🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <359fb413.3774692@news.okc.oklahoma.net>, E. Faubion
(in@the.sig) wrote:

> Decelerate to stop is a better term for what we're talking about.
> The results are the same.

No, the results are not the same.  You can either skid to a stop or roll
to a stop.  If the wheels are rolling, they grip better.  Your figures
can't possibly apply to both types of stopping without being inaccurate.

> >Your computer program didn't use more precise figures, it used
> >lowest-common-denominator figures.

> Such as?....

Such as the coefficient of dynamic friction (skidding) rather than the
coefficient of static friction (rolling).
 
> >My whole argument is that my car's
> >braking is well above average, so my stopping distances at 80 are no worse
> >than many cars at 70.  Hence, by going 80, I'm at no greater risk than
> >many cars going 70.

> Okay.  It'll be interesting to see how the courts accept this when you
> are ticketed.

My car's better-than-average braking distances are NOT an argument for
getting out of a speeding ticket; they ARE an argument for explaining why
my Interstate accident risk at 80 is similar to a large number of drivers
at 70 (as far as braking distances are concerned).
 
> One more excuse.   Perhaps you'd like to ask me how much I make from
> writing speeding tickets? 

Perhaps I'd like to ask how much this nation collects in speeding-ticket
revenue per capita and what would happen if they no longer had this source
of funds.
 
> >Let's face it, if your exaggerated notions of speed were really true, the
> >whole population of Germany would have been wiped out long ago.

> If your exaggerated notions of speeding tickets was true, my city and
> state would have become wealthy beyond all imagination long ago.

What a "cop out" (pun intended).  You have no response to the argument at
hand so you bring up a different argument (or you just snip it
altogether).  Nevertheless, I never claimed every town was a Lindale, OH,
or even most towns, but the fact that these towns exist at all proves that
even police departments can be influenced by the power of money.

> >The faster we can go, the more time we can spend at our
> >destination and the quicker we can back.

> That is without doubt one of the most selfish self-serving bullshit
> excuses I've ever heard.   

Why?  Why is the American people's desire for mobility "bullshit?"

> >Now, obviously this high degree of
> >mobility comes at some risk, but it's a risk the vast majority of
> >Americans are willing to take every day.

> Until it's you.  Then you'll be hiring that personal injury attorney
> to sue that s.o.b. speeder who nailed you and he'll be more than happy
> to take the case and pay someone like me the big bucks to prove it for
> you.  Been there, done that, still doin' it in fact.  

Ahh, so you DO have a financial incentive to hold on to your beliefs about
speeding.  Now things are becoming very clear.  But in response to your
statement, let's get clear what I'm arguing here.  I'm arguing that
Interstate speed limits don't reflect the speeds we actually drive, and I
think that should change.  Does this mean I'm arguing that speed is
irrelevant or can't be excessive?  Not now, not ever.  All I'm saying is
that "speeding" and "too fast for conditions" are not necessarily the same
thing.

Remember back to my question about the Ferrari going 95 on a desert
interstate, on a clear day with high visibility and low traffic?  That
driver was speeding, but he was not going too fast for conditions.

> >My whole argument in this debate is that the Interstate speed limits in
> >this country don't reflect the balance of mobility and safety that the
> >American people really want.

> Baloney.  You just want to drive fast and don't like tickets.  Let's
> call this what it really is and cut the nonsense.  

Well, if it were just me, than the MAJORITY of Americans wouldn't break
our Interstate speed laws every day, would they?  Didn't someone just post
the compliance statistics for WI?  Weren't they pretty low?

-Dan