Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
 

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 23:43:47 -0900, Dave and Trudy wrote:

>>> Well, if I accidentally set it a little too high, the radar detector will
>>> still be helpful. So can you recommend anything?

>> If you "accidently set it a little too high", you're a ing moron and
>> deserve to get a ticket. Slow the down, asswipe, and keep yourself
>> and all of us safe.

> You obviously have an IQ in the single digits or else are deficient in the
> English language, if you can not express yourself without resorting to name
> calling and the use of profanities. So, in order for you to comprehend my
> meaning, stop wasting my bandwidth you ing moron. Stop the from
> posting meaningles, useless bullshit.

You don't think my post was accurate, and truthful? You think it's just
fine for idiots to go blasting down the highway endangering the rest of us
because they want to? Is that what you believe, you ignorant ?

off and die, dimwit.




--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".

Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
 

On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 06:00:55 -0800, jim beam wrote:

>> Not driving within the Posted Maximum Speed limit is not intelligent.

> around my neck of the woods, slowing down to the posted limit would
> cause a 50 vehicle pile-up

Bullshit. Poor attempt at rationalization.


--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".

Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
 

Dan C wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 06:00:55 -0800, jim beam wrote:
>
>>> Not driving within the Posted Maximum Speed limit is not intelligent.
>
>> 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.

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.

Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
 

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".

> 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.


--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".

Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
 

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

> But if you're driving properly--anonymously--and letting the rabbits run
> ahead, you get the warning from the cop hitting the idiots and losers
> who are happy to rabbit for you. Then you can safely slow down from
> 75-80 back to 65-70 before you go past that particular cop.
>
> This works whether the cop is using instant on or is running it full
> time.
>
> Speeding without tickets isn't just about a radar detector; it's a
> system. Please note that the above works only when you're doing it
> properly, in a pack. If you're out on the highway alone with little
> traffic, with nowhere to hide and no rabbits ahead, just slow down.
>

Perzactly! Well put.

Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
 

"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.

>> 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.

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.

Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
 

Seth wrote:

> 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.
>

I-80 NJ to OH, same story. Anyone at 65 is a rolling roadblock.

Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
 

"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.

Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
 

"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.

Re: Radar Detector Recomendation
 

"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.

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>.