|
Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message news:ZZidnR78Yuut8zHanZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... > > come to the san francisco bay area. 580 oakland is posted 55. if you go > much slower than 80 outside of rush hour, you'll cause an accident. it's 4 > lanes, bumper to bumper. rush hour is slower - about 35. 280 is posted > 65 and 80 is the rule. if you drive the 15 into las vegas from l.a. on a > friday night, that's posted 65 and prevailing is about 95. that's bumper > to bumper too. I'm sorry Jim, but someone obeying the law is not the one responsible (take note of that word) for causing the collision(s). The ones responsible for the collision(s) are the people who aren't willing to obey the law. |
Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
"Brian Smith" <Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote in
news:Ne5rj.18755$C61.3664@edtnps89: > > "Tegger" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in message > news:Xns9A3E50897EBB5tegger@207.14.116.130... >> >> Suppose the posted maximum was set for political reasons and is set >> too low? > > My living depends on my licence being perfectly clean. It has been > for > over twenty five years now, I'm not about to change the way I drive > because of any reasons, political or not. > > > Nobody said you had to change anything. And hey, my license is clean too! Now that the seat belt and speeding charges have finally aged off, that is. ;^) -- Tegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ |
Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
Brian Smith wrote:
> "Tegger" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in message > news:Xns9A3E50897EBB5tegger@207.14.116.130... >> Suppose the posted maximum was set for political reasons and is set too >> low? > > My living depends on my licence being perfectly clean. It has been for > over twenty five years now, I'm not about to change the way I drive because > of any reasons, political or not. What difference does it make why the limits were set? If the limits are bad limits, complain to you elected officials. Or become an elected official. Jeff |
Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
On 2/8/08 5:09 PM, in article ki5rj.18760$C61.16113@edtnps89, "Brian Smith" <Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote: > > "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message > news:ZZidnR78Yuut8zHanZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... >> >> come to the san francisco bay area. 580 oakland is posted 55. if you go >> much slower than 80 outside of rush hour, you'll cause an accident. it's 4 >> lanes, bumper to bumper. rush hour is slower - about 35. 280 is posted >> 65 and 80 is the rule. if you drive the 15 into las vegas from l.a. on a >> friday night, that's posted 65 and prevailing is about 95. that's bumper >> to bumper too. > > I'm sorry Jim, but someone obeying the law is not the one responsible > (take note of that word) for causing the collision(s). The ones responsible > for the collision(s) are the people who aren't willing to obey the law. > > I think I smell one of those guys who camp out in the passing lane self-righteously driving exactly the speed limit, forming a rolling roadblock for everyone behind them. Used to be a lot of that during the 55 mph days. Less now, but still a few left. Texas passed a "road-rage" law a few years ago that includes a $200 fine for camping out in the passing lane. Regardless of your speed, if you are passed on the right, you have committed the violation. The reason for this: in some cases the one driving the speed limit was the one responsible for causing the collision. |
Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
"Tegger" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in message news:Xns9A3EB9876A0A6tegger@207.14.116.130... > > Nobody said you had to change anything. I took it as being suggested. Sorry. > And hey, my license is clean too! Now that the seat belt and speeding > charges have finally aged off, that is. ;^) It's freshly cleaned <g>. |
Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:pv5rj.202$qV2.158@trnddc04... > > What difference does it make why the limits were set? If the limits are > bad limits, complain to you elected officials. Or become an elected > official. I have no complaints about the speed limits. I operate my vehicles within the limitations happily watching the morons flying by, and down the road ending up beside them at the next red light. |
Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
"Brian Smith" <Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote in message
news:ki5rj.18760$C61.16113@edtnps89... > > "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message > news:ZZidnR78Yuut8zHanZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... >> >> come to the san francisco bay area. 580 oakland is posted 55. if you go >> much slower than 80 outside of rush hour, you'll cause an accident. it's >> 4 lanes, bumper to bumper. rush hour is slower - about 35. 280 is >> posted 65 and 80 is the rule. if you drive the 15 into las vegas from >> l.a. on a friday night, that's posted 65 and prevailing is about 95. >> that's bumper to bumper too. > > I'm sorry Jim, but someone obeying the law is not the one responsible > (take note of that word) for causing the collision(s). The ones > responsible for the collision(s) are the people who aren't willing to obey > the law. When you're injured or worse, who care's who is responsible? Hurt is hurt. I'd rather not be hurt. If the prevailing speed is 7 over on a particular highway, I'll do 7 over. Righteous indignation won't cover my ass. |
Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
"Seth" <seth_lerman@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in
news:tw1rj.134605$rl3.76029@fe02.news.easynews.com : > "Dan C" <youmustbejoking@lan.invalid> wrote in message > news:pan.2008.02.08.15.38.38.486343@moria.lan... >> On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 06:58:54 -0800, jim beam wrote: >> >>>>> around my neck of the woods, slowing down to the posted limit >>>>> would cause a 50 vehicle pile-up >> >>>> Bullshit. Poor attempt at rationalization. >> >>> sorry dude, it's not bullshit. you're just so enraged in your >>> argument with dave, you're not thinking straight. >> >> Wrong. I'm not "enraged" about anything. You apparently are, which >> may explain your need to speed on the highways. It's called "road >> rage". > > Speeding is not road rage. Some people are quite calm at 10+ over the > limit. Speeding is speeding. Driving angry as a result of something > another driver did or you perceive they did, is road rage. "speeding" is usually just ignoring an arbitrary number painted on a road sign. No actual relation to road safety.In many urban areas,sticking to the speed limit actually makes things MORE unsafe.It causes traffic to bunch up.That's more unsafe than the "speeding". I suspect "Dan C." speeds too. ONE mph over the SL -IS- "speeding". > >>> come to the san francisco bay area. 580 oakland is posted 55. if >>> you go much slower than 80 outside of rush hour, you'll cause an >>> accident. it's 4 lanes, bumper to bumper. rush hour is slower - >>> about 35. 280 is posted 65 and 80 is the rule. if you drive the 15 >>> into las vegas from l.a. on a friday night, that's posted 65 and >>> prevailing is about 95. that's bumper to bumper too. >> >> More bullshit. I lived in Alameda for 6 years, and frequently went >> to S.F. I also go to Vegas at least 6-8 times a year, and that's >> just not the truth. Keep trying to rationalize your speeding, >> though. Even police speed,both on-duty and off-duty,even when not needed for work purposes. > > I can't speak to those roads, but I-80 in NJ, if you're not keeping up > with traffic you are causing a problem. > > Hairballs in the throat of traffic. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in news:pv5rj.202$qV2.158@trnddc04:
> Brian Smith wrote: >> "Tegger" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in message >> news:Xns9A3E50897EBB5tegger@207.14.116.130... >>> Suppose the posted maximum was set for political reasons and is set >>> too low? >> >> My living depends on my licence being perfectly clean. It has >> been for >> over twenty five years now, I'm not about to change the way I drive >> because of any reasons, political or not. > > What difference does it make why the limits were set? If the limits > are bad limits, complain to you elected officials. that's NAIVE at best. 55mph -used- to be the National Motor Speed Limit(NMSL);before that many highways were posted 70-75 mph. Were they "unsafe" before the 55 NMSL? No. And much later,speed limits got changed back to 65-70 mph in most non- Socialist states. Traffic deaths continued to decrease. BUT,the Unintended Consequence of the 55 NMSL was that LANE DISCIPLINE was lost forever. 55 NMSL brought about the self-rightous LLB,Left Lane Blocker,and passing on the right,necessary to get around LLBs. Look at Germany's Autobahn;they have lane discipline,and higher traffic speeds. > Or become an > elected official. > > Jeff > Who still doesn't have the authority to alter posted speed limits. Most SLs come from traffic "engineering" manuals. To deviate from them usually requires a legislative majority to vote to change them. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
Brian Smith wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message > news:ZZidnR78Yuut8zHanZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... >> come to the san francisco bay area. 580 oakland is posted 55. if you go >> much slower than 80 outside of rush hour, you'll cause an accident. it's 4 >> lanes, bumper to bumper. rush hour is slower - about 35. 280 is posted >> 65 and 80 is the rule. if you drive the 15 into las vegas from l.a. on a >> friday night, that's posted 65 and prevailing is about 95. that's bumper >> to bumper too. > > I'm sorry Jim, but someone obeying the law is not the one responsible > (take note of that word) for causing the collision(s). The ones responsible > for the collision(s) are the people who aren't willing to obey the law. > > there's a website just for people like you brian: sanctimoniousclaptrap.com |
Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
Dan C wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 06:58:54 -0800, jim beam wrote: > >>>> around my neck of the woods, slowing down to the posted limit would >>>> cause a 50 vehicle pile-up > >>> Bullshit. Poor attempt at rationalization. > >> sorry dude, it's not bullshit. you're just so enraged in your argument >> with dave, you're not thinking straight. > > Wrong. I'm not "enraged" about anything. You apparently are, which may > explain your need to speed on the highways. It's called "road rage". you're projecting there dan because what you describe is not what i'm experiencing. you might want to see a therapist about that. > >> come to the san francisco bay area. 580 oakland is posted 55. if you >> go much slower than 80 outside of rush hour, you'll cause an accident. >> it's 4 lanes, bumper to bumper. rush hour is slower - about 35. 280 is >> posted 65 and 80 is the rule. if you drive the 15 into las vegas from >> l.a. on a friday night, that's posted 65 and prevailing is about 95. >> that's bumper to bumper too. > > More bullshit. I lived in Alameda for 6 years, and frequently went to > S.F. dude, alameda is on the 880, not 580. you're lucky to ever reach 55 on 880, but if you do, you'd better be sure to keep up with the guys in front. > I also go to Vegas at least 6-8 times a year, and that's just not > the truth. Keep trying to rationalize your speeding, though. how odd - i drove down three weekends ago, and was barely keeping up with traffic at 95 on the 15 headed into town on the friday evening. do you think my speedometer was showing 40 over? can you check it for me please? |
Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
Brian Smith wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message > news:RJGdndSbq6ME_THanZ2dnUVZ_q3inZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... >> around my neck of the woods, slowing down to the posted limit would cause >> a 50 vehicle pile-up - and that's /really/ not intelligent. > > Not for the morons that won't obey the law, it isn't. see previous post. oh, and my grandmother has gotten multiple tickets for "not keeping up with prevailing traffic". guess what speed she drives... |
Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
Brian Smith wrote:
> "News" <News@Group.name> wrote in message > news:UMKdnR2ioPSU1jHanZ2dnUVZ_vvinZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... >> Not driving at the prevailing speed of surrounding traffic is dangerous. > > I agree, for the fools and idiots that can't or won't obey the law and > use common sense. > > how about the law that states you need to keep up with the prevailing speed of traffic? |
Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
Jim Yanik wrote:
> Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in news:pv5rj.202$qV2.158@trnddc04: > >> Brian Smith wrote: >>> "Tegger" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in message >>> news:Xns9A3E50897EBB5tegger@207.14.116.130... >>>> Suppose the posted maximum was set for political reasons and is set >>>> too low? >>> My living depends on my licence being perfectly clean. It has >>> been for >>> over twenty five years now, I'm not about to change the way I drive >>> because of any reasons, political or not. >> What difference does it make why the limits were set? If the limits >> are bad limits, complain to you elected officials. > > that's NAIVE at best. > 55mph -used- to be the National Motor Speed Limit(NMSL);before that many > highways were posted 70-75 mph. > Were they "unsafe" before the 55 NMSL? No. > And much later,speed limits got changed back to 65-70 mph in most non- > Socialist states. > Traffic deaths continued to decrease. > > BUT,the Unintended Consequence of the 55 NMSL was that LANE DISCIPLINE was > lost forever. 55 NMSL brought about the self-rightous LLB,Left Lane > Blocker,and passing on the right,necessary to get around LLBs. > > Look at Germany's Autobahn;they have lane discipline,and higher traffic > speeds. > >> Or become an >> elected official. >> >> Jeff >> > > Who still doesn't have the authority to alter posted speed limits. as i understand it, you can post lower limits, not higher. > Most SLs come from traffic "engineering" manuals. > To deviate from them usually requires a legislative majority to vote to > change them. > > |
Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
jim beam wrote:
> Brian Smith wrote: >> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message >> news:ZZidnR78Yuut8zHanZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... >>> come to the san francisco bay area. 580 oakland is posted 55. if >>> you go much slower than 80 outside of rush hour, you'll cause an >>> accident. it's 4 lanes, bumper to bumper. rush hour is slower - >>> about 35. 280 is posted 65 and 80 is the rule. if you drive the 15 >>> into las vegas from l.a. on a friday night, that's posted 65 and >>> prevailing is about 95. that's bumper to bumper too. >> >> I'm sorry Jim, but someone obeying the law is not the one >> responsible (take note of that word) for causing the collision(s). The >> ones responsible for the collision(s) are the people who aren't >> willing to obey the law. >> > > there's a website just for people like you brian: sanctimoniousclaptrap.com I looked for the site. It doesn't exist. However, you're able to make it your own site, if you want. Jeff |
Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
jim beam wrote:
> Brian Smith wrote: >> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message >> news:RJGdndSbq6ME_THanZ2dnUVZ_q3inZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... >>> around my neck of the woods, slowing down to the posted limit would >>> cause a 50 vehicle pile-up - and that's /really/ not intelligent. >> >> Not for the morons that won't obey the law, it isn't. > > see previous post. oh, and my grandmother has gotten multiple tickets > for "not keeping up with prevailing traffic". guess what speed she > drives... Let's see the tickets where it says that. |
Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
jim beam wrote:
> Jim Yanik wrote: >> Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in news:pv5rj.202$qV2.158@trnddc04: >> >>> Brian Smith wrote: >>>> "Tegger" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in message >>>> news:Xns9A3E50897EBB5tegger@207.14.116.130... >>>>> Suppose the posted maximum was set for political reasons and is set >>>>> too low? >>>> My living depends on my licence being perfectly clean. It has >>>> been for over twenty five years now, I'm not about to change the >>>> way I drive >>>> because of any reasons, political or not. >>> What difference does it make why the limits were set? If the limits >>> are bad limits, complain to you elected officials. >> >> that's NAIVE at best. 55mph -used- to be the National Motor Speed >> Limit(NMSL);before that many highways were posted 70-75 mph. Were they >> "unsafe" before the 55 NMSL? No. And much later,speed limits got >> changed back to 65-70 mph in most non- >> Socialist states. What are the Socialist states? >> Traffic deaths continued to decrease. Traffic deaths decreased in large part because of cars that were able to protect their occupants better, as well as using safety equipment and decreasing drunk driving. >> BUT,the Unintended Consequence of the 55 NMSL was that LANE DISCIPLINE >> was lost forever. 55 NMSL brought about the self-rightous LLB,Left >> Lane Blocker,and passing on the right,necessary to get around LLBs. ROTFL. You should write to Dave Letterman. He can use it for his show. >> Look at Germany's Autobahn;they have lane discipline,and higher >> traffic speeds. >> >>> Or become an >>> elected official. >>> >>> Jeff >>> >> >> Who still doesn't have the authority to alter posted speed limits. > > as i understand it, you can post lower limits, not higher. That's because of laws, which are made legislators, who are elected officials. >> Most SLs come from traffic "engineering" manuals. >> To deviate from them usually requires a legislative majority to vote >> to change them. And who votes for the legislature? Jeff |
Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
"Brian Smith" <Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote in
news:nf5rj.18756$C61.13644@edtnps89: > > "News" <News@Group.name> wrote in message > news:UMKdnR2ioPSU1jHanZ2dnUVZ_vvinZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... >> >> Not driving at the prevailing speed of surrounding traffic is >> dangerous. Reworded: Driving at the prevailing speed of traffic is safe. This premise is abundantly supported by readily available evidence. > > I agree, for the fools and idiots that can't or won't obey the law > and use common sense. > Do you know Latin? Lex mala, lex nulla. Just because a bunch of guys got together and wrote some stuff down on a piece of paper does not mean they knew what they were doing. Are you a Weberian? Or a Prussian? You must be either, or both. -- Tegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ |
Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
"Brian Smith" <Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote in
news:r26rj.18782$C61.7449@edtnps89: > > "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:pv5rj.202$qV2.158@trnddc04... >> >> What difference does it make why the limits were set? If the limits >> are bad limits, complain to you elected officials. Or become an >> elected official. > > I have no complaints about the speed limits. I operate my vehicles > within the limitations happily watching the morons flying by, and down > the road ending up beside them at the next red light. > > You are aware that exessively low speed limits are associated with increased collisions due to inattention? -- Tegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ |
Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
Jeff wrote:
> jim beam wrote: >> Brian Smith wrote: >>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message >>> news:RJGdndSbq6ME_THanZ2dnUVZ_q3inZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... >>>> around my neck of the woods, slowing down to the posted limit would >>>> cause a 50 vehicle pile-up - and that's /really/ not intelligent. >>> >>> Not for the morons that won't obey the law, it isn't. >> >> see previous post. oh, and my grandmother has gotten multiple tickets >> for "not keeping up with prevailing traffic". guess what speed she >> drives... > > Let's see the tickets where it says that. she's 600 miles away and i don't get tickets like that, so forgive my laziness if i don't head on down there just because you can't be bothered to look up something simple like ca vehicle code 21654(a). now, you go ahead and tell me your state doesn't have an equivalent. |
Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
Jeff wrote:
> jim beam wrote: >> Brian Smith wrote: >>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message >>> news:ZZidnR78Yuut8zHanZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... >>>> come to the san francisco bay area. 580 oakland is posted 55. if >>>> you go much slower than 80 outside of rush hour, you'll cause an >>>> accident. it's 4 lanes, bumper to bumper. rush hour is slower - >>>> about 35. 280 is posted 65 and 80 is the rule. if you drive the 15 >>>> into las vegas from l.a. on a friday night, that's posted 65 and >>>> prevailing is about 95. that's bumper to bumper too. >>> >>> I'm sorry Jim, but someone obeying the law is not the one >>> responsible (take note of that word) for causing the collision(s). >>> The ones responsible for the collision(s) are the people who aren't >>> willing to obey the law. >>> >> >> there's a website just for people like you brian: >> sanctimoniousclaptrap.com > > I looked for the site. It doesn't exist. are you serious??? did you really do that??? > However, you're able to make it > your own site, if you want. > > Jeff jeff, you need help. |
Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
Tegger wrote:
> "Brian Smith" <Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote in > news:r26rj.18782$C61.7449@edtnps89: > >> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:pv5rj.202$qV2.158@trnddc04... >>> What difference does it make why the limits were set? If the limits >>> are bad limits, complain to you elected officials. Or become an >>> elected official. >> I have no complaints about the speed limits. I operate my vehicles >> within the limitations happily watching the morons flying by, and down >> the road ending up beside them at the next red light. >> >> > > > > > You are aware that exessively low speed limits are associated with > increased collisions due to inattention? > > http://www.cityofcalabasas.com/depar...ion-faq.html#3 |
Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote in
news:Xns9A3EC7093A7Fjyanikkuanet@64.209.0.85: > Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in > news:pv5rj.202$qV2.158@trnddc04: > >> Brian Smith wrote: >>> "Tegger" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in message >>> news:Xns9A3E50897EBB5tegger@207.14.116.130... >>>> Suppose the posted maximum was set for political reasons and is set >>>> too low? >>> >>> My living depends on my licence being perfectly clean. It has >>> been for >>> over twenty five years now, I'm not about to change the way I drive >>> because of any reasons, political or not. >> >> What difference does it make why the limits were set? If the limits >> are bad limits, complain to you elected officials. > > that's NAIVE at best. > 55mph -used- to be the National Motor Speed Limit(NMSL);before that > many highways were posted 70-75 mph. Or none at all. Remember those "RESUME SPEED" signs? > Were they "unsafe" before the 55 NMSL? No. Originally, nobody said they were. The primary impetus for the double-nickel was emissions, not "safety". "Safety" came later. Higher engine speeds tended to wreck early pelletized catalytic converters. Lower road speeds meant lower engine speeds, which also meant gentler exhaust pulses, leading to better cat life. Hence the national 55. It just so happened the cops discovered the new lower speed limits (which had largely been reduced from those that a given road had originally been designed for) meant an embarrassment of riches in "speeding" fines, since people tended to drive at speeds they felt safe at, which usually coincided with the speed the road was designed for. The police to this very day are the very biggest boosters of speed limits and enforcement. What was it Ross Perot used to say? "Follow the money!" -- Tegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ |
Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
Tegger <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in
news:Xns9A3EE5A7C7370tegger@207.14.116.130: > "Brian Smith" <Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote in > news:r26rj.18782$C61.7449@edtnps89: > >> >> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:pv5rj.202$qV2.158@trnddc04... >>> >>> What difference does it make why the limits were set? If the limits >>> are bad limits, complain to you elected officials. Or become an >>> elected official. >> >> I have no complaints about the speed limits. I operate my vehicles >> within the limitations happily watching the morons flying by, and down >> the road ending up beside them at the next red light. > > You are aware that exessively low speed limits are associated with > increased collisions due to inattention? > > far more dangerous is speed DIFFERENTIAL;those travelling significantly slower or faster than the majority of traffic. So,Mr.Brian Smith is likely creating a greater hazard than the "speeders". -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
Tegger wrote:
> Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote in > news:Xns9A3EC7093A7Fjyanikkuanet@64.209.0.85: > >> Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in >> news:pv5rj.202$qV2.158@trnddc04: >> >>> Brian Smith wrote: >>>> "Tegger" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in message >>>> news:Xns9A3E50897EBB5tegger@207.14.116.130... >>>>> Suppose the posted maximum was set for political reasons and is set >>>>> too low? >>>> My living depends on my licence being perfectly clean. It has >>>> been for >>>> over twenty five years now, I'm not about to change the way I drive >>>> because of any reasons, political or not. >>> What difference does it make why the limits were set? If the limits >>> are bad limits, complain to you elected officials. >> that's NAIVE at best. >> 55mph -used- to be the National Motor Speed Limit(NMSL);before that >> many highways were posted 70-75 mph. > > > > Or none at all. Remember those "RESUME SPEED" signs? > > > >> Were they "unsafe" before the 55 NMSL? No. > > > Originally, nobody said they were. > > The primary impetus for the double-nickel was emissions, not "safety". > "Safety" came later. > > Higher engine speeds tended to wreck early pelletized catalytic > converters. Lower road speeds meant lower engine speeds, which also > meant gentler exhaust pulses, leading to better cat life. Hence the > national 55. > > It just so happened the cops discovered the new lower speed limits > (which had largely been reduced from those that a given road had > originally been designed for) meant an embarrassment of riches in > "speeding" fines, since people tended to drive at speeds they felt safe > at, which usually coincided with the speed the road was designed for. > The police to this very day are the very biggest boosters of speed > limits and enforcement. i one time heard rumor to the effect that some speed cops used to get "commission" based on their "yield". i don't think that's the case now, but it sure would add zealotry to their work. > > What was it Ross Perot used to say? "Follow the money!" > > |
Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in
news:SuSdnSKySu3ZvzDanZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t: > Jeff wrote: >> jim beam wrote: >>> Brian Smith wrote: >>>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message >>>> news:RJGdndSbq6ME_THanZ2dnUVZ_q3inZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... >>>>> around my neck of the woods, slowing down to the posted limit would >>>>> cause a 50 vehicle pile-up - and that's /really/ not intelligent. >>>> >>>> Not for the morons that won't obey the law, it isn't. >>> >>> see previous post. oh, and my grandmother has gotten multiple tickets >>> for "not keeping up with prevailing traffic". guess what speed she >>> drives... >> >> Let's see the tickets where it says that. > > she's 600 miles away and i don't get tickets like that, so forgive my > laziness if i don't head on down there just because you can't be > bothered to look up something simple like ca vehicle code 21654(a). > > now, you go ahead and tell me your state doesn't have an equivalent. Florida tried to enact such an anti-LLB law and the stupid governor vetoed it. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
jim beam wrote:
> Jeff wrote: >> jim beam wrote: >>> Brian Smith wrote: >>>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message >>>> news:RJGdndSbq6ME_THanZ2dnUVZ_q3inZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... >>>>> around my neck of the woods, slowing down to the posted limit would >>>>> cause a 50 vehicle pile-up - and that's /really/ not intelligent. >>>> >>>> Not for the morons that won't obey the law, it isn't. >>> >>> see previous post. oh, and my grandmother has gotten multiple >>> tickets for "not keeping up with prevailing traffic". guess what >>> speed she drives... >> >> Let's see the tickets where it says that. > > she's 600 miles away and i don't get tickets like that, so forgive my > laziness if i don't head on down there just because you can't be > bothered to look up something simple like ca vehicle code 21654(a). > > now, you go ahead and tell me your state doesn't have an equivalent. The law: "21654. (a) Notwithstanding the prima facie speed limits, any vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall be driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway." <http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=21001-22000&file=21650-21664> As I read the law, it means that you have to drive on the right-hand side of the road if you're traveling more slowly than the prevailing or normal speed. It doesn't say you have to keep up if the normal speed is faster than the speed limit. Jeff |
Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
jim beam wrote:
> Jeff wrote: >> jim beam wrote: >>> Brian Smith wrote: >>>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message >>>> news:ZZidnR78Yuut8zHanZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... >>>>> come to the san francisco bay area. 580 oakland is posted 55. if >>>>> you go much slower than 80 outside of rush hour, you'll cause an >>>>> accident. it's 4 lanes, bumper to bumper. rush hour is slower - >>>>> about 35. 280 is posted 65 and 80 is the rule. if you drive the >>>>> 15 into las vegas from l.a. on a friday night, that's posted 65 and >>>>> prevailing is about 95. that's bumper to bumper too. >>>> >>>> I'm sorry Jim, but someone obeying the law is not the one >>>> responsible (take note of that word) for causing the collision(s). >>>> The ones responsible for the collision(s) are the people who aren't >>>> willing to obey the law. >>>> >>> >>> there's a website just for people like you brian: >>> sanctimoniousclaptrap.com >> >> I looked for the site. It doesn't exist. > > are you serious??? did you really do that??? > > >> However, you're able to make it your own site, if you want. >> >> Jeff > > jeff, you need help. Gee, it takes 2 sec. And you never know what people put there. Jeff |
Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
Jim Yanik wrote:
> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in > news:SuSdnSKySu3ZvzDanZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t: > >> Jeff wrote: >>> jim beam wrote: >>>> Brian Smith wrote: >>>>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message >>>>> news:RJGdndSbq6ME_THanZ2dnUVZ_q3inZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... >>>>>> around my neck of the woods, slowing down to the posted limit would >>>>>> cause a 50 vehicle pile-up - and that's /really/ not intelligent. >>>>> Not for the morons that won't obey the law, it isn't. >>>> see previous post. oh, and my grandmother has gotten multiple tickets >>>> for "not keeping up with prevailing traffic". guess what speed she >>>> drives... >>> Let's see the tickets where it says that. >> she's 600 miles away and i don't get tickets like that, so forgive my >> laziness if i don't head on down there just because you can't be >> bothered to look up something simple like ca vehicle code 21654(a). >> >> now, you go ahead and tell me your state doesn't have an equivalent. > > Florida tried to enact such an anti-LLB law and the stupid governor vetoed > it. > someone like our self-appointed internet speed cop contributed $5 to his reelection fund, on condition he did that. |
Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
Jeff wrote:
> jim beam wrote: >> Jeff wrote: >>> jim beam wrote: >>>> Brian Smith wrote: >>>>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message >>>>> news:RJGdndSbq6ME_THanZ2dnUVZ_q3inZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... >>>>>> around my neck of the woods, slowing down to the posted limit >>>>>> would cause a 50 vehicle pile-up - and that's /really/ not >>>>>> intelligent. >>>>> >>>>> Not for the morons that won't obey the law, it isn't. >>>> >>>> see previous post. oh, and my grandmother has gotten multiple >>>> tickets for "not keeping up with prevailing traffic". guess what >>>> speed she drives... >>> >>> Let's see the tickets where it says that. >> >> she's 600 miles away and i don't get tickets like that, so forgive my >> laziness if i don't head on down there just because you can't be >> bothered to look up something simple like ca vehicle code 21654(a). >> >> now, you go ahead and tell me your state doesn't have an equivalent. > > The law: > > "21654. (a) Notwithstanding the prima facie speed limits, any > vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal > speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall be > driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable > to the right-hand edge or curb, except when overtaking and passing > another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing > for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or > driveway." > > <http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=21001-22000&file=21650-21664> > > > As I read the law, it means that you have to drive on the right-hand > side of the road if you're traveling more slowly than the prevailing or > normal speed. It doesn't say you have to keep up if the normal speed is > faster than the speed limit. > > Jeff then you don't understand what you're reading. translated it means: "slugs keep right or you'll get a ticket for not keeping up, regardless of 'prima facie' posted limits." and my grandmother is multiple testimony to that. now you go ahead and figure out what prima facie speed limits mean. |
Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
Jeff wrote:
> jim beam wrote: >> Jeff wrote: >>> jim beam wrote: >>>> Brian Smith wrote: >>>>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message >>>>> news:ZZidnR78Yuut8zHanZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... >>>>>> come to the san francisco bay area. 580 oakland is posted 55. if >>>>>> you go much slower than 80 outside of rush hour, you'll cause an >>>>>> accident. it's 4 lanes, bumper to bumper. rush hour is slower - >>>>>> about 35. 280 is posted 65 and 80 is the rule. if you drive the >>>>>> 15 into las vegas from l.a. on a friday night, that's posted 65 >>>>>> and prevailing is about 95. that's bumper to bumper too. >>>>> >>>>> I'm sorry Jim, but someone obeying the law is not the one >>>>> responsible (take note of that word) for causing the collision(s). >>>>> The ones responsible for the collision(s) are the people who aren't >>>>> willing to obey the law. >>>>> >>>> >>>> there's a website just for people like you brian: >>>> sanctimoniousclaptrap.com >>> >>> I looked for the site. It doesn't exist. >> >> are you serious??? did you really do that??? >> >> >>> However, you're able to make it your own site, if you want. >>> >>> Jeff >> >> jeff, you need help. > > Gee, it takes 2 sec. And you never know what people put there. > > Jeff jeepers, you're the kind of guy that would get stuck all day with a milk carton that reads "open other end" on the bottom and "see other end for instructions" on the top. |
Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
Tegger wrote:
> Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote in > news:Xns9A3EC7093A7Fjyanikkuanet@64.209.0.85: > >> Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in >> news:pv5rj.202$qV2.158@trnddc04: >> >>> Brian Smith wrote: >>>> "Tegger" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in message >>>> news:Xns9A3E50897EBB5tegger@207.14.116.130... >>>>> Suppose the posted maximum was set for political reasons and is set >>>>> too low? >>>> My living depends on my licence being perfectly clean. It has >>>> been for >>>> over twenty five years now, I'm not about to change the way I drive >>>> because of any reasons, political or not. >>> What difference does it make why the limits were set? If the limits >>> are bad limits, complain to you elected officials. >> that's NAIVE at best. >> 55mph -used- to be the National Motor Speed Limit(NMSL);before that >> many highways were posted 70-75 mph. > > > > Or none at all. Remember those "RESUME SPEED" signs? > > > >> Were they "unsafe" before the 55 NMSL? No. > > > Originally, nobody said they were. > > The primary impetus for the double-nickel was emissions, not "safety". > "Safety" came later. > > Higher engine speeds tended to wreck early pelletized catalytic > converters. Lower road speeds meant lower engine speeds, which also > meant gentler exhaust pulses, leading to better cat life. Hence the > national 55. That's not it either. It was to save fuel during gas crisis of the '70s. Catalytic converters didn't become common until later, I think the early 80s, although I am not sure. I think unleaded gasoline was phased in during the '70s, but that was because the health hazards of lead. For a long time, you could get both unleaded and leaded fuel at the same pumps (but different hoses - the unleaded gasoline nozzle was thinner as was the hole the nozzle went into, so that you were unlikely to put leaded gasoline into cars that required unleaded gas for the converters). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law There is no longer a national speed law. > It just so happened the cops discovered the new lower speed limits > (which had largely been reduced from those that a given road had > originally been designed for) meant an embarrassment of riches in > "speeding" fines, since people tended to drive at speeds they felt safe > at, which usually coincided with the speed the road was designed for. > The police to this very day are the very biggest boosters of speed > limits and enforcement. Well they and rescue squads. > What was it Ross Perot used to say? "Follow the money!" |
Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 18:42:39 -0800, jim beam wrote:
>>> Not driving at the prevailing speed of surrounding traffic is dangerous. >> I agree, for the fools and idiots that can't or won't obey the law and >> use common sense. > how about the law that states you need to keep up with the prevailing > speed of traffic? That law is intended to keep folks from driving 40 on the interstate. It implies that you are to keep up, but without exceeding the speed limit. Have you no common sense? -- "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me". |
Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 18:41:05 -0800, jim beam wrote:
>>> come to the san francisco bay area. 580 oakland is posted 55. if you >>> go much slower than 80 outside of rush hour, you'll cause an accident. >>> it's 4 lanes, bumper to bumper. rush hour is slower - about 35. 280 is >>> posted 65 and 80 is the rule. if you drive the 15 into las vegas from >>> l.a. on a friday night, that's posted 65 and prevailing is about 95. >>> that's bumper to bumper too. >> More bullshit. I lived in Alameda for 6 years, and frequently went to >> S.F. > dude, alameda is on the 880, not 580. you're lucky to ever reach 55 on > 880, but if you do, you'd better be sure to keep up with the guys in front. Damn, you're dense. Do you think I lived in Alameda and never used the 580 in Oakland? Do you think I didn't use the 280? The 880? The 80? Get a clue, "dude". >> I also go to Vegas at least 6-8 times a year, and that's just not >> the truth. Keep trying to rationalize your speeding, though. > how odd - i drove down three weekends ago, and was barely keeping up > with traffic at 95 on the 15 headed into town on the friday evening. do > you think my speedometer was showing 40 over? can you check it for me > please? More bullshit. In fact that's an absolute lie. The traffic doesn't flow into town at 95. Just not true. Quit posting bullshit just to try and make your "argument" seem legitimate. You're a friggin liar, and a bad one, at that. FOAD. -- "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me". |
Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message news:pdWdnaPOO829jjDanZ2dnUVZ_u_inZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... > > how about the law that states you need to keep up with the prevailing > speed of traffic? There is no such law on the books here. Exceeding the posted limit is against the law, no exceptions. |
Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
"Tegger" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in message news:Xns9A3EE56B84FEAtegger@207.14.116.130... > > Reworded: > Driving at the prevailing speed of traffic is safe. But, if that traffic is exceeding the posted Maximum limit, that traffic is breaking the law. It's pretty straightforward. > This premise is abundantly supported by readily available evidence. None of which is applicable when looking at the regulations as stated in the MVA. > Do you know Latin? No, I don't. > Lex mala, lex nulla. ? > Just because a bunch of guys got together and wrote some stuff down on a > piece of paper does not mean they knew what they were doing. It's not only "a bunch of guys" putting the regulations into writing, it's people who know what they're doing showing othe rpeople (who obviously don't know what they're doing) how to drive and operate their vehicles safely with due regard for all the other motorists and pedestrians on the roads. > Are you a Weberian? Or a Prussian? You must be either, or both. A law abiding Canadian, thank you. {;^) With no moving violations since 1983, or incidents of any type for close to two million miles. |
Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
"Tegger" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in message news:Xns9A3EE5A7C7370tegger@207.14.116.130... > > You are aware that exessively low speed limits are associated with > increased collisions due to inattention? The collisions are caused by the people (they call themselves drivers, but are actually only people that hold on to the steering wheel and point and go) that are exceeding the posted limit while not paying attention to the task at hand. |
Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
"Seth" <seth_lerman@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message news:2l6rj.133581$ST4.126221@fe07.news.easynews.co m... > > When you're injured or worse, who care's who is responsible? Hurt is > hurt. I'd rather not be hurt. If the prevailing speed is 7 over on a > particular highway, I'll do 7 over. Righteous indignation won't cover my > ass. A suspended licence won't pay my bills. You drive your way and I'll keep my licence intact and productive. |
Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message news:pdWdnabOO80UjzDanZ2dnUVZ_u-unZ2d@speakeasy.net... > > there's a website just for people like you brian: > sanctimoniousclaptrap.com No doubt authored by you, Jim. |
Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message news:pdWdnaDOO81bjzDanZ2dnUVZ_u_inZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... > > see previous post. oh, and my grandmother has gotten multiple tickets for > "not keeping up with prevailing traffic". guess what speed she drives... I guess she needs to move to a place that encourages people to drive within the boundaries of the law. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:25 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands