Why are car commercials so dumb?

"Anthony Giorgianni" >
wrote in message news:XUVPd.36513$Th1.1952@bgtnsc04-


> If that's your position, then don't complain if a cop simply decides that
> he
> doesn't have to observe your rights and can take you away in the middle of
> the night simply because he wants to. If you feel it's okay to disobey the
> speed limit, don't complain if the government throws you in jail for
> posting
> your opinions here.
>
>
Speeding is hardly equivalent to being taken away in
the middle of the night. Wipe off your chin, the drool
is hanging in ropes.

Bernard

"Anthony Giorgianni" >
wrote in :

>
> "Arif Khokar" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Anthony Giorgianni wrote:
>>>
>> Driving over the posted limit is in no way "risking the foundation of
>> our free society."
>
> Maybe it doesn't risk the foundation of society. But when you break
> the speed limit, you're sending a message that law doesn't matter,
> that it's okay for people to disobey a law simply because they don't
> agree with it.


That is the reasoning behind "civil disobediance".
>
> If that's your position, then don't complain if a cop simply decides
> that he doesn't have to observe your rights and can take you away in
> the middle of the night simply because he wants to. If you feel it's
> okay to disobey the speed limit, don't complain if the government
> throws you in jail for posting your opinions here.

Ah,but the police and government are the citizens' employees.
They work for us. Not the other way around.

Interestingly,in today's "Politically Correct" climate,such opinion
censorship is becoming widespread.So much for "free speech".

>
> So many people have died to uphold the rule of the law in this
> country. Willingly disobeying the law without any sense of the civil
> implications I think is disrepecting the society in which you live and
> that protects you.

But we do have a good sense of the civil implications of speeding.
(the 85th percentile rule used by road engineers,ignored by politicos)

>
> The law is the most important thing we have. But it works only because
> we are as willing to be contrained by it as protected by it. It makes
> for a crummy society is the people say, "Well, it's okay for me to
> violate any law I don't like because I'm willing to pay the penalty."
> If we don't like the law, then we should try to change it.

And one way is "civil disobediance".

> If we think
> a law is illegal, we should challenge it. (By the way, fighting a
> speeding ticket is not the same as challenging the law.) And if you do
> try to change or challenge the law and are unsuccessful, that's just
> too bad. That's the price you pay for living in a free society, as
> contradictory as that may sound. In only the most extreme cases should
> techniques like civil disobedience be used.

Says who?

> And as I said, pushing
> your foot down on the accelerator when a cop isn't looking is hardly
> civil disobedience. It's just law breaking, and it disrepects the
> people who take seriously their civil obligations.
>

There's a lot of people like you who blindly obey everything.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Anthony Giorgianni wrote:
> "Arif Khokar" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Anthony Giorgianni wrote:
> >>
> > Driving over the posted limit is in no way "risking the foundation
of
> > our free society."
>
> Maybe it doesn't risk the foundation of society. But when you break
the
> speed limit, you're sending a message that law doesn't matter, that
it's
> okay for people to disobey a law simply because they don't agree with
it.
>
> If that's your position, then don't complain if a cop simply decides
that he
> doesn't have to observe your rights and can take you away in the
middle of
> the night simply because he wants to. If you feel it's okay to
disobey the
> speed limit, don't complain if the government throws you in jail for
posting
> your opinions here.
>
> So many people have died to uphold the rule of the law in this
country.
> Willingly disobeying the law without any sense of the civil
implications I
> think is disrepecting the society in which you live and that protects
you.
>
> The law is the most important thing we have. But it works only
because we
> are as willing to be contrained by it as protected by it. It makes
for a
> crummy society is the people say, "Well, it's okay for me to violate
any law
> I don't like because I'm willing to pay the penalty." If we don't
like the
> law, then we should try to change it. If we think a law is illegal,
we
> should challenge it. (By the way, fighting a speeding ticket is not
the same
> as challenging the law.) And if you do try to change or challenge the
law
> and are unsuccessful, that's just too bad. That's the price you pay
for
> living in a free society, as contradictory as that may sound. In only
the
> most extreme cases should techniques like civil disobedience be used.
And as
> I said, pushing your foot down on the accelerator when a cop isn't
looking
> is hardly civil disobedience. It's just law breaking, and it
disrepects the
> people who take seriously their civil obligations.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Anthony Giorgianni
>

I guess you were against the American revolution then. We should have
just shut up and paid the damn taxes.

nate

Anthony Giorgianni wrote:
> Greet reference John. I'm saving that.
>
> I don't remember those Subaru ads, and I certainly wouldn't have
known the
> name of the advertising agency. Safety sells much more today than it
did in
> those days ... but perhaps better with certain makes than others. It
is
> unfortunate if automakers cannot sell cars without appealing to that
fast,
> powerful and exciting image.

I disagree entirely. I think the *perception* of safety sells, not
safety itself. People are all hung up on driving a bigger vehicle than
their neighbors thinking that it will protect them better in the
(inevitable) event of a crash... a few who think a little deeper go
nuts over crumple zones, airbags, crash-test ratings etc... but very
few people seem to care about the things that really make a vehicle
safer, namely handling and performance, and even to a greater extent
the driver. If people honestly cared so much about safety, there'd be
Skip Barber and Bondurant franchises in every major city as people
would want to be the safest drivers they could be, and we'd see more
car ads touting slalom speeds and braking distances.

>
> I just saw an ad for some automaker (Ford maybe), I think, depicting
a
> motorcycle gang being afraid to stop at a diner because of all the
> automakers' trucks lined up outside. The announcer says: We don't
only make
> our trucks powerful, we make you powerful...or something like that. I
find
> that kind of advertising ludicrous and insulting, though I guess
people are
> dumb enough to buy it. Next time I run into a Hells Angels member,
I'll have
> to ask him how intimidated he is by Ford pickup truck owners. :O)
>

yeah, and the clear implication is that these trucks are "tough" i.e.
safe. But it's just a perception not a reality, unless the new trucks
are much better than last year's - remember the F-150 vs. Mini crash
test comparison? And of course it handles like a pickup truck.

nate

Anthony Giorgianni wrote:
> "Arif Khokar" > wrote:

> > Driving over the posted limit is in no way "risking the foundation
> > of our free society."

> Maybe it doesn't risk the foundation of society. But when you break
> the speed limit, you're sending a message that law doesn't matter,
> that it's okay for people to disobey a law simply because they don't
> agree with it.

Fortunately, what's legal is not always right and what's illegal is not
always wrong. Arbitrary laws without basis in fact or sound scientific
/ engineering principles are often meaningless. Government funded
studies, private studies, and ITE guidelines have shown that the best
speed limits are those that are "self enforcing." Just because some
influential member on a state legislative transportation committee or a
state governer is either ignorant of that fact or listening to
lobbyists who have a vested interest in not allowing speed limit
statutes to be updated to reflect what's actually happening on the
roads does not mean that everyone else has to continue obeying the
limit in the meantime.

Just look at the cases in Oregon where the DOT refuses to raise the
speed limits even when the legislature and governer support raising
them. Or the case in Illinois where the governer vetoes a law allowing
increased speed limits for trucks. Or the case in New York where they
want to continue studying the effects of raising the speed limit to 65
mph when there's so much data available from other states that have had
those limits for over a decade. Why does Indiana still have 55 mph
limits on some urban interstates when less than 15 percent of drivers
comply with the limit? Why are they contemplating raising the limit to
70 mph when the 85th percentile speed is closer to 75 mph?

It's clear that only a minority of drivers are even complying with the
speed limit in those states. Does that mean that drivers have no
recourse because some members of government do not want these laws to
pass? Do they have to drive 5, 10, 15, or even 20 mph slower than what
is safe from the driver's point of view? Can the government, who
licensed the drivers in the first place, arbitrarily say they don't
have the necessary competence to drive at speeds above the limit when
conditions warrant, but can also say that these same drivers are able
to determine a safe speed below the limit when conditions warrant?

Now, Anthony, tell me why, in a free society, are there laws that only
a minority support?

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Arif Khokar wrote:

> Why does Indiana still have 55 mph limits on some urban interstates when
> less than 15 percent of drivers comply with the limit? Why are they
> contemplating raising the limit to 70 mph when the 85th percentile speed
> is closer to 75 mph?

'Cause it guarantees they'll be able to say "You see? YOU SEE?! We raised
the limit and everyone still exceeds it. People will just add five or ten
to whatever they see on the sign." This, in turn, paves the way for fat
ticket revenues and insurance premium hikes and opens the door to speed
cameras to Do Something about the "speeding problem". Plenty moolah for
everyone who works for an Inc. or a .gov.

In article >,
Anthony Giorgianni > wrote:
>
>"Arif Khokar" > wrote in message
...
>> Anthony Giorgianni wrote:
>>>
>> Driving over the posted limit is in no way "risking the foundation of
>> our free society."
>
>Maybe it doesn't risk the foundation of society. But when you break the
>speed limit, you're sending a message that law doesn't matter, that it's
>okay for people to disobey a law simply because they don't agree with it.

And this is a problem how? I think I've said as much in so many words
-- though with a few caveats.

>If that's your position, then don't complain if a cop simply decides that he
>doesn't have to observe your rights and can take you away in the middle of
>the night simply because he wants to. If you feel it's okay to disobey the
>speed limit, don't complain if the government throws you in jail for posting
>your opinions here.

The situation is not symmetric, so merely turning it around that way
doesn't work.

>The law is the most important thing we have. But it works only because we
>are as willing to be contrained by it as protected by it. It makes for a
>crummy society is the people say, "Well, it's okay for me to violate any law
>I don't like because I'm willing to pay the penalty."

The crummy society was made when laws that tempt decent people -- that
is, those who aren't inclined to be criminals -- to say that were
passed. If decent people merely meekly acquiesced to every bad law
which the legislature passed, that would only encourage them to pass
even more.

>If we don't like the law, then we should try to change it.

The game's rigged. Those who like the crummy laws have a power vastly
disproportionate to their numbers. So we _can't_ change the law.

>as challenging the law.) And if you do try to change or challenge the law
>and are unsuccessful, that's just too bad. That's the price you pay for
>living in a free society, as contradictory as that may sound. In only the
>most extreme cases should techniques like civil disobedience be used.

Thoreau, who wrote the seminal essay on the technique, used it for a
small tax easily paid. But civil disobedience is an outmoded
technique; the system has adapted to it and it is no longer effective.

>And as
>I said, pushing your foot down on the accelerator when a cop isn't looking
>is hardly civil disobedience. It's just law breaking, and it disrepects the
>people who take seriously their civil obligations.

It IS law breaking, but even law breaking is a check on the power of
government.

"Anthony Giorgianni" >
wrote in message
...

> As far as Brent's LLB posting, I don't approve of LLBs at all. But all I
see
> in that post is two drivers getting into a macho road rage situation. I'm
> glad no one got hurt or killed. This is exactly what I mean by
> testosterone-induced driving. "Hey, I'm a big tough man. I'm don't like
you
> blocking my path. My friends on rec.autos driving reinforce my notion that
> LLB is a terrible thing and that I have a right, even an obligation to
teach
> you a lesson, which I can do because I'm a big tough man in a tough car
with
> lots of horsepower."

Good point. There are alot of ways with dealing with passing and
blocking cars without stepping on the gas peddle and trying to race
somebody, as if being first and driving fast was a right. I've been
working on this myself, as there is an intersection that is sometimes busy.
If I can't make the left turn lane, I turn right, do a U at the grocery
store entrance, then go straight across the intersection. Often, it doesn't
take that much more time than sitting in a traffic light.

One thing, though, that does annoy me: tailgaters. I tend to drive slow,
ie, I drive the speed limit. Comming home today, I found myself
accidentally going 35 mph in a 45 mph zone in the right hand lane. A Focus
was on my tail for miles, this woman could have passed me at any minute.
But she waited until I tried to turn into the left lane to prepare for a
left hand turn to try and pass me, so instead I quickly turned back into the
right lane, and she went around. People need to get it into their head: 3
seconds seperation. Not 1 car length. It's even worse when the tailgater
is riding in a big truck; that really will make your nervous if all you see
in a big radiator grill in the back window, it sort of reminds me of
something out of a "Jaws" movie of the quick camera shots with the big fish.
"I think we're gonna need a bigger car".

I had a close call, though, another time. I was trying to get into the
left lane, I was driving the speed limit, and there was a pickup a few car
lengths back in the "fast" lane (ie, left lane). I was signalling to move
to the left lane, but this idiot started accelerating faster, probably going
at least 20 mph over the speed limit. I find truck and SUV drivers are the
absolute worst for this behavior. Nobody has the right to "speed". Some
people hate "left lane blockers", but often it's just because they have a
lead foot.

"Motorhead Lawyer" > wrote in message
oups.com...turn.
>
> FWIW, VW used an almost identical pitch in showroom films in the early
> '70s when the Rabbit was introduced. Only it wasn't a ubiquitous
> minivan; it was a ubiquituous Cutlass Supreme.

I love the way my Volkswagen handles. I don't drive fast, but you can
really feel the driving. I can take turns in my neighborhood at 20-25 miles
per hour with no braking or some acceleration that I would have to use
braking with a big 80's land yacht or truck without experiencing significant
body roll or tire squeal.

Anthony Giorgianni wrote:
> Thanks for the response Scott. Very interesting.
>
> As I said, I think it is true that lots of people drive fast out of
a
> testosterone-induced sense of machismo

Gosh, you say that like it's a bad thing.
> (notice you don't have a lot of women
> here clamoring for the 85th percentile)

Yeah, it may be a sex-related thing, more of a boy thing. I have, of
course, known a few women who enjoyed driving fast, and a few men who
don't. All I know is, I've enjoyed the sensation of speed since I
rolled my first tricycle. It took me a few years to figure out that
the street is NO place for thrills. Understand the true risks of ALL
driving, and the thrill threshold can occur at a much lower speed...


> However, some people are
> not personally responsible and they are very impressionable,
especially kids
> who haven't experienced the unpredictable dangers you can encounter
while
> driving. I really don't want some inexperienced young driver deciding
it's
> okay to test the cornering limits of his VW while he's driving next
to me
> because a commercial gives him the idea this is permissible and a
cool and
> fun thing to do.

Agreed. But are young drivers (presumably over 18 at least, since
minors rarely get to choose a new car) really that impressionable?
What I mean is, aren't they going to drive fast or not, according to
their own nature, knowledge, choice? As with any other area of
responsibility in their lives?


> Similarly, I don't want drivers speeding pass me in snow with their
SUVs
> because the commercial makes SUVs look invincible and creates the
impression
> that it should be driven fast and wildly in snow.

Agreed. When I lived in the Great Lakes area, at least 4 out of 5 cars
stuck, rolled, or in the ditch after a blizzard were the SUV's, driven
by people who seem to overestimate the thing's abilities. (Duh.
"Better" is not "invincible" With 4wd, it's possible to lose traction
at both axles with the gas pedal, not just one.)


>There's a lot to be said
> for the personal responsibility of the automakers, too. And if they
are
> going to depict the SUV as invincible when it isn't, they should bear
some
> of the responsibility when someone with bad judgment takes their
commercial
> literally and crashes into me, despite the tiny type that says: Don't
drive
> in the stupid way we're driving.


Agreed. Their commercials, and the help of a corrupted NHTSA, have
helped to convince the public that SUV's are safer than cars when the
opposite is true.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see SUV's banned or anything. For
certain uses, they're ideal. I drive an early Toyota V6 4-Runner
myself, it's what I can afford, and I like it a lot, though I
understand and accept its limitations (16 mpg, top speed under 100mph,
not too quick off the line, doesn't tow for crap). As for family
sedans, most folks would probably be better off with a minivan or
wagon. Hell, I would be. My Kudos to Chrysler, who with the Magnum
and the Pacifica are at least trying to make such vehicles cool.