🚀 go-pugleaf

DPH <76256.3632@compuserve.com> wrote:

>Thanks for the insight.  They do, however, know that you're back there. 

Some don't.  Following some of them in a fully marked police unit in
broad daylight has no effect on some of them.  
 
>I suspect a great percentage just don't care...

This is true.

>Allstate is one of the few companies not to engage in what _all_ the companies know
>to be bogus reasoning - that tickets equate to bad driving.  _Accidents_ equate to
>bad driving, not tickets.  And...

I'm glad they found a formula that works for them.  Perhaps it'll
catch on.

>I've never run over anybody.  Did come close once - idiot STANDING IN THE RIGHT
>TRAFFIC LANE if I-10 at 5 in the moring (THAT'S STILL _NIGHT_) waving a shirt simply
>because he was broken down and wanted somebody to stop. 

He's lucky he ain't dead.   Pedestrians all too often assume that
because they can see the car that the driver of the car can see them.
For many this has been a fatal mistake.

>And real ones, due to the air bags.  The other "injuries" is the reason for the
>higher insurance coverage I carry.

Airbags save far more than they harm.   In time I think their
technology will be refined to the point we don't have to mess with the
warnings for infants and the cutoff switches like we do now.  

>Look at the traffic flow.  Almost _everyone_ on an interstate highway is illegal most
>of the time.

Which is why we allow some leeway before pulling someone over.  

>The limits there are lower than most people agree with. 

I'm not so sure this is correct.   It's been a while since I've seen
data on this subject.  The last one I read was about two years ago and
it indicated that nationally more agreed with the limits than opposed
them.   Perhaps you have privvy to later data?

>Its because the politicians set the limits, rather than the traffic engineers,
>and those limits are set to make money for the state. 

False.   This is an opinion shared by a few that has never been
substantiated.   There are much easier ways to raise money than
depending on fines which, in my city at least, are quite low.

>If you nail me for 78 in Ok when the speed
>limit is 70, it a good ticket and an unfair bust, because I'd be driving about what
>everyone else is driving.

Doing something because 'everyone else' is doing it has never been a
valid defense in any court I've seen.   Several years ago a local
judge asked a defendant who'd just used that excuse if he'd follow
another driver over a cliff or would he think for himself.  

>> and historically drivers (as a group) who collects
>> tickets are historically more accident prone than the drivers who do
>> not.

>Of course.  But that does not disprove the idea that one can speed safely. 

Russian Roulette can be played safely.  Stop signs and signal lights
can be run safely.  Driving the wrong way on a one way can be done
safely.  We can avoid paying our income tax 'safely'... the list goes
on.... and this is not the issue.

>Ya just gotta pay attention to what you're doing in order to go
>down the road and not hit things.

And following a few simple rules makes that task much easier.

>It would be interesting to examine the driving philosophies of the same people.  In
>spite of busting up speed limits most everywhere I go, I consider myself much safer
>than average because of the other factors.

The real question is whether drivers who share the road with you
consider you safe.  



efaubion@oklahoma.net
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Prairie/6123/