Appalling Police Action in Palo Alto

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
.umich.edu...
> On Sun, 29 May 2005, Anthony Giorgianni wrote:
>
>
> The science of the matter is on my side -- not yours.

Okay then .. show me one shread o science that says the posted speed limit
is not intended as a guide for all drivers, only the fastest ones.
>
> > Posted speed limits imply that this is the speed that someone minimaly
> > qualified for a driver's license CAN safely drive.
>
> They do no such thing. They simply indicate the maximum legal speed.

Think about that again. The purpose of a speed limit is to provide guidance
for how fast you can safely go on the road. Many of the people in this group
have so reinforced each other's paranoid notion that speed limits are a
sinister government plot that they have forgotten the very idea of what
speed limits are or are even supposed to be.
>
> > > 1) Do you understand the difference between the 85th percentile
("V85")
> > > and 85 mph?
> >
> > I absolutely understand it
>
> You've shown no such understanding, and in fact have clearly demonstrated
> in your posts that you haven't got it.


Even if I don't understand it, what does that have to do with whether speed
limits should be set for common drivers. I suspect that the 85th percentile
is likely exactly that or close to it. If the 86th percentile were so far
beyond the driving capabilities of minimally qualified drivers, it probably
wouldn't be the 85th percentile. Anyone have any studies on that?


--
Regards,
Anthony Giorgianni

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

On Sun, 29 May 2005 04:52:59 GMT, Anthony Giorgianni , said the following=
=20
in rec.autos.driving...=20

>=20
> "Scott en Aztl=E1n" > wrote in message
> ...
>=20
> >
> > How many speeders do you suppose would NOT support raising speed
> > limits?
>=20
> I don't have any idea. That's why I'm wondering if anyone has polled this=
..
> What doesn't make sense to me is that if so many people speed and thus
> support raising the speed limits why speed limits aren't higher, unless
> speeders by nature don't vote..=20

It doesn't matter if you vote or not. Just look at the last 5 or so=20
presidential elections. Simple fact is that the politicians listen to=20
whomever puts the most $$$ into their pockets and that is entities like=20
the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (nice contradiction in terms),=
=20
the insurance industry and others who have a financial interest in=20
keeping speedlimits set low so that more people are classified as=20
"unsafe," drivers; that the politicians listen to. Anyone who thinks that=
=20
these people in congress or the state govenrments represent the people=20
who alledgedly vote is either delusional or a fool.=20


--
"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who=20
cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide=20
everything."
--Joseph Stalin

In article >, Anthony Giorgianni wrote:

> I disagree. Posted speed limits imply that this is the speed that someone
> minimaly qualified for a driver's license CAN safely drive.

There is no aspect of life where it makes sense to limit all people to
the bounds of the worst performers.

I don't know where this sort of idiotcy got started, but it will turn the
USA into a poor, 3rd world nation as it continues to spread. IL now has a
bill where the STATE GOVERNMENT will review everyone's new mortgage loan to
make sure they aren't getting screwed by the lender. Seriously. HB4050 as
I recall the number. Where does this insanity end? How far do you want
your life micromanaged by buracrats and limited to the performance of the
least capable in society to be 'fair'?

Anthony Giorgianni wrote:
> S
> "N8N" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>
>
>
> It doesn't have to do squat. If a competent driver can safely drive 80
> MPH on a road why the hell should he be limited to less? Your whole
> line of reasoning is flawed from beginning to end. The law is not in
> place to protect the incompetent from themselves nor should it try (and
> when it does, it usually fails miserably, pointing out the
> pointlessness of same)
>
> nate
>
> So are you now saying there should be no limits or that limits should be set
> at the fastest speed the fast driver can go. Or do you favor the 85th
> percentile?
>
> Incidentally, incompetient drivers should not be accommodated by lower speed
> limits. They should be removed from the road. But what you missing is the
> idea that a speed limit provides guidance for drivers who don't know a
> particular road. It is suggesting the speed that anyone can drive on this
> road safely under normal conditions, not the speed a top driver can drive.
> If it was intended for the top drivers, there would be no speed guidance for
> normal drivers at all, would there?.

Speed limits currently provide no guidance to any driver. properly set
(85th %ile) speed limits might actually provide some guidance to
drivers of all ability levels and driving all different kinds of
vehicles (unwieldy vehicles like SUVs might have to derate their speed
a little, as would drivers who aren't as skilled)

I do agree that the incompetent should be removed, but other than that
I'm not sure actually what you're trying to argue for, other than not
raising speed limits.

nate

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

>>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?

Use the ctrl-f key combination on my previous post and try to find the
word "acceptable" in it.

> What data?

Government websites that detail the number of traffic crashes separated
by injury type and VMT data separated by roadway class. From there, you
can find rates of crashes, fatality, and/or injury crashes per 100
million VMT and see that they have been declining despite the fact that
overall free flow traffic speeds have been increasing over the last 2
decades..

>>Obviously, data trumps your assumptions.

> What data? I don't know of any report that says highway death and accident
> rrates are acceptable.

I suggest you try, for once, to debate points that I have actually made.

> I also don't see any data that says setting speed
> limits above the capabilities of most or all qualified drivers is okay.

I don't see data that correlate higher speed limits with higher fatality
or crash rates. At the time the speed limits on WV interstates were
raised to 70 mph, that speed represented the 70th to 80th percentile
speed of traffic. When Appalachian Region Corridor route speed limits
were raised from 55 to 65 mph, 65 mph represented the 80th to 85th
percentile speed.

Fatality and crash rate data for subsequent years was not signficantly
different.

> Do you have such data?

No, but the government does on its websites.

>>>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.

It stands to reason that if teenage drivers started driving faster and
experienced higher crash and fatality rates when speed limits were
increased, the data would show that. Since it didn't, then one cannot
conclude that a significant number of them engaged in driving behavior
that fits your assumption.

>>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?

I'm saying that advisory limits reflect speeds that average drivers
usually go to negotiate curves. That means that if the majority of
drivers take a given exit ramp at 50 mph, then that's what the advisory
limit should be, not 35 mph.

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

> Whose mouth did I put those words in?

You're implying that I want roads to be a "fun park for people who want
to drive fast, get thrills, test their hemi, or prove their manhood."
In other words, you're arguing against a strawman rather than my actual
position.

You previously asserted that speed limits (and advisory speeds) should
be set for the least capable. Your reasoning is that drivers who fit in
that category will be safe at those speeds and that higher speed limits
would lead some of them to drive faster than their level of competence
allows. You reject the assertion that those drivers are capable of
choosing a safe speed within their capabilities.

If your assumption is true, then how do these drivers choose safe speeds
when weather and road conditions are not ideal?

On Sun, 29 May 2005 00:07:38 GMT, "Anthony Giorgianni"
> wrote:

>> 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.

Wonderful. So tell us YOUR position. Do you think they should be
raised or not? Or do you need to know what the "polls" say before you
can take a position?

On Sun, 29 May 2005 01:57:41 GMT, "Anthony Giorgianni"
> wrote:

>
>"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Sat, 21 May 2005 23:32:10 GMT, "Anthony Giorgianni"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> Are you suggesting that the speed limit has any relationship
>> whatsoever to a driver's skill level or the capabilities of their
>> vehicle?
>
>I am saying that speed limit MUST taken into account drivers' abilities and
>the capabilities of automobiles. Absolutely. A65 mile an hour speed limit
>doesn't mean "65 is safe for only the most best-trainined, most experienced
>drivers and all others get no guidance on how fast they can safely go." It
>means that a driver may rely on that sign for guidance for how fast one can
>drive in normal conditions on this road WITHOUT FACING ANY SPECIAL TRAINING
>beyond that required to get a license."
>
>

I've asked you before and never really got an answer. Going back to
your statements that the speed limit has to take into account the
driver and cars capabilities, then please tell us how we do that
without setting the speed limits at 40 mph everywhere (if not less
then 40) so that we can guarantee every rattle trap with weak brakes
and an idiot at the wheel is "safe". Surely you realize that in the
absence of total uniformity of cars AND drivers abilities, there is no
way to adhere to your position without setting EVERYTHING in the world
to the abilities of the dumbest, stupidest, and least skilled and
least capable person/vehicle.

On Sun, 29 May 2005 03:08:08 GMT, "Anthony Giorgianni"
> wrote:

>S
>"N8N" > wrote in message
roups.com...
>
>
>
>
>It doesn't have to do squat. If a competent driver can safely drive 80
>MPH on a road why the hell should he be limited to less? Your whole
>line of reasoning is flawed from beginning to end. The law is not in
>place to protect the incompetent from themselves nor should it try (and
>when it does, it usually fails miserably, pointing out the
>pointlessness of same)
>
>nate
>
>So are you now saying there should be no limits or that limits should be set
>at the fastest speed the fast driver can go. Or do you favor the 85th
>percentile?
>
>Incidentally, incompetient drivers should not be accommodated by lower speed
>limits. They should be removed from the road. But what you missing is the
>idea that a speed limit provides guidance for drivers who don't know a
>particular road. It is suggesting the speed that anyone can drive on this
>road safely under normal conditions, not the speed a top driver can drive.
>If it was intended for the top drivers, there would be no speed guidance for
>normal drivers at all, would there?.


Do you really think any large number of people think the speed limit
gives then guidance on anything other then how to avoid a revenue
generating ticket? Do YOU think that if YOU drive faster then the
speed limit on a deserted road that you are engaging in unsafe driving
because you are going faster then the number on some sign??

On Sun, 29 May 2005 00:35:32 GMT, "Anthony Giorgianni"
> wrote:

>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.
>

More evidence that you don't have a clue to what you are talking
about. The outline you gave above would guarantee carnage on the
highways due to the massive speed differentials.


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

On Sun, 29 May 2005 02:48:39 GMT, "Anthony Giorgianni"
> wrote:

>
>"Ashton Crusher" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Sat, 21 May 2005 16:41:10 GMT, "Anthony Giorgianni"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Ashton Crusher" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>
>> 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.
>
>Though I don't propose preventing people from fast, I find this statement
>preposterous. In any case, I hope they do their "learning' and skill set
>development around you and not me.
>>

So you think people do hatch from eggs with a fully developed skill
set.


>>
>> > 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.
>
>I said 85 mph, just as an example of how a high speed, no matter how
>unreasonable, will encourage some poeple to drive that fast. I do not
>challenge the 85th percentile necessarily, though I think it may be too fast
>in some instances and places - around schools, for example, in construction
>areas.
>

Well DUH. No one argues that SPECIAL circumstances would not require
a lower speed limit. And if the non-special places speeds were
PROPERLY set people would pay more attention to the special
circumstance places. Unfortunately, most special circumstance places
where people should be warned get warning signs that are WAY to low
because people have been trained to ignore the ridiculous low speed
limits they usually see, which they KNOW are lower then needed for any
safety purpose.


>>
>>
>> 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.
>
>You've REALLY had that experience? When?
>

Every time I get in this kind of thread for one. You appear to be a
terrible driver who brings out the worse in those around you and who
assumes just because you are incapable (see your comments below) of
driving a particular speed safely that no one else can do so either.

> 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.
>
>I think you are right in the larger sense. But I measure people by the very
>high standard that I set for myself.

I can see that, but your "standard" seems to have nothing to do with
safety or skill, it looks like it's just a set of "dad told me to do
it this way" rules that you blindly follow now.


I see drivers cutting in and out all
>the time; driving with far less than a three-second gap between them and the
>vehicle in front, constantly relying on their brakes to avoid plowing into
>someone; talking on cell phones and eating. I see too many people driving
>what I would consider way too fast on ice and snow, much faster than me in
>my four-wheel-drive Explorer who even consider. (And they are not only SUVS)
>

Yup, that YOU consider... so if they don't drive like you, they are
automatically bad drivers.

>I see tons of cars and trucks driving with snow and ice piled high on their
>roofs, tons of little potholes cut though the windshield snow because the
>driver was too lazy to scrap anything and nothing scraped off the back
>windshield. I always see drivers speeding around curves until the g-forces
>reach a point that they have to apply the brakes. They do this on dry roads
>and wet roads. I see acts of road rage all the time, drivers honking
>angrily, giving each other the finger. There's probably not a single hour
>that goes by that someone doesn't tear down the 35 mph two-lane road on
>which I live at 60 or even more, especially motorcycles. I see drivers
>runnign without their crusie control CONSTANTLY changing speed - below the
>limit, at the limit, above the limit - so know one around them figure out
>wheter to pass them or get behind them .I see drivers going so slowly on
>highways that you risk running into to them or getting rear ended. I see
>drivers who are in such a rush to get to whereever they're going, they
>practically drive everyone else off the road. I hear so many people say they
>beleived that fact that they were late for an apoointment entitled them to
>drive extra fast. Most people I drive with just go through a green light
>wihtout assuming someone in the intersection is not going to stop. (I go
>though every green light with extreme caution) And this is not to mention
>all the drunk drivers. Even if you assume that everyone who drives impaired
>is caught, it is WAY too many.

Amazing isn't it, although I see some of that stuff I just deal with
it and pass them by and they almost never bother me, yet they endanger
your life by the minute. Like I said, the people who complain the
loudest are usually, not always, the worst drivers.


>
>Now in most cases, I agree that this is just part of these drivers' efforts
>to get to point b and that they aren't out to bother anyone. But driving is
>big responsibility. It should be done with precision and care. So I guess
>people aren't terrible drivers in one sense, but in another they are.
>
>
>
>>
> Your probably all for gun registration and/or control
>> and/or confiscation too I bet.
>
>I'm opposed to gun ownership in any way.
>

Why not get rid of cars too? They accidentally kill way more people
each year then guns.

>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.
>
>So you are no for adopting the 85th percentile limit or no limit?>

My preference would be for no limit outside of the special
circumstance situation. Many studies have shown people have no
trouble driving at a safe speed without have a number written on a
sign. That' show the 85th got started more or less. It was really
just a way to provide a rational limit so it would be fair to 85% of
the drivers and still make it easy to give tickets. Otherwise the
cops would have to actually show that the speed the driver was going
was unsafe. Since that's virtually impossible to do, since in almost
every case a speed 5 or 10 higher then the 85th will still be safe,
the speed limit was born. It's similar to why most traffic tickets
are no longer criminal offenses, that requires a much higher standard
of proof, then the civil offenses they are now.