🚀 go-pugleaf

In <slrn75ab2v.fh.joel-garry@home.com> joel-garry@nospam.home.com (Joel
Garry) writes:

>>On the one hand, you want to not have limits on speed or rate of lane
>>changes, because you don't think they are good indicators of lack of
>>safety in driving.  On the other hand you also are not able to provide a
>>good substitute for inclusion in the CVC.  I personally think we need
>>either the one or the other.

>There already are more than enough laws covering these issues....
>When people start perceiving the laws as overly 
>restrictive or overly arbitrary, their behavior changes in ways not intended
>by the laws....

I'm guessing that you believe that people would consider a law against
an excessive rate of lane changes to be unreasonable.   My personal
observation however is that the majority of people do not like to see
other drivers weaving through traffic at a high rate and they feel
unsafe, and get nervous, when this happens.

The majority of people DO want to be able to safely go at a high speed
when they can stay in one lane.  Thus I continue to believe that speed
limits when not based on traffic engineering should be greatly relaxed,
and replaced by laws against a high rate of lane changes.

What's interesting is that you have been arguing against laws limiting
the rate of lane changes without ever mentioning a specific number to
which you object.  This indicates to me that you are opposed not just to
unreasonable laws (setting the rate too low) but against any law at all.
This is consistent with my previous observation that you want everything
to be left to the subjective judgement of law enforcement officers.  In
other words, you don't want "a country of laws, not men", you want a
police state where the cop is judge and jury.
-- 
Rahul Dhesi <dhesi@spams.r.us.com>
a2i communications, a quality ISP
    "Any idiot can avoid automobile accidents that are his own fault.  It
     takes skill to avoid accidents that are the *other* person's fault."