🚀 go-pugleaf

[ is stupid and jumps in the middle of an on-going discussion ]

In article <3ab1jc$g4s@bashful.cc.utexas.edu>,
Norman Richards <orb@bashful.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>  My V8-powered
>>Thunderbird can easily top 100 mph, but that doesn't mean I'm allowed to
>>indulge that ability.  Neither are you allowed to indulge your greater
>>maneuverability if it means breaking the law.
>  The difference is safety, not the law.  If it were safe for you to drive
>100mph down MOPAC then go right ahead.  But it is not.  If it is safe to 
>ride on the sidewalk then there is no reason not to.

So you're saying that as long as it's safe to do something, the law
doesn't matter? If it's safe for me to run around naked all the time, I
should be allowed to do it by everyone else? I can understand breaking a
law for safety's sake, but not breaking a law just because it's safe to
do something.

>>It is against the law.
> It shouldn't be.  The laws were written for cars.  They are not appropriate
>for bikes in every case.  Where they are inappropriate, I do not feel any
>shame in breaking them.

Then get the laws changed. Don't just arbitrarily choose the ones you
are going to obey. Laws aren't there for your convience, they are there
for your "protection". (Yes, not all laws are intelligent, but they
should either be followed or changed.)

Ciao,

-- 
Richard Bainter          Mundanely     |    System Analyst        - OMG/CSD
Pug                      Generally     |    Applied Research Labs - U.Texas
          pug@arlut.utexas.edu         |    pug@bga.com
Note: The views may not reflect my employers, or even my own for that matter.