You sound like one of the nut-jobs that brought us 55-and-alive.
Driving fast <> killing people. No link has ever been shown, limiting
the discussion to highways designed for speed, as the Ike system is.
In case you'd care to check, the discussion was about defeating
law enforcement systems that catch people who are breaking existing
laws.
Yes, the laws are wrong, and stupid. I don't argue that. Albeit I do
take exception to you equating me to a nut-job. That's Thompson's job.
What I argue is, how stupid do you have to be to walk up and spit in the
face of a guy who's three times your size, has a gun and a club, and is
authorized by the prince to use them on you?
A couple of times a year I go out to visit my mother, which is a 1100mi
trip. 100MPH would add two days to time there or cut out two days in a
hotel in some dump along the way. In fact, 85MPH limits would likely
do it.
OK, so work towards changing the laws. Admittedly, it's not
speed that kills, it's stupidity and negligence.
But in the interim, going and being all in their face isn't the
action that gets them to change their mind, is it?
This is just too silly for words. Higher speed <> faster. Ok, if you
say so Rich! Yikes!
Well, I was talking about an experiment conducted on real roads in
real life here. Yeah, if you're on a race track, faster == faster. But
if you're breezing through some backwater whistlestop, there are
kids who have not yet been trained to stay off the road wif da
prose.[sic] And I did say that I had read a "study." The one guy went
balls-to-the-walls, the other guy drove gently, and the fast guy
only beat the slow guy by a matter of a few minutes - less time
than it takes you to finish your beer.
Why do they put speed traps where they put speed traps?
I've even heard that the cops DON'T MIND when the locations of
the speed traps are revealed, because "officially" their purpose
is to reduce risk; if people slow down to a sane speed during
the speed trap, the cops are "officially" just as happy as can
be.
Now, given that, if you're up in arms about entrapment, then I'm
with you a hunnert[sic] percent. They shouldn't hang out in
speedy spots just to nail people. They also shouldn't dress
nazis up in drag to entrap lonely old men who are only looking
for some companionship. Unfortunately, they _can_ do that, wrong
as it is.
In the interim, the pigs are only doing their job, and we all know
that jobs are scarce these days, expecially[sic] jobs that pay
like a union cop job. And they still have guns and clubs.
AND, now that I proofread, you're not a very good proofreader.
"100 MPH would add two days..." um I think you got that ass-
backwards. I personally have driven from Minneapolis, MN to
Biloxi, MS, in three days, at a rather leisurely pace. I've
also driven from So. Cal. to Minneapolis (or its suburbs)
more than once - AND BACK! - and an extra mile or two per
hour really didn't make all that much of a difference. I
once even submitted a "safety slogan": "Strive to Drive to
Arrive Alive."
My point is, why go to such great lengths to defeat a system
that's intended to deter lawbreakers, when you could back off
a little, get there within MINUTES of the target time, and
not endanger innocent bystanders - and not set yourself up to
get accosted by troops of uniformed goons, each of which is
armed with guns, clubs, and mace?
Whay don't you walk everywhere, if speed doesn't matter?
Well, notwithstanding I don't know what "Whay" means, this
would resolve to the kind of question that's "baiting", AKA
"trolling". I drive my car, but I don't drive my car a
thousand miles an hour. I drive, at a sane speed, so there's
no need for me to be paranoid about speed traps.
Checkpoints, however...
Cheers!
Rich
