** about this >subject in rec.autos.simulators And it's been spamed to us enough!!!! speaking of spamming, stop posting the same message over and over, dumdum.

Quoted text (8 lines)

>>Nice to see that all these folks who are too poor to afford insurance can >>all afford internet service providers. >An ISP costs somewhere around $10-$30/month (depending where you are, the >amount of competition in the area, type of account, etc). Insurance costs >$200/month or even more for some people. You get your money's worth for the >ISP, while many people have never collected a dime on their insurance. And >if they ever *did* get their money's worth from their insurance, they'd >either be dropped or see their rates raise even more.

Hear! Hear! Insurance is a big scam if you ask me. The government requires that you have it, so it's basically a free for all for the insurance companies. If the companies had to convince us it was worth the money and then prove it via reasonable prices (the equivalent of a car payment for something we hope to never use is unreasonable), good service (competent claims handlers), and a product that does what it's supposed to do (pay for the damages without 2 years of hassles and lawyer fees) we'd all be better off. Of course, I've never been hit by a driver without insurance, so my perspective may be a bit naive. My mother, sister and fiancee, on the other hand, were all hit by insured drivers and still got screwed even after retaining attorneys to make sure they got a fair settlement.

Check again mandatory insurance in most states was inacted by conservative politicians on the urging ($$$) or their well heeled supporters who own interests in the insurance industry. Frankie V.

RG>Hear! Hear! Insurance is a big scam if you ask me. The government >requires that you have it, so it's basically a free for all for the >insurance companies. If the companies had to convince us it was worth >the money and then prove it via reasonable prices (the equivalent of a >car payment for something we hope to never use is unreasonable), good Is it? Scenario: you go left of center, hit a car, kill 2 people and injure a 3rd. You're responsible for funeral and hospital expenses. Now, if you're gonna end up with a million in expenses to pay, you've can't afford that. Now maybe $2500 a year (that's if your a bad driver, mine is $587 with 3 cars, 1 a '75 vette, and I'm only 18, driving 4 months <g>). --- * TLX v4.10 * Asphault = Proctologist's malpractice insurance --- * OLX 2.2 TD *

: >insurance requirement is a liberal/socialist plot : Check again mandatory insurance in most states was inacted by conservative : politicians on the urging ($$$) or their well heeled supporters who own : interests in the insurance industry. : Frankie V. If the conservatives as you say "inacted" mandatory insurance then I, as a proud conservative, applaud them. Really, what's wrong with enacting mandatory insurance? Would you rather be hit by some uninsured motorist? What does this really have to do with conservatives vs. liberals anyway? John Calabro

}: >insurance requirement is a liberal/socialist plot } }: Check again mandatory insurance in most states was inacted by conservative }: politicians on the urging ($$$) or their well heeled supporters who own }: interests in the insurance industry. } }: Frankie V. } }If the conservatives as you say "inacted" mandatory insurance then I, as }a proud conservative, applaud them. } }Really, what's wrong with enacting mandatory insurance? Would you rather }be hit by some uninsured motorist? What does this really have to do with }conservatives vs. liberals anyway? It raises the cost of insurance, of bodywork, of parts, etc. And doesn't solve the problem of uninsured motorists. (The local paper claims 25% of SE PA drivers are uninsured) -- "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue."

: }: >insurance requirement is a liberal/socialist plot : } : }: Check again mandatory insurance in most states was inacted by conservative : }: politicians on the urging ($$$) or their well heeled supporters who own : }: interests in the insurance industry. : } : }: Frankie V. : } : }If the conservatives as you say "inacted" mandatory insurance then I, as : }a proud conservative, applaud them. : } : }Really, what's wrong with enacting mandatory insurance? Would you rather : }be hit by some uninsured motorist? What does this really have to do with : }conservatives vs. liberals anyway? : It raises the cost of insurance, of bodywork, of parts, etc. And : doesn't solve the problem of uninsured motorists. (The local paper : claims 25% of SE PA drivers are uninsured) In high school, a friend of mine was hit by an uninsured driver. He promptly hired a lawyer and sued the state under the reasoning that it is their responsibility to enforce the law. He made a bundle. Otherwise, I think the mandatory insurance law is crap. The billing period in which it was enacted saw a massive increase in insurance premiums. Not 2 years later, I was hit by some drunk driver who figured he only had to sign up, then cancel every six months to get "the card" and thereby avoid any tickets/license suspension. Didn't help me very much (sued the bastard and he declared bankruptcy and claimed it was a white supremecy plot, alternately...) Corey "Done venting my spleen at stupid ***, no insurance drivers who wrecked my pride and joy" Cole