🚀 go-pugleaf

Bruce Harper wrote:

> It isn't upset so much as it is frustration and annoyance at the
> seemingly increasing number of drivers who have a "the hell with the
> rules, I'm more important than anyone on the road, anyone in my way
> is an obstruction, and I'll speed if I want to because I'm a damn
> good driver" attitude.

"To hell with the rules" does not necessarily go along with "I'm more
important than anyone on the road, anyone in my way is an obstruction, and
I'll speed if I want to because I'm a damn
good driver".  The latter may signify the mindset of a jerk, but the former
can be a quite useful recognition that "Those Who Make The Rules" are
interested only in their own continued well being, and not that of anyone
else's.


> The justification for a lot of the speeding
> on the interstate seems to be the "85th percentile" measurement of
> speed and no other factors should ever come into play.

That's the justification for exceeding the limit ("speeding" is such an
imprecise, non-standardized term), and overall it's a good one.  Very few
other factors _should_ come into play, especially on limited access
multilane highways.  Even on city streets it's usually not the case (whether
the local governments do so or not) that other factors need to be taken into
account.

Besides, in a democratic republic that claims to hold the recognition of
individual rights vitally important, how can it possibly be anyone else's
business how fast a driver wants to go, so long as by doing so, they do not
pose any additional danger to anyone else?

> I see the
> same attitude daily here in Blacksburg.  Speed limits, even in town
> and on residential streets, mean nothing.  Red lights are meant to be
> run if it means stopping might be inconvenient -- and I don't mean
> drifting through the light because stopping would require locking the
> brakes, this is the light turns yellow when the brat is 10 car-lengths
> or more from the stop-bar and they just roll right on through with no
> effort to slow or stop.  A 19-year-old student was killed last
> Saturday night on a street in town -- she was the passenger in a pickup
> truck that plowed into a car that pulled out in front of it.  The
> accident is still under investigation, but the indications are that
> speed was a factor -- both vehicles were flipped in the collision.
> "Me first, I'm good" -- speed -- meets "me first, I'll pull out if I
> want to and the other driver can change lanes" -- arrogance.  One girl
> dead, four others injured, and two vehicles totalled.

What does running red lights (going through on amber is perfectly correct
under federal policy so long as the light is not red before the intersection
is entered), proceeding against right-of-way, and dangerous driving
practices in city traffic--or traffic in general, or for that matter, even
going too fast for conditions, have to do with simply exceeding the posted
limit?  There is no necessary or inevitable connection, it's an individual
matter what combination of criminally irresponsible habits and sorry lack of
education a driver may or may not have, and may well not have anything to do
with how fast they go.

> So don't whine to me about how good a driver you think you are and try
> 18 ways to Sunday to justify why you ignore the laws (and courtesy).  It
> all boils down to selfish acts by spoiled brats who probably weren't
> told "no" very often by their parents.

> Breaking the law is breaking the law, whether you agree with the law
> or not.  Claiming that the VDOT/VSP lowering the speed limit on a
> section of I-81 won't improve safety or is just a ruse to annoy drivers
> and collect more revenue is a bunch of bull.  If you aren't part of the
> solution, then you are part of the problem.

The only necessary justification for breaking a law is that the law
restricts the freedom of citizens while providing no rightful benefit for
anyone else.  Or worse yet, in the case of speed limits, force drivers to
travel at speeds _below_ that at which the least amount of fatal collisions
occur (shown by more than _fifty years_ of traffic studies, the statistics
of which uniformly point to the 85th percentile of unregulated speeds
traveled as the safest place to put the limit) if they don't want to be
forced to give up money to the government or possibly, even, spend time in
jail.  The law in that case basically says "Either you put yourself at
increased risk of a fatal crash or we'll take some of your money or lock you
up".  That's utterly immoral, not just government-authorized but
government-DIRECTED _extortion_.  A very clear case of where those who
aren't part of the solution are part of the problem, contributing through
inaction to the perpetuation of a system designed to persecute drivers who
value their time and safety.

Aardwolf.