If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Paul, in addition to making your arguments here, why don't you start a
letter writing campaign or run for office on a platform of clearing up government? I mean if the government really is out there killing people, if it's really just using the speed limit as a way of raising money and aggravating the majority of drivers, you should easily get wide public support for changing things, if not by running yourself, by finding and supporting a candidate who will bring reform. Start at the local level and try working your way up. Change doesn't come easily. It often takes hard work. But people do vote in this country. They throw out the government all the time because they are unhappy with this or that. -- Regards, Anthony Giorgianni The return address for this post is fictitious. Please reply by posting back to the newsgroup. .. |
Ads |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Alan Baker wrote: > In article .com>, > "Furious George" > wrote: > > > > You mean the public facility that our tax dollars pay for and > > maintain? > > > Not the same thing at all. > > > > Yes exactly. The public paid for the roads so the public makes the > > rules. If you don't like the rules build your own road. > > So it would be okay with you if a new rule was passed where anyone who > spoke out against the government while standing on the sidewalk were > arrested and thrown in jail without trial. Excellent point. If the government did not have the authority to regulate the roads, then anyone could close the highway to protest the government (or any other thing they didn't like). > > Public makes the rules, right? > > -- > Alan Baker > Vancouver, British Columbia > "If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall > to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect > if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard." |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Anthony Giorgianni wrote:
> I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I ABSOLUTELY think the speed limit > should be set for the least capable. If you raise the limits to the levels > of the most capable, you're basically saying: "I know lots of people won't > actually be safe driving that fast, but let em crash and cause mayhem if > they're not smart enough to slow down. How do *you* know they won't be safe or will even choose a speed more appropriate to their vehicle capabilities and/or skill level? For instance, I have nowhere near the skill of the average race car driver, but I still am capable of choosing a reasonable speed to drive on the interstate (which is around 80 to 85 mph) and not come even close to crashing or losing control. In parking lots with lots of pedestrians and vehicles backing out of parking spaces, I don't drive more than 5 to 10 mph. Can you come up with an explanation as to why my judgement appears to be sound, but some other random person's judgement isn't? How are you able to make that assumption and know that you are correct? |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
> Sorry, you may have the right to use the roads on foot/using a bicycle That's not the case on most interstate highways. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
> Why stop there? Let's limit the kinds of cars you can buy to only
> those affordable by the poorest people. Go trade in your Lexus for > that Kia right now! I don't think that's a good analogy. Buying a car is not a safety issue. But driving rules ARE a safety issue. -- Regards, Anthony Giorgianni The return address for this post is fictitious. Please reply by posting back to the newsgroup. "Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message ... > On Sat, 21 May 2005 16:41:10 GMT, "Anthony Giorgianni" > > wrote: > > >I ABSOLUTELY think the speed limit should be set for the least capable. > > > -- > Life is short - drive fast! > http://www.geocities.com/scottenaztlan/ |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 21 May 2005, Anthony Giorgianni wrote:
> I don't think there should be a referendum on speed limits. I simply am > questioning the argument that a large number of people driving faster > than the speed limit necessary means that a large number of people > support raising the speed limit. Oops, let's not put words in anyone's mouth. When the overwhelming majority of road users routinely and regularly travel at a consistent speed above the posted limit, it is a good indication the limit is too low. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Anthony Giorgianni wrote: > "Ashton Crusher" > wrote in message > ... > > > > So you view of the world is that we should ALL be held back to the > > level of the least capable among us. If we allow people on the road > > who are not capable of driving over 55 then we should ALL be limited > > to 55 eh? No thank you. > > > I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I ABSOLUTELY think the speed limit > should be set for the least capable. Thus proving you're an idiot, never bothered to look up the definition of the word LIMIT and have nothing meaningful to contribute to the conversation. Thanks so much for sharing, buh-bye. nate |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 21 May 2005, Anthony Giorgianni wrote:
> There should be a minimum requirement for getting a license, and the speed > limit and all the driving rules should be set so those minimally-qualified > people can drive safely without posing a danger to everyone else. Underposted limits force *everyone* on the road to choose between being compliant OR being safe. Properly-posted speed limits allow everyone the opportunity to be compliant *and* safe. It's really that simple. What's more, properly-posted speed limits don't increase actual road speeds, they just increase compliance. Those drivers unable or unwilling to drive with the prevailing traffic speed will continue to drive below it. Your argument here would be applicable if the topic were raising the MINIMUM allowable speeds. > It may be inconvenient for some, but so are accidents, injuries and > deaths. 85th-percentile freeway speed limits have been robustly shown -- for many decades and all over the world -- to minimize highway deaths, injuries and property damage. > I bet raising the speed limit on LI's Southern State Parkway from 55 to > 85 would have catastrophic consequences. 1) Do you understand the difference between the 85th percentile ("V85") and 85 mph? They are not the same. 2) What are the catastrophic consequences you bet would occur? > And the idea that we should let them go as fast as they want so we can > accommodate good drivers is just scary. It's a good thing nobody's proposing letting anyone go "as fast as they want". Please read and understand the positions being advocated before you disagree with them -- doing otherwise makes you look disingenuous (straw man). |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
> How do *you* know they won't be safe or will even choose a speed more
> appropriate to their vehicle capabilities and/or skill level? > For instance, I have nowhere near the skill of the average race car > driver, but I still am capable of choosing a reasonable speed to drive > on the interstate (which is around 80 to 85 mph) and not come even close > to crashing or losing control. In parking lots with lots of pedestrians > and vehicles backing out of parking spaces, I don't drive more than 5 to > 10 mph. I'm not sure what you are asking here. Are you suggesting that no one drives faster than their auto's capabilities or skill level? I'd say many people do. I certainly wouldn't make the assumption that if we raise the speed limit to 85, every inexperienced teenager will choose to drive slower than that, for example. I'd predict that many inexperienced teenagers - especially males - will in fact choose to drive faster than that. It's like a yellow-signed advisory speed around a sharp curve. Somebody who has been through a Skip Barber driving course may be capable of taking that curve at 50. But 50 would not be the speed I would put on that sign, especially if I determine that most drivers would wipe out at above 35. I might put 30 or 25 mph so that the LEAST experienced driver can safely make it around the curve. The idea of the roads is NOT to provide a fun park for people who want to drive fast, get thrills, test their hemi or prove their manhood. The idea is NOT EVEN to get us from point A to point B as quickly as possible. It is to get us to point A to point B as safely as practical, and that means that some drivers will have to accept being compelled to drive slower than their capabilities. And I don't think there is much political will in this country to change it, or it would have been changed. I suppose we could create many different roads with different speed limits and test drivers to see the fastest ones they are capable of using. Or maybe we can all take annaul test in a simulator and get a "speed rating" that would result in eletronic controls being put in our vehicles. But that doesn't sound practical to me. -- Regards, Anthony Giorgianni The return address for this post is fictitious. Please reply by posting back to the newsgroup. >> > Can you come up with an explanation as to why my judgement appears to be > sound, but some other random person's judgement isn't? How are you able > to make that assumption and know that you are correct? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
LIDAR Trial this Week | [email protected] | Driving | 17 | April 9th 06 02:44 AM |
Where to get Official Speed Limit Info | [email protected] | Driving | 40 | January 3rd 05 07:10 AM |
PATROL CAR CRASHES AFTER CHP PURSUIT IN PALO ALTO | Garth Almgren | Driving | 2 | December 24th 04 08:39 PM |