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.