Appalling Police Action in Palo Alto

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.



..

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."

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?

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.

On Fri, 20 May 2005 15:16:01 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

snip of idiot remarks...
>> (the posted speed limit is 65).
>>
>> Nuff said!
>
>Yet the will of the people says something entirely different. Why are you
>not objecting to the fact that there is a obvious disconnected between
>law and the will of the people in this nation?
>
>Instead you support the control freaks, whom if they are able to create a
>law by hook or by crook, by saying everyone has to obey their will.

<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. What matters is the will of the people balanced by the
safety of others.

Here is where it gets tricky. Morons ( we all know who they are )
will argue that speed kills, when all intelligent people know this to
be false. However, there is a point where safety is affected. Thus
the laws need to balance that safety against the will of the people.

The end result is, as you implied, these particular laws are bogus,
because they are based on revenue collection instead of safety.

</devils advocate>

> 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/

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.

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

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).

> 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?