Appalling Police Action in Palo Alto

In article .com>,
says...

>
>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 tell me why the rules are not being followed when it comes to setting
the speed limit?
--------------
Alex

On Sat, 21 May 2005 16:41:10 GMT, "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. 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. We want to best drivers to be able to
>go as fast as they can."
>

If you somehow prevent people from ever driving fast, then you will
have a self-fulfilling prophecy, i.e., no one will be able to drive
fast safely because no one ever gets to drive fast and learn how.
Drivers don't hatch from an egg with a fully developed skill set, they
have to practice and learn.


> 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. It may be
>inconvenient for some, but so are accidents, injuries and deaths. I don't
>know where a lot of folks here drive, but where I drive (Connecticut and
>Long Island) I see lots of people barely making it the way things are now. I
>bet raising the speed limit on LI's Southern State Parkway from 55 to 85
>would have catastrophic consequences.

And I bet it would not. We've seen your kind of predictions made over
and over and over again by the anti-speed crowd and you know what? In
virtually every study there is no change in accidents when the speed
limits are raised to match the 85th percentile instead of some stupid
and arbitrary lower "safe" speed.


From what I see, I think most drivers
>are terrible drivers.

Well pardon me for my next statement, but my experience has been that
most people who think "most other drivers" are terrible are usually
terrible drivers themselves. I don't think most drivers are terrible,
I think only a small minority of drivers are terrible, a slightly
larger minority are rude and thoughtless, and the vast majority are
perfectly capable drivers who are not enthusiasts in anyway, they just
want to get from point A to point B without a lot of fuss and if you
don't bother them , they don't bother you.


>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 not to me. Your probably all for gun registration and/or control
and/or confiscation too I bet. In any event, there were a couple of
states that for years and years had NO SPEED LIMIT outside of cities
and towns. People got along just fine in those states, driving at safe
and comfortable speeds. Due to the heavy hand of the federal gvt,
those states were forced to impose speed limits of lose highway
dollars. But no one was made safer as a result.


>But the issue is not what I think. My question is the fact that many people
>drive fast evidence in and of itself that there is public support for
>raising the speed limit, as has been suggested here. In other words, I'm not
>sure it's correct to conclude that the public votes for higher speed limits
>every day by breaking current limits. I mean it MAY be the case. But it may
>equally be the case that the public would say "I want to drive this fast,
>but I don't want a lot other people driving this fast." I really would be
>interested in seeing any surveys on this (not that I think speed limits
>should be set by popular vote.)

"Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message
...
> In article <gZxke.3935$gl1.2588@trnddc09>,
> Bernard farquart > wrote:
>>
>>"Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message
...
>>> In article <amAje.293$4F1.162@trnddc06>,
>>> Bernard farquart > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>"DTJ" > wrote in message
m...
>>>>
>>>>> <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?
>>>
>>> He did.
>>
> [...]
>>
>>What am I missing?
>
> The famous Lincoln-Douglas debates weren't over the presidency; they
> were for US Senate; Douglas won. The presidential election was a
> four-way contest, with the Republicans on one side and their
> opposition divided against itself.
> --
Sorry, I noted the debates to answer what he was "for" and
noted the presidential election when I was noting that Lincoln
won, and perhaps the majority did not support slavery, (though that
was not the only issue, it was a large one.)
O.K.?

Bernard

> Let's assume you're right, and that everyone who violates the speed
> limit wants the speed limits to stay artificially low. It follows that
> every one of these drivers wants to receive speeding tickets, points
> on their license, and steep increases in their insurance premiums (or
> outright cancellation).
>
> Now, how likely do you suppose that is?
It's not a question of whether I'm right about anything. I'm asking if
anyone knows WHETHER there has been an actual poll I this. I frankly have
no idea either way what motorists would want to happen to speed limits. I
can envision a poll going either way.


--
Regards,
Anthony Giorgianni

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

So your definition of limit is the speed that some people will be capable of
handling but other won't?

A speed limit is

1) The top speed one is legally allowed to drive
2) A speed that is safe to drive by anyone meeting the qualifications as a
licensed driver.

65 means "It is safe to drive this road 65" not "It is safe to drive 65 if
you've taken and passed a course at Skip Barber racing school. If you feel
like you are wiping out at that speed, please choose a speed that is more
appropriate for you."


--
Regards,
Anthony Giorgianni

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




"N8N" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> 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
>

I don't think we need to require people to buy cars with five star crash
ratings. But we DO need to prohibit that sale of cars that can not be driven
safety by someone who meets the requirements to be a licensed driver of that
class of vehicle. In other words, by the very fact that a car is being
offered for sale means that it can be safety driven, just as a posting a
speed limit implies that that limit can be safety driven under normal
conditions.


Otherwise we should post numerous limits

96 for Nascar drivers
85 for Skip Barber graduates
75 for college graduates
55 for those convicted of breaking traffic laws within the last three years
40 for those who have been convicted of breaking traffic laws within the
last 30 days.
15 for those on rec.auto.driving who either don't feel the laws apply to
them and like driving for thrills.

That probably WOULD work. And we could issue different cover license plates
so that law enforcement would know into which category a driver falls.


--
Regards,
Anthony Giorgianni

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

"

On Sun, 29 May 2005, Anthony Giorgianni wrote:

> A speed limit is the top speed one is legally allowed to drive

True.

> A speed limit is a speed that is safe to drive by anyone meeting the
> qualifications as a licensed driver.

False.

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
.umich.edu...
> 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.

I'm not questionin whether it's an indication that speed limits are too low.
I'm ASKING whether anyone knows here whether there is widespread public
support for raising the speed limits generally?


--
Regards,
Anthony Giorgianni

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

"Arif Khokar" > wrote in message
...
> Only your preconceived notion supports your position. If many people
> drove too fast, then the crash rate would be much higher than it is now
> and would continue to increase as traffic speeds increase.

The highway crash and fatality rates of today are accpetable to you? Really?
What data?
>
> Obviously, data trumps your assumptions.

What data? I don't know of any report that says highway death and accident
rrates are acceptable. I also don't see any data that says setting speed
limits above the capabilities of most or all qualified drivers is okay. Do
you have such data?
>
> Studies have shown that changing the speed limit doesn't result in
> significant changes in traffic speeds. Your suppositions to the
> contrary do not change the result.

I didn't suggest the contrary at it.
>
> > for example. I'd predict that many inexperienced teenagers -
> > especially males - will in fact choose to drive faster than that.
>
> Your predictions would be wrong. If they were true, the conclusions of
> the Parker study and the WVDOT speed survey would be the opposite of
> what they were.

I will check waht those studies asy about teenage driver and get back to
you.

>

> Advisory curve speeds are based on the 85th percentile speed of drivers
> of a 1930 model Ford vehicle. That corresponds to a 10 degree ball bank
> deviation. There is discussion to change that deviation to 16 degrees
> to correspond with the 85th percentile speed of today's drivers in
> today's vehicles.
>
> That's the reason that curves with advisory speeds of 35 can be easily
> taken at 45 to 50 mph with little difficulty by average drivers.

Are you saying that's a bad thing and that advisory speeds should be raised
above the limits of average drivers? If not, we pretty much agree.

> > 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.
>
> When you stop putting words in other peoples' mouths, then we can
> continue this discussion.

Whose mouth did I put those words in?

--
Regards,
Anthony Giorgianni

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

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
.umich.edu...
>
> Most people drive within their skill level and their auto's capabilities,
> most of the time.

I don't disagree with that.
>
> > 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
>
> This is not the first time you've mentioned "raising the speed limit to
> 85", which nobody's suggested. As I asked in another post, do you not
> understand the difference between 85 mph and 85th percentile?

Yes I know the difference well. I've read a lot of speed studies pointed out
by folks on this group. Fascinating stuff, and I don't disagree with what
they say.
>

>
> On what basis do you assume that the number on the sign enables or
> prevents any particular driver doing any particular thing?

I don't assume the number on the sign "enables" I assume that it

1) It "permits"
2) It sends a message that that speed is safe for that road.

> of unsupportable assertion that undermines your position.

Which assertion? That many people tend to drive the posted speed limits,
especially some inexperienced teenagers? I think that's true.

>It's just very obvious that not only have you no grasp of the fundamental
principles and
> interactions at work, but also that you haven't given the matter much
> careful thought, if any. Opinions, guesses and preferences are fine, but
> facts and data trump them every time.

Which facts trump which opinions, guesses and preferences? What did I miss
that is so obvious?
>
> > 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.
>
> Nobody's advocating that. Why do you keep refuting something nobody has
> seriously proposed?

I didn't say anyone is advocating that. I'm saying that some people use the
highways for that and want to be free of law enforcement so that they can
use the highways for that.
>
> > 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
>
> Incorrect. V85 speed limits (which are NOT the same as 85mph speed
> limits!) are known to maximize traffic safety AND minimize travel time. It
> doesn't have to be an either/or choice.

What is incorrect? You are saying the purpose of the highways is to get from
point A to point B as quickly as possible? Then there would be no limits at
all. I totally agree with you that it doesn't need to be an either/or
choice.

I didn't say that I'm opposed to setting speed limits correctly or that the
85th percentile is not the correct limit. I'm saying the speed limit cannot
be set so high that it's beyond the capabilities of driver who meets mimimum
qualifications. That may in fact be the 85th percentile speed. I am NOT say
that speeds to to be set at the lowest speed that minimally qualified
drivers choose to drive.
>
> > And I don't think there is much political will in this country to change
> > it
>
> This is the first reasonably cogent observation I've seen you make in this
> thread.

Thank you. I knew you could find at least one if you read hard enough.


--
Regards,
Anthony Giorgianni

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