Appalling Police Action in Palo Alto

> My question is why so many people think that everyone has to drive at
> the speed limit? Why aren't they free to drive 5 to 10 mph below it?
>
> If the speed limit was posted at 85 mph, then people who are capable of
> safely driving at that speed can drive legally. Those who can't are
> free to to legally drive slower.

That's a good point, Arif. But doesn't it assume that people know their
limitations? If the speed limit is 85, everyone is allowed to drive that
fast - even the teenager who doesn't realize he doesn't have the necessary
experience. True, he can drive slower, but will he?

I think many more people are capable of going 55 and 60 - especially on a
fast-moving crowded highway - than they are of going 85 or 90. But when you
raise limits, you raise them for everyone. I'm not sure even a majority of
drivers would support that, even if raising the limit might have little
effect on how fast people actually go.

So I wonder ... put to a referendum, I think a lot of people would vote yes
to the question: Should the speed limit be raised to 85 for you and other
good drivers, including all those who post on rec.autos.driving. But I'm not
sure they'd do the same if the question we Should the speed limit be
raised to 85 for everyone, including the 17-year-old who has had his license
for six months, the 95-year-old guy who doesn't want to admit that age is
taking a toll on his reflexes and the guy with bald tires who hasn't done a
stitch of maintenance on his car since 1967. I think I want the cop pulling
over those guys when they're going that fast.

--
Regards,
Anthony Giorgianni

The return address for this post is fictitious. Please reply by posting back
to the newsgroup.

"

On Sat, 21 May 2005 03:23:44 GMT, Anthony Giorgianni , said the following
in rec.autos.driving...

> The law must be different in Canada.
>
> In the U.S., there is no requirement that there be a victim for one to obey
> the law. Use of the roads as a driver is a matter of license in this
> country. A driver's obligations on the road goes beyond just safety. We have
> strong environmental requirements for vehicles, for example. In this
> country, driving an unregistered, uninsured vehicle may in fact be safe. But
> motorists face legal obligations in those areas nonetheless..

That explains why speeding carries civil penalties and not criminal
penalties. Just another way for government and the insurance industry to
rip-off the populace. And to think I used to wonder where the term
"highway robbery," came from. The police are highway robbery's most
experienced practicioners.

> But even more important, the US treasures its rule of law. Here, even
> presidents bow down to the law. Because of the rule of law, no one from the
> government can simply take us away in the middle of the night. It's what
> gives us our most basic protections. So for Americans, the duty to follow
> the law - whether on the roads or elsewhere - is not so much for safety or
> anything as it is to assure us that nobody ... not the president, the cop,
> the judge, the millionaire, the TV star, nor the biggest guy or the smallest
> guy can take away our basic freedoms. It's kind of ironic in a way - we see
> laws as limiting our freedoms while at the same time as guaranteeing our
> freedoms.

You live in a dreamland, don't you. Government can kill anyone of us
off anytime it wants. Just ask Vince Foster...

> The other ironic thing is that the judicial branch in this country doesn't
> have the guns or army or nuclear weapons of the executive branch. Its only
> power is derived from our willingness to accept the bang of the gavel, to
> accept the necessity that we acquiesce to the rules that we set for
> ourselves as a society, even though no one agrees with every one of them all
> of the time. And it's for one very good reason above all else: The law can't
> guarantee our freedom if we take the position that we don't have to abide by
> any rule we don't agree with. When a cop pulls us over for speeding, he is
> not only enforcing someone idea's of safety (or as some say here, raising
> revenue), he is, most important, saying that the respect for the law is the

The whole arguement about "raising revenue," is that speed limits are
*not* set with safety in mind. Hell, even our resident troll admitted it
once. They are set with the intention of making people driving with the
flow of traffic "speeders," so that they can be ticketed and robbed
legally by the government. Just look at the original post in this thread.
Traffic was safely moving at app. 75 to 80 MPH. The poor soul who was
robbed by the police was doing nothing "unsafe," based on the OP's
account of the situation. Now, the highwayman who darted out into traffic
the way the OP recounted, *that's* another story. If anyone was driving
unsafely and should be ticketed, it is that cop, not the motorist.

On Sat, 21 May 2005 03:46:41 GMT, "Anthony Giorgianni"
> wrote:

>> My question is why so many people think that everyone has to drive at
>> the speed limit? Why aren't they free to drive 5 to 10 mph below it?
>>
>> If the speed limit was posted at 85 mph, then people who are capable of
>> safely driving at that speed can drive legally. Those who can't are
>> free to to legally drive slower.
>
>That's a good point, Arif. But doesn't it assume that people know their
>limitations? If the speed limit is 85, everyone is allowed to drive that
>fast - even the teenager who doesn't realize he doesn't have the necessary
>experience. True, he can drive slower, but will he?
>
>I think many more people are capable of going 55 and 60 - especially on a
>fast-moving crowded highway - than they are of going 85 or 90. But when you
>raise limits, you raise them for everyone. I'm not sure even a majority of
>drivers would support that, even if raising the limit might have little
>effect on how fast people actually go.
>

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.


>So I wonder ... put to a referendum, I think a lot of people would vote yes
>to the question: Should the speed limit be raised to 85 for you and other
>good drivers, including all those who post on rec.autos.driving. But I'm not
>sure they'd do the same if the question we Should the speed limit be
>raised to 85 for everyone, including the 17-year-old who has had his license
>for six months, the 95-year-old guy who doesn't want to admit that age is
>taking a toll on his reflexes and the guy with bald tires who hasn't done a
>stitch of maintenance on his car since 1967. I think I want the cop pulling
>over those guys when they're going that fast.

How about this novel approach, do speed studies and set the speed to
the 85th percentile, a method that has worked well for decades.
Taking a "referendum" is surely one of the dumbest ways to set speed
limits just as it would be a dumb way to determine what colors to use
for warning signs - if the majority voted for black would you think
"well, that's what the majority wanted".

>Arif Khokar wrote:
>>My question is why so many people think that everyone has to drive at
>>the speed limit? Why aren't they free to drive 5 to 10 mph below it?
>>
>>If the speed limit was posted at 85 mph, then people who are capable of
>>safely driving at that speed can drive legally. Those who can't are
>>free to to legally drive slower.

Anthony Giorgianni wrote:
> That's a good point, Arif. But doesn't it assume that people know their
> limitations?

How would you know their limitations better than they do?

> If the speed limit is 85, everyone is allowed to drive that
> fast - even the teenager who doesn't realize he doesn't have the necessary
> experience. True, he can drive slower, but will he?

It's a confidence and experience issue. When I first started driving, I
was nervous about going over 60 mph. I didn't like driving on
interstates at that time either.

> I think many more people are capable of going 55 and 60 - especially on a
> fast-moving crowded highway - than they are of going 85 or 90.

Why is what you think any more valid than what other people think? How
would you know that the teen won't end up crashing at 60 mph, or will be
perfectly fine driving 75 mph? Most people know their limits. If they
didn't the chances of being in a crash would be much, much higher than
it is now.

> But when you
> raise limits, you raise them for everyone.

True, but why should people who are capable of more be limited to the
level of those who are below average?

> I'm not sure even a majority of
> drivers would support that, even if raising the limit might have little
> effect on how fast people actually go.

I'm sure the majority of people would when they realize that the
argument that one has to drive the speed limit and is not free to drive
below it is fallicious in nature.

> Should the speed limit be
> raised to 85 for everyone, including the 17-year-old who has had his license
> for six months, the 95-year-old guy who doesn't want to admit that age is
> taking a toll on his reflexes and the guy with bald tires who hasn't done a
> stitch of maintenance on his car since 1967. I think I want the cop pulling
> over those guys when they're going that fast.

The speed limit is supposed to represent an *upper bound*. That doesn't
mean that the slowest drivers will go 5 mph above it. If the majority
of drivers can safely drive at 85 mph, then that's what the speed limit
should be. Just because some below average senior citizen or teenager
can't handle it doesn't mean everyone else should be limited to their
skill level.

In article >, Anthony Giorgianni wrote:

> Is the fact that many or even most motorists are exceeding a given speed
> limit enough to conclude that they think the speed limit should be higher?
> I'm wondering if anyone has actually studied this or done a survey. I mean I
> think I can safety drive 80 mph, but I don't think everyone is capable of
> safely driving at 80 mph - especially not teenagers, maybe some elderly
> people with reduced abilities. So I wouldn't approve of raising the speed
> limit to 80 in many places where a lot of people drive that fast. I wonder
> if the majority of fast drivers feel the same way or if they generally think
> speed limits should be raised. Do you know if anyone has actually done a
> survey?

Upper bound limits shouldn't reflect the least capable. And I see a
survey everytime I'm driving.

In article >, Anthony Giorgianni wrote:

> That's a good point, Arif. But doesn't it assume that people know their
> limitations?

We shouldn't have a parental government and we have reckless driving laws
so cops can stop such people.

"DTJ" > wrote in message
...

> <devils advocate>
>
> Brent, you know that this is unfair. The will of the people is only a
> portion of what matters. If it were all that mattered, we would still
> have slavery.

<other devil's advocate>

If the above were true, wouldn't Douglass
have beaten Lincoln?

Bernard

Around 5/20/2005 7:06 PM, The Real Bev wrote:

> Do you know one single member of the public who wanted the speed limit to be
> 55?

Joan Claybrook, for one.

> How about 65?

Carl Taylor. (Or was it 70 for him? Either way, it was a classic case of
"not faster than me.")


--
~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie.
Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave.
******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant."
for secure mail info) --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

Scott en Aztlán wrote:

> There is now a law in AZ that requires speed limits to be set based on
> the 85th percentile rule. Arizonans can now vote with their gas pedals
> for what speed limit they prefer.

I thought the law failed to pass.

On Fri, 20 May 2005 19:45:37 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

>In article >, L Sternn wrote:
>
>> He was violating the law - cops are supposed to enforce it every once
>> in a while.
>
>Ticky tacky rules that define ordinary, reasonable behavior as illegal,
>sparsely and selectively enforced is not good for the respect of law or
>for the long term health of a nation.

Don't blame the cops, blame your legislators.
You do vote, don't you?

>
>> If you speed, you know you're taking a risk. The solution is to
>> manage that risk and if you wish to, work to raise or abolish speed
>> limits.
>
>People have been working towards those aims for decades.

Correction: people have been whining about it for decades.

> Most people have
>simply given up and just drive the speed they feel comfortable at.
>

Yeah, I don't have any problems doing 60 in a 40.

What's yours?

>> Whining on usenet accomplishes nothing.
>
>usenet is but one medium to get the word out.
>


LMAO