On 10/31/2017 8:58 PM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 10:24:04 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote:

John B. writes:

On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 22:52:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 10/30/2017 10:04 PM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 07:25:14 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

You rarely have to worry someone is actually going to run you
over. After all if might get blood on their car that they'd have
to wash off. But the continuous threats are tiring. When I get
back from a long city ride - say my home down to Palo Alto along
Hesperian then back again - some 50 miles - I will be threatened
at least two dozen times with cars trying to nudge me off the
road. Even with open lanes they could easily pass in. Another
thing is that you will be riding along and a car will come up
behind you fast, swerve around you and turn directly into a
driveway that causes you to slam on the brakes. Usually a store or
something.

I can only say that the U.S. must be different. I've ridden in Japan,
Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand and have never, repeat
NEVER, had anyone threaten me, either by word or action. I also rode
in New Hampshire and Southern California, but that was a long time ago
and I can't be sure but I certainly don't remember any acts that were
threatening.

I can only say that other parts of the U.S. must be different, because
what Tom describes almost never happens to me. Although my "other parts
of the U.S." statement needs some modification, since I've ridden all
the way across it, and ridden at least a little in 47 states so far.

The last irritating incident that happened to me was three weeks ago, on
a 50+ mile ride. Ohio has a new law requiring three feet passing
clearance. One car passed closer than that when there was plenty of room
to go around. But as someone said, I probably shouldn't attribute to
malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.

If the police were to ticket these people the state would never
again have to raise taxes. And it would have the side effect of
increasing road safety. But the drivers would not stand for it.

Locally one of the people who was caught by a red light camera
wrote a letter to the editor of the local paper. He was outraged
that they were using cameras to record miscreants. There were a
dozen follow-ups by others agreeing with him and not ONE comment
to the contrary.

In our area, the camera issue was speeding, not red lights. Yes, there
were online complaints about the fact that the cops were giving tickets
for being 13 mph over the 50 mph limit on the city-center freeway. But
here, to counter the over-privileged bitching, there were several
individuals posting "Don't be stupid, just drive slower." I was one of
those. I mentioned that the time saved by speeding had to be less than
three minutes.

In W. Australia, and probably the rest of the country, they had "speed
Cameras" which were mounted on portable tripods along roads ranging
from city streets to "way out in the country". I was told by my mate,
who's daughter was employed by the Perth Police in a clerical
position, that these cameras communicated with the police in some
manner and transmitted data on speeding cars which the police computer
turned into a speeding ticket which was mailed to your house.

The attitude seemed to be "stay under the speed limit" rather then
"I'm being persecuted".

But the U.S. attitude, which admittedly I only see posted in Internet
articles, about some sort of leeway on obeying laws seems odd. If it
is O.K. to drive 15 mph over the posted limit then why a lower posted
limit. Why not simply a posted 65 mph limit?

The federalization of speed limits had something to do with this
attitude. Back in the 70s the federal government mandated a nationwide
55 mph speed limit that had little support from state or local
governments. I recall an "unofficial" speed limit where I lived of
about 70 mph -- if you didn't drive faster than that on the highway you
hardly ever got a ticket, even if the state police were right behind
you.

If I remember correctly the 55 mph limit was an effort to counteract
the 1973 oil crises and was initially hoped to decrease gasoline use
by as much as 2.2% while it actually had a far lesser effect. Between
1/2 and 1%.

The Federal 1974 Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act, which was
signed into law on 2 Jan 1974, was repealed in 1995 and speed control
has been a state responsibility since then.

It might also be noted that a survey by the Associated Press found
that, as of Wednesday, January 2, 1974, only 12, of the 50 states had
State speed limits as high as 55 mph. 9 states had 50 mph speed limits
and 29 states had a limit of less then 50 mph.

In fact as the legislation required 55 mph speed limits on all
four-lane divided highways. In some cases, like the New York Thruway,
the 50 mph speed limit had to be raised to comply with the law.
--
Cheers,

John B.


In the 1970s, Montana and Nevada charged a $5 'energy
violation' for travel over 55 mph and even those were rarely
imposed.

One nice thing about 55mph was that the greater bulk of the
nation simply ignored it. Once repealed, and with slightly
higher limits, infractions are charged and convictions
routinely ruled to a greater extent, at greater cost, to
more people.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971