🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 05 Jul 1998 16:30:42 GMT, weiser@dimensional.com (Scott Weiser) wrote:

>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.

OK, fair enough.  But I have a hard time imagining this sort of occurance being
very common, especially if the fast drivers were doing so in a courteous
manner.  In particular, I think it courteous of fast drivers to close with and
pass other vehicles at relative speeds of not more than 10-15mph.  Having
somebody totally blow past you (and even cops have done this to me) can be
pretty startling to anyone.

>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.

You seem to think that all fast drivers simply want to go faster than anyone
around them.  I really don't think that this is true.  I think that most
drivers simply want to go at a speed that's "comfortable" for the conditions,
their abilities, and their vehicle.  It appears that traffic stats back this up
-- they show that the speeds at which drivers choose to drive is very much
independent of speed limits.

>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*.

Except that the speed limits are not at all correlated with "safety" which is
what much of the recent discussion on these groups has been about.  Speed
limits are pretty irrelevant to safety, or at the very least their impact
overshadowed by much more significant factors.  And speed limits also extract
something from us, in terms of lost time, money, and driver frustration.

>But his unconventional driving was adaquate justification for you to
>report him....and you didn't.

Well, I don't know if it was adequate justification or not.  It's certainly
given me pause & made me think about it -- next time might be different.

> You cannot blame the police for not "nabbing" him if they didn't know about him.

I don't *blame* them, it's just that if they were free to concentrate on
activities that would truly increase safety (like nabbing drunks) rather than
running speed traps, we'd all be better off.

>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.

I see what you're getting at, but it would be difficult to carry this line of
reasoning very far.  If one were to be personally responsible for all acts of
stupidity, violence, cruelty or evil that one witnessed, life would be pretty
unbearable.  

>I would have reported him by cell phone,

Ain't got no stinkin' cell phone, though I may end up getting on soon (for
business and as an emergency communication method when hiking/camping).

> 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.

Like I said, it didn't occur to me immediately that the driver was soused.  He
wasn't doing outright dangerous things like crossing the yellow line -- he was
just driving bizarrely.  I was thinking more that he was messing with me for
fun, which is still possible.  

If the driver was truly doing something that was clearly dangerous, I would
have probably tried to get his license # and phoned it in.  I did this once
before, years ago, when someone was all over the road and quite clearly drunk
(in New Hampshire).  Last year I reported a the driver of a van by calling the
1-800- (no, not the 1-800-eat-shit #) on the back of his vehicle.  It was a
lovely sunny morning on the way to work, and he was cutting people off and
driving in several lanes at once over the course of 20mi on the interstate.
Some was clearly not right, but it could have been stupidity or maybe the guy
was just on some prescription drugs where he shouldn't have been driving.  I
figured his company could take care of him and I mentioned to them the possible
legal consequences to his company if he hurt someone.

>But you observed bad driving behavior....bad enough to catch your attention, and did *nothing* about it.  

It caught my attention as "bad driving" but (aside from being outside of marked
lanes) wasn't clearly illegal and wasn't an overt "endangerment" of anybody.
Of course, they could have been pulling into the store to get more beer.   If I
had been a cop (and thinking like one) I most certainly would have had PC to
pull the guy over to see what was up.  

>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.

I see your point, and I would have done something like this if it was clear to
me that the person was drunk and a danger.  But it wasn't, and I'm not about to
go around reporting everyone I'm simply "suspicious" of or every bad driver I
see.  And again, I'm not "indicting" the police for not catching the guy, I'm
saying that their time would be much better spent looking out for this sort of
person, rather than issuing tickets to people who are driving in a competent
manner and exceeding the speed limit.

> And it's irrelevant if the police were handing out speeding tickets, that's their job.  

But it shouldn't be their job, which is my point.  Their job should be to
patrol the highway for problems and significant threats (like drunks), not
running speed traps.

>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.

Would they have?  Somehow I doubt a stationary trap would be abandoned in order
to pursue an alleged drunk.  At best some other unit would have probably been
dispatched to take a look, while leaving the trap up and running.  Now if the
laws allowed those guys running the traps to be out there focusing on *true*
safety issues, we'd be better off and safer on the roads.

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

I see you've already convicted -- both the *alleged* DUI and me.  I suppose I'm
completely at fault that the woman begging at the end of the off-ramp is
homeless too - because I don't contribute to her collection.  I'm also
completely at fault for not reporting drivers traveling slower than the 85'th
percentile, as those speeds are more dangerous than 85'th percentile speeds.  
And let's not talk about my responsibility for the drug war, global warming,
and the decline of American family.

Cheers,
Eric