🚀 go-pugleaf

Tony Wang <tonyw44@prodigy.net.nospam> wrote:

>And these are the idiots who you ought to be ticketing.  I mean, if they're not paying
>attention to the road, they are a far greater risk to everyone than someone who's
>going 10 mph over the limit, don't you think?

No.  They are idiots and they do need to be dealt with but it appears
their 'risk' is being measured in terms of what it might do to another
driver's state of mind rather than on the physics involved and unless
the speed is seriously below the speed limit it is not going to make
it the more serious offense.  I base this on actual cases, not on
personal opinion.  Now don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the
slowpoke jackass in the left lane, I dislike their actions as much as
you do but blaming them for the problem is like blaming the economy
for the proliferation of armed robbers. 

>Better yet, let's make the driver's test harder, and see how many people fail, and then
>the limits will go up.

While I agree with a more sensible driving test this idea suggests
that we remove a currently legal group of drivers from the road just
so a certain few can drive faster.   Think about that for a minute.
If we set precedence by doing this then perhaps the next step would be
to remove handicap parking stalls from parking lots so other more able
shoppers can 'save time' there too.

>Around here, that nice cruising speed can get me a
>nice hefty ticket for 20 mph over the limit.

Around here doing 20 over is the surest way I know to get a ticket for
doing 20 over. 

>Well, they are foolish.  I KNOW that my detector isn't 100 percent
>perfect.  If you nail me with instant on radar, forget it.  I'm toast.

Instant-on is a misnomer but it's close enough of a description to how
it works to be a sufficient label.  For over twenty years I've been
using radars equipped with the instant-on feature to great advantage.


>So I also keep an eye out for other things.  Do I see guys up ahead braking?
>Hmmmm.........well, might be a good idea to slow down, not just because
>there might be a cop there, but because there might be some kind of road
>hazard.

This is good policy for all drivers.  Unfortunately many don't look
any further down the road than their hood ornaments.

>Also, I'll bet that the drivers you nail.....they're probably going so
>fast that you don't need radar to know they're speeding. 

100% of the time.  It's visual first, radar second. 
 

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