Re: Conflict of Interest

In article <1132600432.947754.193670@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
gpsman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx says...
>Alex Rodriguez wrote:
>> gpsman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx says...
>> >What y'all miss entirely is that most people's skills aren't sufficient
>> >to operate at even that speed.
>> That points to a licensing problem. Fix the source of the problem. Don't
>> punish the rest of the folks who can drive safely at reasonable speeds.
>
>Who's going to pay for it?

Obviously the person who wants to get licensed pays for it.

>You'd have to be retested to meet such a
>higher requirement and pay too.

Not a problem. I'll save a lot of time and money by getting poor drivers
off the road. It's an investment that will pay off handsomely.

>And many drivers might not be able to
>meet such a requiement at all due to age or infirmity.

Do you think we should allow these drivers to continue to be a menace on
the road? If they can't meet some minimum requirements they have no
business driving.

>Throwing 'em
>off the road sounds easy until likely and perhaps unintended
>consequences are considered, right down to used car sales.

The consequences are much worse when you let them continue to drive.

>> >Consequently, you're not going to be
>> >permitted to drive at double that velocity... or even +20% of that
>> >velocity... no matter how much you disagree with the limits as they're
>> >set now. Speed limits are now set faster than the AVERAGE person can
>> >drive safely.
>>
>> You are proven wrong every day. Most people drive over the limits and do
>> so safely. If that were not the case you would never get any where because
>> of all the accidents on the road.
>
>"Safely" does not equal no harm.

It does. If it causes harm, it wasn't safe. Look up the definition of safe.

>I'm a pretty good shot. I think I
>can shoot 1000 rounds at you, come within 6 inches every time and never
>hit you. If I accomplish that... succeed 1,000,000 times or 10M times
>or 100M times... does letting me try fit your definition of a safe
>practice?

At what distance? At two feet away, sure.

>The "standard" of gun safety includes never pointing a gun
>at a person you don't intend to kill... EVER! Not even the unloaded
>firearm. And we all know why. More people are killed accidentally
>with unloaded firearms than loaded ones.

Not a good comparison since guns are meant to hurt and kill when
used properly.

>> >Speed limits are set using data that you'll never consider including
>> >the reduction of injury and death in the event... somebody does
>> >something stupid. And too many people are too frequently doing
>> >something stupid while they drive. Do you really *want* to drive 120
>> >with all the morons chatting on their cell phones or otherwise engaged
>> >while driving?
>>
>> The beauty of the using 85% speeds is that it is simple and works.
>
>Simple- agreed. Cite where it works, please....

Where it is used, which is nowhere near enough.

>> >I regularly drove 120+ when MT's limit was removed, but damn carefully.
>>
>> See, even you didn't kill yourself.
>
>But I increased the chances <equaling> less safety.

No you didn't increase the chances. No doubt that if you had an accident
it would be worse than if you were going slower. Simply going faster does
not increase the chance of having an accident. There are a lot more factors
involved.


>And your other criteria has no point either.

Actually it does. Stupid cell phone use laws are an example of an unecessary
law that is already covered by another law. These laws are supposed to curb
poor driving. There are already laws in place that cover poor driving.

>Law is created to protect, not punish.

You are gullible if you believe that.

>The idea is... to
>have the law obeyed, strange as that may seem and ideally, never have
>to punish anyone.

With traffic laws that is obviously not the case. When the laws are enacted
revenue has been taken into consideration. Ask the mayor of DC why he loves
red light cameras.
-------------
Alex

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Cops Making Stuff Up
    ... is set for poor drivers under poor conditions. ... There are laws I don't agree with aplenty, but I still have to follow ... but the higher speeds (during the time ... red light cameras would be unecessary. ...
    (rec.autos.driving)
  • Re: Lightspeed exceeded
    ... >>>His choice was to either impose the principle of relativity as ... >>>differently than the laws of electrodynamics among choice of inertial ... hinged on Einstein's desire to retain properties of the aether i.e. source independence. ... Experiment - as I described in my last post which you snipped - was actually pointing us towards emission theory whereby the speed of light would be relative like other speeds. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: where does newtons laws fail
    ... > iam really searching for the answer where does newtons laws fail. ... Newton's laws presume a spacetime amongst whose features includes the ... down at light speed to the event, itself -- the past light cone of the ... Not all finite speeds are relative, ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Fundamental weaknesses of SR.
    ... *informed* us of the general form of some notably important laws, ... you may be flummoxed by some of the odd things that nature does. ... you are flummoxed why speeds do not add with a simple ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: MFFY du jour
    ... speed limits. ... It has never given into speeding. ... It has defined reasonable speeds as ... speeders and punish those who follow the laws. ...
    (rec.autos.driving)
Loading