Reckless, Aggressive Drivers: Homegrown Terrorists

Jack May wrote:
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Jack May wrote:
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Jack May wrote:
"donquijote1954" wrote in message
...

All that is needed is adding microphones and cameras to the transponders -
then the government can achieve the long awaited goal of regulating
behavior of people in their homes behind closed doors.

You mean like with present cell phones and WiFi which is much more powerful
than is being planned for car to car communication over a short range of
hundreds of feet.

You have to come to grips with the fact that you are probably far too
ordinary for the Government to care about anything you do.


Despite the continued use of the word "democracy"

--
Corporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it
has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management
decisions. -From “Rollerball”

Martin Edwards wrote:
Jack May wrote:
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Jack May wrote:
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Jack May wrote:
"donquijote1954" wrote in message
...


All that is needed is adding microphones and cameras to the
transponders - then the government can achieve the long awaited goal
of regulating behavior of people in their homes behind closed doors.

You mean like with present cell phones and WiFi which is much more
powerful than is being planned for car to car communication over a
short range of hundreds of feet.

You have to come to grips with the fact that you are probably far too
ordinary for the Government to care about anything you do.

Despite the continued use of the word "democracy"

Watch it. Subtlety flies over his amazing genius head too.

On Feb 22, 11:33*am, Martin Edwards wrote:
Jack May wrote:
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Jack May wrote:
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
.. .
Jack May wrote:
"donquijote1954" wrote in message
...

All that is needed is adding microphones and cameras to the transponders -
then the government can achieve the long awaited goal of regulating
behavior of people in their homes behind closed doors.

You mean like with present cell phones and WiFi which is much more powerful
than is being planned for car to car communication over a short range of
hundreds of feet.

You have to come to grips with the fact that you are probably far too
ordinary for the Government to care about anything you do.

Despite the continued use of the word "democracy"

This is the best definition I've found...

"Freedom is when the people can speak, democracy is when the
government listens" -Alastair Farrugia

On Feb 22, 11:04*am, donquijote1954
wrote:
On Feb 22, 9:53*am, Pat wrote:





On Feb 22, 9:13*am, donquijote1954
wrote:

On Feb 21, 10:02*pm, "Jack May" wrote:

"donquijote1954" wrote in message

....

OK, as part of our presidential campaign (it's not for me:
htttp://webspawner.com/users/elections2008) we are launching a
campaign to get unncessary drivers (particularly the bad ones) off the
road, not by 6% in 15 years, but by 60%...

Oh yes, perfectly doable if there's the political will... and
transportation OPTIONS. We are waiting for Ralph Nader for our
challenge to take up the issue, but if not you know the party...
Banana Revolution.

Funny, Nader made cars so much safer, but never worked on preventing
accidents. I hope he's reading...

A drive toward fewer cars
There are other ways to get from A to B

Wow you really insist on showing the world how you are unable to comprehend
anything about society and the real world.

Why don't you take a vacation in Europe? They are also part of the
real world. Actually, America is the only one that is different among
developed nations. I wonder why.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I guess I just don't understand the whole concept of debating whether
cars are good or bad. *They are what they a good for some and
useless for others. *And while I don't try to impose my view on you
(speaking broadly here), I don't understand what right you have to
impose your view on me. *I like Rocky Road ice cream. *That doesn't
mean that you should too. *It's personal preference and affordability
and need and a phethora of other things.

Pat, I'm sure I told you before that I don't question the fact you
drive a vehicle, not even the fact that you live in the boondocks
(remember the word?), just that I assert my right to travel on two
wheels in relative safety. And what I see out there is intimidating,
intimidating enough to make my girlfriend take the sidewalk, and me
give up the bicycle sport as an intolerable blood sport...



The gov't can clearly set some type of emissions standards for cars
and can enforce them, although it is tougher to impose them
retroactively on older cars. *The government can control useage
through tax policy.

Exactly. You got enough money to waste on gas, then pay a hefty price
for SUVs. Call it "Global Warming tax" if you will.



The government can also subsidize alternatives and promote research
into alternatives.

Sure. *That tax above would pay for the subsidies.



But when all is said and done, it is the individual consumer who
decides what to buy and where to drive and how to use their vehicles.
Market forces are incredibly hard to overcome.

Market forces are business forces manipulated from above. Nothing
democratic about it. Other peoples drive smaller cars following
"market forces," or better said, following higher gas prices.







Since I am on a rant, one more pet peeve. *Whoever it is who keeps
saying they ride a scooter and therefore such-and-such. *It's a real
problem to consider yourself as riding a scooter. *You're riding a
motorcycle. *Get it, a motorcycle. *It's legal no different than a
Harley or crotch-rocket (at least in the state's I am familiar with).
If it's got a motor and two (or three) wheels and a license plate then
it's a motorcycle. *If it doesn't have a plate, then it can't be on
the road. *If it's a motorcycle, then ride it like one. *Get out in
the lane. *Maintain road speed. *Use your lane to your advantage.
Don't hug the shoulder. *Otherwise, get off the road -- you're too
dangerous. *I have a fairly big bike but ride on expressways quite a
lot and have to deal with tractor trailers and cars all the time.
I've had very little trouble. *In fact, I'd say that trucks are
particularly careful around a bike. *Thinks like overside loads with
escort vehicles pay particular attention to bikes to make sure they
don't hit the wind-blast wrong. *But by the same token, when a truck
doesn't have a covered load and has gravel coming off, I get on my CB
and tell them. *They normally apologize and don't realize what they
are doing. *Most promise they will rectify the problem and I believe
them.

Truck drivers are real drivers. The best drivers in America. They have
special license and training.



For all the worrying about inattentive SUV drivers, I wonder if you
aren't part of the problem. *I've never found that to be an issue.

I guess you don't know because you don't live in an urban environment.
They are threat to others, just by being oversized. But the solution
is NOT to ban them, but to have them get a truck license like above.
Aren't SUVs trucks?- Hide quoted text -


Yes, SUVs are trucks. So are minivans. So are Subarus. There is no
real distinction except maybe bumper height. But you can go get a 20'
Uhaul and drive it, too: You are the U in U-Haul. It's not someone-
else-haul.

Don't get intimindated on the road. That's probably 90% of your
trouble. That, and acting unpredictably.

As for boondocks. Yeah, great to live here. But I spend way too much
time traveling to cities and suburbs. It's not the size of the cars
that bother me, it's all of the people. The cars are fine.

On Feb 22, 11:32*am, donquijote1954
wrote:
(Quoted from 'It's No Accident." The items I disagree with, I put a
question mark. Consider it a rough draft for the revolution's traffic
safey policy, or simply an impossible dream for America)

As to what should constitute gross negligence on the part of
motorists, this is obviously the stikiest part of the equation. Some
of what I believe constitutes gross negligence is perfectly legal
right now. Other such behaviors net little more than a slap on the
wrist. However, if our society is ever to get truly serious about
elimination avoidable crashes on our roads, it is essential that we
begin to distinguish between crashes that result from honest mistakes
and those that result from INTENTIONAL DISREGARD FOR SAFETY. [my
emphasis]

Accordingly, any definition of gross negligence would, at minimum,
include crashes that involve the following:

- talking on a hand-held or hands-free phone, watching TV, reading a
newspaper, or operating a laptop computer while driving [!]

Cell phones often make it safer to drive. Except for hands-free cell
phones, all of the list is currently illegal. So what's you point.


- driving more than 14mph over the speed limit

- driving more than 9mph over the speed limit AND engaging in anyone
of the following behaviors: taigating, attempting to pass another
vehicle that is already traveling at the speed limit [?]*, running a
solid red light, or running a stop sign

I have no problem with enforcement. However, you're going to have to
get the troopers to stop passing people. Have fun with that one.


- hit and run, etc...

* I don't think anyone should play vigilante. Besides we can put speed
cameras that do the job better, with less road rage.

I'd add my own:

- zigzagging around cars

currently illegal. As is lane-sharing in all states except CA.


- driving too slow (15mph under the limit)

min speed on an expressway is 45mph in most states.

Besides, a law like that is unenforceable: bad weather, turning,
stopping, agricultural, spec-com, scooters, bicycles and others often
mean slower speeds. "Oh, I can't stop for the bus with the red lights
on because I have to slow down for that".


- installing equipment that imperil other people, such as macho
bumpers

illegal.

Here's the problem that will haunt you and give you ulcers forever.
All of the things you dislike are already illegal. So you're problem
isn't with the law, its with the cops. So how is changing the law
going to do anything?

OK, since the subject here is ROAD TERRORISM, it may be useful to know
what the color code on our roads is...

(quoted from 'It's No Accident')

Since the September 11th terrorist attacks, officials in the Bush
Administration have been issuing routine reminders about the threads
posed by terrorists and urging us to be on the lookout for suspicious
activity. In March 2002 the Department of Homeland Security introduced
a color-coded terror system to alert law enforcement officials and the
general public to increases in the level of "chatter" the goverment
intercepts from suspected terror cells. We are urged to take extra
precautions when the threat level is elevated.

(...)

Such efforts to alert the public to the potential for future attacks
and encourage us to be prepared may indeed save some lives. On a day-
to-day basis, however, the greatest threat to our individual safety is
the same as it was before September 11th: DANGEROUS DRIVERS. If a
color-coded system were adopted today to warn Americans of the risk of
impending death or injury while traveling the nation's roads, we would
have to be on CODE RED alert every single day.

In spite of this reality, the government makes little effort to inform
the public about the high crash rate on our roads, remind motorists of
the rules of the road, warn them of the risks inherent in all forms of
dangerous driving, encourage safe driving, or condemn dangerous
driving.

[Warning: These terrorists are on the loose]

On Feb 22, 12:03*pm, Pat wrote:
On Feb 22, 11:04*am, donquijote1954
wrote:





On Feb 22, 9:53*am, Pat wrote:

On Feb 22, 9:13*am, donquijote1954
wrote:

On Feb 21, 10:02*pm, "Jack May" wrote:

"donquijote1954" wrote in message

...

OK, as part of our presidential campaign (it's not for me:
htttp://webspawner.com/users/elections2008) we are launching a
campaign to get unncessary drivers (particularly the bad ones) off the
road, not by 6% in 15 years, but by 60%...

Oh yes, perfectly doable if there's the political will... and
transportation OPTIONS. We are waiting for Ralph Nader for our
challenge to take up the issue, but if not you know the party...
Banana Revolution.

Funny, Nader made cars so much safer, but never worked on preventing
accidents. I hope he's reading...

A drive toward fewer cars
There are other ways to get from A to B

Wow you really insist on showing the world how you are unable to comprehend
anything about society and the real world.

Why don't you take a vacation in Europe? They are also part of the
real world. Actually, America is the only one that is different among
developed nations. I wonder why.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I guess I just don't understand the whole concept of debating whether
cars are good or bad. *They are what they a good for some and
useless for others. *And while I don't try to impose my view on you
(speaking broadly here), I don't understand what right you have to
impose your view on me. *I like Rocky Road ice cream. *That doesn't
mean that you should too. *It's personal preference and affordability
and need and a phethora of other things.

Pat, I'm sure I told you before that I don't question the fact you
drive a vehicle, not even the fact that you live in the boondocks
(remember the word?), just that I assert my right to travel on two
wheels in relative safety. And what I see out there is intimidating,
intimidating enough to make my girlfriend take the sidewalk, and me
give up the bicycle sport as an intolerable blood sport...

The gov't can clearly set some type of emissions standards for cars
and can enforce them, although it is tougher to impose them
retroactively on older cars. *The government can control useage
through tax policy.

Exactly. You got enough money to waste on gas, then pay a hefty price
for SUVs. Call it "Global Warming tax" if you will.

The government can also subsidize alternatives and promote research
into alternatives.

Sure. *That tax above would pay for the subsidies.

But when all is said and done, it is the individual consumer who
decides what to buy and where to drive and how to use their vehicles.
Market forces are incredibly hard to overcome.

Market forces are business forces manipulated from above. Nothing
democratic about it. Other peoples drive smaller cars following
"market forces," or better said, following higher gas prices.

Since I am on a rant, one more pet peeve. *Whoever it is who keeps
saying they ride a scooter and therefore such-and-such. *It's a real
problem to consider yourself as riding a scooter. *You're riding a
motorcycle. *Get it, a motorcycle. *It's legal no different than a
Harley or crotch-rocket (at least in the state's I am familiar with).
If it's got a motor and two (or three) wheels and a license plate then
it's a motorcycle. *If it doesn't have a plate, then it can't be on
the road. *If it's a motorcycle, then ride it like one. *Get out in
the lane. *Maintain road speed. *Use your lane to your advantage.
Don't hug the shoulder. *Otherwise, get off the road -- you're too
dangerous. *I have a fairly big bike but ride on expressways quite a
lot and have to deal with tractor trailers and cars all the time.
I've had very little trouble. *In fact, I'd say that trucks are
particularly careful around a bike. *Thinks like overside loads with
escort vehicles pay particular attention to bikes to make sure they
don't hit the wind-blast wrong. *But by the same token, when a truck
doesn't have a covered load and has gravel coming off, I get on my CB
and tell them. *They normally apologize and don't realize what they
are doing. *Most promise they will rectify the problem and I believe
them.

Truck drivers are real drivers. The best drivers in America. They have
special license and training.

For all the worrying about inattentive SUV drivers, I wonder if you
aren't part of the problem. *I've never found that to be an issue.

I guess you don't know because you don't live in an urban environment.
They are threat to others, just by being oversized. But the solution
is NOT to ban them, but to have them get a truck license like above.
Aren't SUVs trucks?- Hide quoted text -

Yes, SUVs are trucks. *So are minivans. *So are Subarus. *There is no
real distinction except maybe bumper height. *But you can go get a 20'
Uhaul and drive it, too: *You are the U in U-Haul. *It's not someone-
else-haul.

No, miss. SUVs are trucks and minivans are cars by the definition that
makes SUVs get away with substandard safety, both to them and to
others. They were too above the CAFE standards for the same reason.
And you can also write them as work vehicles for similar reason,
however twisted those definitions may be.


Don't get intimindated on the road. *That's probably 90% of your
trouble. *That, and acting unpredictably.

Why don't you buy the book I've been using? That the roads are so
dangerous is probably one good reason for some people to move to the
boondocks.


As for boondocks. *Yeah, great to live here. *But I spend way too much
time traveling to cities and suburbs. *It's not the size of the cars
that bother me, it's all of the people. *The cars are fine.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If you only go to town occasionally, you may not notice the magnitude
of the problem...

(coment from 'It's No Accident')

Lisa Lewis's total command of the issues surrounding traffic safety
makes this a most credible book. She is at her best when she takes
unconventional stances on matters that have long been somewhat
sacrosanct in this country, such as pointing out the complicity of the
insurance industry in undermining traffic safety, or the federal
government's role in refusing to address traffic safety issues aside
from seat belts and alcohol. Likewise, she points out any number of
life-saving technologies already available that the powers-that-be
refuse to even consider requiring on vehicles.

***

I'm sure the bears where you live are not as dangerous as the
dangerous drivers out there.

On Feb 22, 12:10*pm, Pat wrote:

- talking on a hand-held or hands-free phone, watching TV, reading a
newspaper, or operating a laptop computer while driving [!]

Cell phones often make it safer to drive. *Except for hands-free cell
phones, all of the list is currently illegal. *So what's you point.

It's not illegal in most of the country. Again, you generalize by
where you live.



- driving more than 14mph over the speed limit

- driving more than 9mph over the speed limit AND engaging in anyone
of the following behaviors: taigating, attempting to pass another
vehicle that is already traveling at the speed limit [?]*, running a
solid red light, or running a stop sign

I have no problem with enforcement. *However, you're going to have to
get the troopers to stop passing people. *Have fun with that one.

Everybody runs red lights where I live, except in the boondocks, of
course, where's no red lights. In the Florida Keys they don't have
much of a problem either. That's also the boondocks.



- hit and run, etc...

* I don't think anyone should play vigilante. Besides we can put speed
cameras that do the job better, with less road rage.

I'd add my own:

- zigzagging around cars

currently illegal. *As is lane-sharing in all states except CA.

They always zigzag where I live. And I guess it's the same for most of
the country. I read So. Carolina is the worst.




- driving too slow (15mph under the limit)

min speed on an expressway is 45mph in most states.

Besides, a law like that is unenforceable: bad weather, turning,
stopping, agricultural, spec-com, scooters, bicycles and others often
mean slower speeds. *"Oh, I can't stop for the bus with the red lights
on because I have to slow down for that".

When you see that happening all the time. You can predict with 90%
accuracy they are on the phone. Or sometimes elder people. Time to
retire, you know.




- installing equipment that imperil other people, such as macho
bumpers

illegal.

Here's the problem that will haunt you and give you ulcers forever.
All of the things you dislike are already illegal. *So you're problem
isn't with the law, its with the cops. *So how is changing the law
going to do anything?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

50% is changing the law, and 50% is enforcing it. But if you put
cameras around, the cops (and lawyers) may become redundant.

donquijote1954 ??? wrote:
[...]
Sorry, but we are trying to develop alternatives (bikes, public
transportation) for the moment when 70% of drivers are banned from the
road[...]

Superior people prefer to ride a bicycle.

I am counting down the days to a move that will allow to commute by bicycle!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Jack May wrote:
"donquijote1954" wrote in message
...
On Feb 21, 7:37 am, Bolwerk wrote:
Martin Edwards wrote:
Tom Sherman wrote:
Jack May wrote:
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Jack May wrote:
"donquijote1954" wrote in message
...

Sorry, but we are trying to develop alternatives (bikes, public
transportation) for the moment when 70% of drivers are banned from the
road...

Wow what are really stupid goal. The public wants nothing to do with using
bikes, public transportation, or any other alternative. All of those
alternative are total failures with zero chance of replacing cars. Cars
will be here long after you are dead. They will just being using
alternative fuels instead of oil.[...]

Too bad we are stuck with inferior people that prefer motor vehicles to
bicycles.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful