🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 05 Jul 1998 16:30:42 GMT, Scott Weiser <weiser@dimensional.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 05 Jul 1998 08:04:59 GMT, eta@my-dejanews.com (Eric Anderson)
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 05 Jul 1998 07:24:16 GMT, weiser@dimensional.com (Scott Weiser) wrote:
>>
>>>The problem is that SP+15 may be safe for YOU, but it's not safe for
>>>anybody else.
>>
>>How could it be safe for *me* and not safe for everybody else.  If it's safe
>>for me, then that means I'm not going to get into an accident due to speed.  If
>>I'm not going to get into an accident due to speed, then I'm clearly not going
>>to hit anybody else.  What are you suggesting, that fast drivers are just going
>>to run other people off the road (without a collision??)?
>
>Indeed, and cause them to manuver suddenly to avoid a crash which may
>make them strike others.   But then again I said *may*, and I really
>don't believe that this is at all true.
>
>>
>>>And that "more safer at SP+15" depends upon everybody
>>>else obeying the speed limit so YOU can go 15 over.  
>>
>>Where does this dependency come from?  I think that most competent drivers
>>(that is, the majority) could travel in reasonable safety at 15mph over current
>>speed limits, if other factors permitted (weather etc)..  Excellent drivers
>>could probably go even faster
>
>It's pretty obvious that the 15 over is dependent on going 15 faster
>that *other vehicles*.  If everybody goes 15 over, that illusory
>safety disappears and you have to go faster yet.
>
>But highway speeds are not set so that "excellent drivers" can go
>fast, they are set to provide a reasonable degree of safety for
>*everyone*.

Baloney.  They are arbitrary, unlike properly engineered speed limits.

>
>>
>>>It's my experience that speeders are merely inconsiderate sphincters
>>>who *just can't stand* to be behind anybody else...
>
>>The "experts" don't buy this, at least when setting limits for the masses.
>>From http://www.motorists.org/speedlimits/wsdot.htm
>>
>>"If safety isn't behind it, what is the purpose of having speed limits?"
>>"Safety is always a factor. But the setting of speed limits is, for completely
>>practical reasons, more fundamentally influenced by some basic principles of
>>human behavior. When setting speed zones, traffic engineers base decisions on
>>several fundamental concepts proven over the years to be true: 
>>
>>The majority of motorists drive in a safe and reasonable manner. 
>>The normally careful and competent actions of a reasonable person should be
>>considered legal. 
>>Laws are established for the protection of the public and the regulation of
>>unreasonable behavior of a few individuals. 
>>Laws cannot be effectively enforced without the consent and voluntary
>>compliance of the majority. 
>>Research and experience have shown that effective speed limits are those that
>>the majority of motorists naturally drive, and that raising and lowering speed
>>limits doesn't substantially influence that speed. "
>>
>>>Perhaps, but NOT enforcing them will absolutely lead to a more
>>>*dangerous* place, and that's rather the point.
>>
>>I don't think that it would lead to much more danger at all.  *Most* drivers
>>would drive about as they do now, perhaps a bit faster from time to time.  Yes,
>>there'd be some jocks out there trying to see if the 'Vette would really do
>>170, but these would be very few and far between.  Enforcement against
>>extraordinarily high rates of speed would be an effort that would have a
>>complexion vastly differenent from today's enforcement action, which penalizes
>>the "careful and compentent actions" of "reasonable" persons (see above).  

Life begins at 180.

>>
>>>  Much could be done in other areas of
>>>>the highway safety issue with the funds that are currently going to police
>>>>salaries and equipment.  Hell, even if the police headcount and toys were to be
>>>>maintained, there are a lot of better things that they could be doing with my
>>>>tax dollars...like nabbing that partially intoxicated person I was driving
>>>>behind tonight.
>>>
>>>Did you call him in?  Did you follow him and guide the police to him?
>>
>>No, I didn't.  To be perfectly honest, it didn't even occur to me at the time.
>
>(snip)
>
>>I went on my way.  I don't *know* that the driver was drunk, but they were
>>driving in a most unconventional way.  A cop would have probably known if this
>>was just screwing around or being flakey, or if it was a genuine warning sign.
>
>But his unconventional driving was adaquate justification for you to
>report him....and you didn't.  You cannot blame the police for not
>"nabbing" him if they didn't know about him.  You have a duty to
>report such incidents, when you fail in that duty, YOU carry partial
>responsibility (at least ethically) for any harm that might occur.

As much responsibility as grass being eaten by a cow.

>
>I would have reported him by cell phone, followed him to the store,
>stayed discreetly parked while I observed the *driver's* description
>and remained on the line till the police arrived, then I would have
>filled out a statement and let them know I was willing to testify if
>necessary.

Cell Phone!  Driver awareness at .08 intoxication!

>>
>>>Or did you just ignore him and sped past him and let somebody else
>>>worry about him...or get killed by him?
>>
>>Down boy!  I didn't think that they might be drunk until the episode was over.
>
>But you observed bad driving behavior....bad enough to catch your
>attention, and did *nothing* about it.    I make the presumption that
>such behavior is due to intoxication, which is perfectly valid, and
>call the police.   If you had related this conduct to the police, it
>would have given them probable cause to detain the driver for
>investigation on your word alone, though many police officers would
>have done some observing of their own prior to stopping the vehicle.

I still like the "Don't Blow and Drive" National Lampoon campaign.

>
>And then you have the gall to indict the police for failing to catch
>this vehicle.   That's extremely unfair and hypcritical.   If YOU do
>not participate in the process of stopping drunk drivers, the police
>cannot begin to make a dent in the problem.

Eh, I have responsibility for my job, why don't the police have responsibility
for theirs?

>
>>No, they didn't croak me and w/any luck they didn't croak anyone else (or
>>themselves either).  I just hope to hell the highway patrol wasn't out handing
>>out speeding tickets while all this was going on.
>
>But you don't know this, and if they did, you bear some moral
>responsibility for it.  And it's irrelevant if the police were handing
>out speeding tickets, that's their job.   If they had been, and you
>had notified them of a possible DUI, they would have stopped doing
>speed enforcement and come and arrested your drunk.

Maybe the police should be required to give themselves speeding tickets, as
they had to speed to catch the speeder.

>
>In this case, it's YOUR fault the DUI got away.  Completely your
>fault.

The Seinfeld episode wasn't very funny either.

Bystanders fault for DUI getting away.  Sheesh.

>
>Regards,
>
>Scott Weiser
>
>******
>"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend upon my
>friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!"
>******
>http://www.dimensional.com/~weiser/
>
>Copyright 1998 by Scott Weiser
>
>Under the UCC, by the act of transmitting any commercial 
>e-mail advertisment to this address, you are expressly 
>contracting with me in my professional capacity for a 
>consultation on the ad's effectiveness and you expressly 
>agree to pay to me the sum of $250.00 for each such 
>consultation within 10 days of my report to the original 
>sending address.  You further expressly agree that all 
>actions for recovery of fees owed shall be subject solely 
>to the laws of the State of Colorado, which shall have 
>sole jurisdiction.


-- 
These opinions are my own and not necessarily those of Information Quest or 
Pebble In The Sky http://www.informationquest.com mailto:jgarry@nospameiq.com
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/joel_garry   Remove nospam to reply.  
mailto:joel_garry@compuserve.nospam.com  "See your DBA?"  I AM the @#%*& DBA!