<<I can’t see why response times would change at all. Well, I suppose there are relativistic effects when travelling at higher speeds, but those are negligible. It may take me a longer distance to stop, but that isn’t the same thing, is it?>>
No, read the post following yours.
“Think I’m being too sanctimonious?”
<<Yes. Your post in no way explains why 80 mph is inherently unsafe an an uncrowded highway, which is definitely what you are asserting>>
I guess I need to list all of the things that can happen when ALONE on the roads in a car??? Really? Okay, let me do the biggies.
Falling asleep at the wheel. At 55, you may or may not awaken in time when you hit the vibration strips. At 85? You are going that much faster, and lose that second or two that would keep you from slamming into a concrete dividing wall.
A blow-out. Again, everything here is tied to reaction time, and the loss of a few seconds due to increased speed.
Black Ice.
Sun Glare.
Sudden stop light, or stop sign.
Off-Ramps misjudged.
Jeez, I need to keep going? You feel so strongly that it’s your absolute right to speed that much? It’s not a vaccuum that you drive in, it’s shared space- for all to use- with relative safety. ONE person speeding that fast could mean a 6 car pile-up. opposed to a side-swipe. Nothing I say will really matter to you, you’ve made it clear that you feel my concerns about road safety are sanctimonious indeed.
Just remember to help out the nice men at the cemetary when it’s a rainy day, and they need a bit of help covering the casket of a total stranger who died when your car, going 30 miles over the posted limit, clipped theirs- and you HAD NO TIME to respond.
And, have a nice day.
<-----------suitably furious now,
Cartooniverse
If you want to kiss the sky, you’d better learn how to kneel.
<Sigh> Apologies for the italics. Angry at the moment or not, I do need to go and do a little tutorial from the UBB people, so that I can accurately quote another posting. I think this one above makes sense, and I apologize if it’s not too clear. Scroll up a few, and it will make sense.
No excuse for SDMB Ignorance on my part, I do need to learn the right tricks to quote accurately.
Cartooniverse
If you want to kiss the sky, you’d better learn how to kneel.
Sigh…the state of education in this country. Who the HELL taught you that? You know what’s asinine? Some people’s belief that because a position has been written into law, it is somehow superior or preferable to other positions. What about the Jim Crow laws? What about the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Fugitive Slave Laws? What about the Eighteenth Amendment? What about sodomy laws?
The citizenry of this country is harassed by countless strange and abominable laws, with thousands more hitting the books every year. It doesn’t take a genius to see that law-breaking is wrong only by an arbitrary, legislated standard that does not necessarily have any relationship whatsoever to moral- or logical standards. This is especially true of traffic control laws. No traffic law should be tolerated or enforced unless such action demonstrably- and directly protects the public welfare. MaxTorque is right: do not shirk your responsibility to curb the police departments’ out-of-control appetites.
Bricker, anyone can accumulate tickets for any number of offenses–the problem is, they aren’t necessarily offenses against public safety or common sense. They are offenses against arbitrary rules that are enforced regardless of context. What possible reason can there be to stop at a red light at 3:00 in the morning when there is clearly no-one else in sight? Where is the logic in limiting highway speeds to 70 MPH when a properly maintained modern vehicle can safely negotiate our interstates at speeds twenty or more MPH in excess of such limits (I think here in Georgia, the threshold for reckless driving due to excess speed is fifteen MPH in excess of posted limit)? Cartooniverse, you needn’t apologize for your UBB skills–you should apologize for the pharisaical projection of your own driving skills onto your perception of others’ abilities. At the speeds Erratum and I operate, safety issues stemming from other drivers’ failure to remain constantly aware of what is taking place around them come into play well before the speed-related limits of a competent driver are reached. It is cell-phone-obsessed, adjusting-their-makeup-in-the-rearview-mirror soccer-moms who should be ticketed, not persons who have enough brain cells to ascertain the limits of one’s vehicle and minimize travel time accordingly. The raison d’être of the automobile is rapid transportation. If you’re not in a hurry, if you are unable to muster the requisite level of concentration and attention span, I suggest you get out and walk.
No-one should be in the business of endangering others. In my experience, it is the scofflaws who are the most attentive, competent, and (gasp) courteous drivers; the most hazardous drivers are those who feel their responsibilities begin and end with following the law.
So much for the obvious. The most interesting area of discussion here is one taking place between Erratum and DSYoungEsq: There are indeed “constitutional difficulties” associated with allowing everyone to operate near his or her own limits of safety. That is no excuse for the continued subjection of the competent motoring public to the current lowest-common-denominator scheme of traffic control, perpetrated by what DSYoungEsq apparently concedes is an incompetent enforcement corps
Um, isn’t that their job? More importantly, as an attorney, don’t you think Erratum is onto something when he writes:
What if current traffic control law were abolished in favor of the First Amendment model? Utilitarian freedom checked by the “clear and present danger” principle in cases of reckless endangerment and “prior restraint” in cases of drunken driving free of operational recklessness…what could be more American than that?
The foundation of morality should not be made dependent on myth nor tied to any authority lest doubt about the myth or about the legitimacy of the authority imperil the foundation of sound judgment and action.
Not a pedestrian, are you? The world looks a whole lot different when you’re not in a 1 ton metal cocoon.
I have come this | | close to being clipped by drivers who ignored stopsigns/right of way a number of time - sometimes because it was late, and there’s few pedestrians about, but sometimes simply because we don’t appear on their mental radar, unless there’s a cop around.
I’m offended, and frightened that your right to speed/ignore stopsigns/whatever is more important to you than my right not to have my life put in danger every time I step out of my house.
Here’s hoping you can nest QUOTE tags, otherwise this message isn’t going to post properly.
She is right in that the law is not optional, nor is the right to disregard it open for debate.
The way to argue this (and win a useful victory) isn’t to fight the ticket, but to change the laws, before going that speed.
I think traffic laws are a generally good thing, but can be applied badly.
Some guidelines are needed so that people can’t drive in any insane manner, but it wouldn’t work for the police to ticket people for unsafe driving. Unsafe driving is very dependant on the road conditions, on the driver, etc. Without hard and fast rules, we’d really be SOL in a greedy jurisdiction, because it’d be easy for the cop to say we were unsafe, yet not offer any proof of this. At least now you know what the offence is, and how to avoid it.
In this case, locals should get away with more than tourists, because they know the conditions. A local will know that there’s a blind hill just on one side of that four-way stop, and that running it is risky, a tourist will not. Similarly, running red lights when there aren’t enough other cars to warrant stopping is a judgement call. If other drivers expect you to be stopped, they won’t slow down when they have the green, but if you’re thinking you can make it before they get here, you’ll go early and perhaps cause them to have an accident, even if you don’t yourself.
For laws like that to work, we have to all follow them. For everyone to follow them, we have to punish those who don’t.
Propose a better system whereby traffic lights vary operation at night, becoming blinking red when the traffic falls below a certain limit, etc. There’ll still be laws, which you have to follow, but they’ll more closely reflect the situation.
Isn’t what their job, to know all the cars that pass, and who is driving, to judge if that person, who is handling 90mph on the straightaway can properly handle the corner coming up?
If you want a scheme with differing licenses, where people who take tons of driving courses and prove themselves at high speed have special plates that let them drive more quickly, them go for it. But fighting the law by breaking it, then whining when you get caught isn’t going to do anything except piss everyone else off.
No, the fact that he’s an attorney means nothing regarding my respect for him or his opinions. A lawyer is skilled (one hopes) at interpretting the law, not in the whole field of identifying and writing reasonable laws. He himself may be, but his profession means nothing in this regard.
The problem arises if you roll through a stop sign and someone is there, even though you thought the road was clear. I’ve been involved in three accidents in my life - weren’t my fault and I had the right of way. In each case, the other driver claimed various things like I “came out of nowhere” or she “didn’t see mr until the last second.” Presumably, they were following your dictate of ignoring the law in favor of their perception of what was safe. Equally obviously, they were wrong.
The law acts to build a fence between safe and unsafe behavior. But if a traffic violation only exists when a manuever is “unsafe” how to we measure that? By charging one driver in an accident and ignoring all others? Or by the police simply judging what moves are unsafe? I assume the latter solution won’t work for you, because if you got a ticket based only on a cop’s judgement you’d be screaming louder than you are now about how wrong he is.
<<PatronAnejo Writes:
Cartooniverse, you needn’t apologize for your UBB skills–you should apologize for the pharisaical projection of your own driving skills onto your perception of others’ abilities. At the speeds Erratum and I operate, safety issues stemming from other drivers’ failure to remain constantly aware of what is taking place around them come into play well before the speed-related limits of a competent driver are reached. It is cell-phone-obsessed, adjusting-their-makeup-in-the-rearview-mirror soccer-moms who should be ticketed, not persons who have enough brain cells to ascertain the limits of one’s vehicle and minimize travel time accordingly. The raison d’être of the automobile is rapid transportation. If you’re not in a hurry, if you are unable to muster the requisite level of concentration and attention span, I suggest you get out and walk.>>
My WHAT??? Your arrogance is impressive. There’s no debating you, you’ve made it clear that my concerns are somehow now twisted into my wanting everyone to drive like me. Nothing is farther from the truth. So, I’ll repeat my sentiment from my first posting in this Thread. You are so sure that you are entitled to operate at speed exceeding 80 mph? Then spend some time trying to crawl into what’s left of a car, after your 80mph vehicle has slammed into it, to see if anyone is left alive. You think that’s being arrogant? Sorry pal, but I’ve BEEN there,and DONE it, and will do it probably for the rest of my life. Because after arrogant people like YOU finish up wrecking other people’s lives, EMS personnel like ME get to clean up YOUR mess. Every time some cocksure snotface Mario Andretti Wanna-Be decides that he knows how to “Operate His Machine”, but only has to worry over the other “make-up soccer moms”, people die. Plain and simple. Not only did your response to me smack of total mysogenistic loathing, but it also shows that you feel you are such a superior “Operator”. With wording like that, we call must assume you “Operate” the Ultimate Driving Machine. N’est pas?
I don’t mind being slammed, but I am frankly horrified that you somehow have twisted your constitutional rights to include vehicular manslaughter ( And, in the more enlightened states in the Union, finally a law stating that Vehicular Murder is a possibility). You wanna drive too fast and hit things? Cool- go find the nearest bridge abutment, and enjoy yourself. Just don’t do it in my town, pal.
Oh, and I know this will shock you, but I don't hold a cellular phone with one hand while driving, and I don't wear make-up. You gonna tell us that you NEVER speak on a cellular while driving????
Cartooniverse
If you want to kiss the sky, you’d better learn how to kneel.
Cartoonuniverse, I think you’re reading in to what he said. I didn’t take that comment to mean only soccer moms (or other women) were the only culprits, merely a very easily recognized stereotype. Or maybe I’m just giving benefit of the doubt.
Cell-phone obsessed people bother me, but then I’ve been guilty of searching for the right CD to listen to while traveling down the interstate, and that’s at least as distracting.
Cartoonuniverse, I think you’re reading in to what he said. I didn’t take that comment to mean only soccer moms (or other women) were the only culprits, merely a very easily recognized stereotype. Or maybe I’m just giving benefit of the doubt.
Cell-phone obsessed people bother me, but then I’ve been guilty of searching for the right CD to listen to while traveling down the interstate, and that’s at least as distracting.
Cartoonuniverse, I think you’re reading in to what he said. I didn’t take that comment to mean only soccer moms (or other women) were the only culprits, merely a very easily recognized stereotype. Or maybe I’m just giving benefit of the doubt.
Cell-phone obsessed people bother me, but then I’ve been guilty of searching for the right CD to listen to while traveling down the interstate, and that’s at least as distracting.
…and I stand by my earlier statement: the most hazardous drivers are those who feel their responsibilities begin and end with following the law.
Cartooniverse:
Courtesy of Merriam-Webster: Pharisaical:[ul][li]Pronunciation: -'sA-&-k&l[/li][li]Function: adjective[/li][li]Date: 1531[/li][li]: marked by hypocritical censorious self-righteousness[/ul][/li]Projection:[ul][li]Pronunciation: pr&-'jek-sh&n[/li][li]Function: noun[/li][li]Date: 1557[/li][li]: the attribution of one’s own ideas, feelings, or attitudes to other people or to objects; especially : the externalization of blame, guilt, or responsibility as a defense against anxiety [emphasis mine][/ul][/li][quote]
There’s no debating you
[/quote]
It would be easier if you were right.
I assume you mean misogynistic, and <a href="#footer2">I am nothing of the sort</a>. Applying makeup in traffic is the most egregious example of inattentive driving I can think of, short of DWF.
Anyone with the ability to concentrate on the task at hand (i.e., negotiating traffic) operates at a level superior to the vast majority of the motoring public. I see no basis for your assumption regarding my choice of motor vehicle (I drive the same, impeccably-maintainted, 1998 Saab 900S that my parents gave me new upon graduation), but I do see reason to assume you received terrible grades in French, n’est-ce pas?
I never accused you of doing either, but this flaccid argument is rendered comical by what you’ve owned up to previously:
WhiteNight:
I think it’s apparent that I was referring to DSYoungEsq, not Erratum. The phrasing may be ambiguous, but the title (Esq.[sup]<a href="#footer1">1</a>[/sup]) is not.
Wrong. The law is both optional and open for debate. Notwithstanding your misrepresentation of VogueVixen’s actual words, i.e., that the law was not open for debate (which is obviously false–what, then, is the purpose of a representational legislature?), your interpretation of her meaning, i.e., we are not afforded the right to disregard the law, is also false. Just as our hand is not forced in the commission of crime, neither are we compelled to follow the law–such compulsion would define an intolerable state of affairs commonly referred to as a totalitarian society. Freedom from such totalitarianism is what has allowed civil disobedience to achieve its respected place in our lawmaking tradition. The Supreme Court cannot overturn unjust legislation until someone is first charged, tried, and convicted under such unjust laws. And for those of you whose civics education is gleaned from made-for-TV-movies, jury nullification of murder charges against victims of domestic violence has spawned legislation in all fifty states designed to protect victims of domestic abuse[sup]<a href="#footer2">2</a>[/sup].
I would endorse such a scheme wholeheartedly. It complements nicely the First Amendment model I propose, as it would provide enforcement with tailored guidelines regarding the invocation of the “clear and present danger” principle. No-one who has ever parroted the phrase “Driving is a priviledge, not a right” should have any objection to the establishment of a road-going meritocracy of this sort.
Absolutely, unapologetically, unequivocally, yes.
Bricker, I agree it would be difficult to implement a traffic control scheme that is consistent with merit and liberty, but does that mean it shouldn’t be done? It’s not just difficult to maintain the “preferred position” of the First Amendment, it is difficult and preferable to the alternative–we understand that it’s the only system that allows everyone to realize their talents. If we do not tolerate any abridgement of our rights for the sake of enforcement authorities’ convenience in other aspects of our society, why should we tolerate it in our right to travel freely?
<a name=“footer1”>[sup]1[/sup]<font size=“1”>According to the Association of the Bar of the City of New York Committee on Professional and Judicial Ethics, “It is not clear how the title “Esquire” came to be used so commonly (and seemingly so exclusively) by lawyers in the United States. There is no authority that reserves the title ‘Esquire’ for the exclusive use of lawyers. Because neither the law nor any established ethical rule governs the use of the title, it would be presumptuous for any non-legislative body to purport to regulate its use. Nonetheless, based on common usage it is fair to state that if the title appears after a person’s name, that person may be presumed to be a lawyer.”</font></a>
<a name=“footer2”>[sup]2[/sup]<font size=“1”>Our male-dominated lawmaking bodies would never have gotten around to enacting such legislation in the absence of civil disobedience and jury nullification. It often takes decades before the cause taken up by the civilly di
Well, as far as I am concerned, it would be a waste of resources, in light of the very minimal intrusion upon personal liberty created by extant traffic laws.
It is clear, however, that you disagree. And that’s fine; as was pointed out elsewhere, this is one of the benefits of the representative democracy in which we live.
Given your strong feelings about this issue, and making the assumption that these feelings have not just spring, fully formed, from this debate in the manner of Athena from Zeus’ head, I wonder if I might inquire… what have you done, thus far, as a citizen, in an effort to change the traffic laws to comport with your ideal vision?
Therein lies the essence of this thread, no? In one corner: those who feel that “intrusion upon personal liberty” is the best way to ensure public safety. In the other corner: those who understand that “minimal intrusion upon personal liberty” is a fiction on a par with “halftime entertainment” and “the Oprah Winfrey diet”.
Erratum is right,
As long as traffic laws exist as written, people will have their liberties unnecessarily curbed (as have we all); they will complain (as has Rachelle); and some will fight back (as have Voltaire and MaxTorque).
Hmmmm…maybe you’ve got me there. Given the success that anti-speed propagandists have had in spreading misinformation and building inertia in <UL TYPE=SQUARE>[li]traffic planning commissions (even those count enlighted engineers among their number) and[]city councils and their constituents,[/list]and given the the low level of sophistication among even the teeming millions (witness the remarks of VogueVixen, Zulu, and mattk) regarding the relationship between even mundane matters of law (such as traffic control) and larger issues of liberty, I suppose I do about as much as an employed person can, i.e.,:[ul][]demonstrating to passengers that safety and speed are not mutually exclusive,[]debunking the misinformation that leads people to fear speed (with the help of Car and Driver’s Csaba Csere and Patrick Bedard),[]violating as many traffic codes as is safely practicable,[]contesting and beating the rap whenever busted,[]pointing the teeming millions to sources like:[/li]National Motorists Association Reasonable Drivers Unanimous National Coalition for the Abolition of Speed Limits[/ul]I concede that as an individual, such actions are not enough to effect real change. I contend, however, that radical grass-roots activity is more likely to receive media attention (and thereby garner public sentiment) than operating through channels (as suggested by you and DSYoungEsq).
PatronAnejo - the people who follow the law to the letter are very safe - they watch the road, they keep an eye on the curb to make sure there’s no pedestrians about to run out in front of them. They drive at a speed that they can actually respond before getting into an accident.
If you’re not watching the road, you’re not following the law.
The people you’re defending - the ones who think they can ‘drive safely’ without following such ‘arbitrary’ laws as speed limits, and stop signals - they are dangerous. They are not unlike the idiots who jaw on their cell-phones, or put on their makeup while driving. They run into pedestrians, because they didn’t see them in time. They rear end the drivers in front of them because they didn’t give themselves enough stopping room. Believing that you can avoid accidents - even when following the traffic laws to the letter - is irresponsible, and immature. It is every driver’s responsibility to do whatever they can to reduce the odds - which means following the traffic laws.
You’re dead wrong. The following may be counterintuitive to you, but that makes it no less true: enthusiasts are spirited drivers; as such, they are far more attentive and have a better understanding of driving ettiquette.
Sorry if you’re having a hard time comprehending just how delusory your prejudices are. Would some pictures help? <img SRC=“http://www.sense.bc.ca/img/isku_85th_1.gif” HEIGHT=“290” WIDTH=“446” ALIGN=“RIGHT”> This graph[sup]<a href="#footer1">1</a>[/sup] demonstrates the reduced crash risk for drivers travelling 10-15 km/h over the average speed. Contrary to popular belief, there are more crashes at slower speeds than at faster speeds. Raw speed and crash risk are not directly related: there is a near-parabolic relationship which shows few fast drivers involved in crashes, and many more slow drivers involved in crashes.</img> According to the Interstate Highway Safety Administration, the nationwide fatality rate dropped from 2.5 per 100 million vehicle miles in 1986 (when the speed limit was a blanket 55 mph) to 2.4 in 1987 when 65 mph was implemented.
I’m going to bed. Frag ya’ later!
<a name=“footer1”>[sup]1[/sup]<font size=“1”>D. Solomon, “Accidents on Main Rural Highways Related to Speed, Driver and Vehicle,” Record of the Bureau of Public Roads, July 1964.
J. A. Cirillo, “Interstate System Accident Research Study II, Interim Report II,” Public Roads, vol. 35, no. 3, August 1968.
David L. Harkey, et. al., “Assessment of Current Speed Zoning Criteria,” Transportation Research Record, no. 1281, 1990.</font></a>
The lesson I feel we can take from it is that we all need to drive about 10 kph faster than the average speed, thus placing us in that safe zone.
Of course, if everyone is trying to do this… the average speed will increase. So to drive faster than the average, I will have to go still faster - as will everyone else trying to get into that “safe zone.”
It reminds me of the apocryphal story about the candidate’s promise: “We shall continue along this course of action until all of our citizens have above-average incomes!”
I would further point out that the activities you’ve described to date hardly constitute a “radical” grass-roots campaign; indeed, even “campaign” might be pushing it.
It is not difficult for one person to have an effect. When I was a teenager, my parent’s house was about half a block off a main road in Falls Church City. At the head of the street was a large office building. The denizens of this office building used to park their cars down my street every weekday morning. For years, everyone griped about this.
When I turned sixteen and got my license, it started to bother me. I wasn’t yet so sharp on parallel parking, and it was a nightmare trying to maneuver into a small space right in front of my house!
Rather than join my fellow neighbors in their long-standing and ineffectual griping, I paid a visit to City Hall - and I discovered that the city code had a provision for creating “residential permit parking” zones, even though none existed in the city at the time. It took a city council decision to create such a zone.
I wrote to the city council members. Nothing. I actually visited the mayor. Nothing. Blah blah, double talk double talk, the building pays taxes, the streets are public.
So I started a petition. I got everyone who lived on the two blocks directly affected by the parking to sign it. I got everyone at school to get their parents to sign it. And I gave a copy to the local paper before I dropped it off at City Hall. The city council scheduled a hearing. I testified at that hearing.
And we got the permit parking law passed. Because although the building did pay taxes, so did the residents on those streets. And more importantly: the building people were not city residents, and didn’t have a vote to elect the council members. To this day, when I visit my mom, I see the “Permit Parking Only” signs, and remember that in large measure, I made that happen.
I tell this long and boring anecdote to suggest that it’s not beyond the bounds of imagination that one person can start the ball rolling ‘within the system’ as it were, and actually make a difference.
Of course, talking on a message board is good, too.
In one of the articles that PatronAnejo linked, it was demonstrated that the fatality rates on US Interstates and German Autobahns are about the same. It’s my understanding that speeds on the autobahns are significantly faster than US speeds, and that there is no “speed limit”. If this is correct (if it isn’t, please explain why it’s not), then how do speed limit advocates explain it?
I have never discounted the importrance of ultimately effecting change at the legislative level. However, there’s an enormous difference between amending a parking scheme and convincing 274,202,830 people that a deep-seated prejudice is delusory. When attempting to effect sea change against an inertia of this magnitude, one must capture mindshare before setting to the task of winning votes.
I would never employ the term campaign to describe my current activities and I never have. There is a long, serial progression which intervenes between glorified whining and an organized campaign; I wouldn’t pretend otherwise. I do, however, operate outside of the law in the advancement of an agenda. Hence, radical.
Actually, the lesson here is to segregate slow-moving traffic from faster traffic. The magnitude of deviation from mean traffic speed accurately predicts your risk of becoming involved in a collision. <img src=“Bureau of Transportation Statistics” HEIGHT=“369” WIDTH=“450” ALIGN=“LEFT”>This second graph[sup]1[/sup] should allow you to draw this conclusion more easily. It is apparent from this graph that a person driving X miles per hour below mean traffic speed is more likely to become involved in an incident than a person driving a corresponding X miles per hour above mean traffic speed.
The broader conclusion is that there exist means of increasing traffic safety that are vastly superior to decreasing speed. The most important means are increasing situational awareness and establishing closer observation of traffic etiquette. That, as Erratum suggests, is the key to the German’s success with their Autobahnen.
[sup]1[/sup]<font size=“1”>Graph is from the United States Department of Transportation’s National Transportation Library.</img></font>
