[Prev][Index][Thread]

Re: Comments from Mr. Traffic



Hey there Kenny,

I will try to keep this in the spirit of friendly debate, OK? <g>

In article <3vmtgv$dcf@news-e1a.megaweb.com> kennystar@megaweb.com (KENNY 
MORSE) writes:

>>Driving is dangerous.  We all know that.  The question is who should decide 
>>the risks that drivers take: the drivers themselves or an elite who believe 
>>they know better than anyone else.

>Who should decide.....I'll tell you who....I want the government to
>protect me from jecks who tailgate...weave lanes....drink & drive
>and go 85 mph.  Speed would NOT be a problem if everybody would
>do what they were supposed to....JEEZ, how many times must I
>say that before some of you dense people get that!  But they DON'T!!
>If we had testing like the German's, and respect for the law and each
>other like them....then our roads might stand the higher speeds.

I'm not dense.  The fact remains that all these other problems you 
mention--and they are real problems indeed--are what makes the highways 
unsafe.  Speeds that were once legal and considered perfectly normal are not 
the problem.

>An elite?  I am Grateful for this elite that protects me from you.

You don't need any protection from me.  I drive safely and courteously, at 
speeds the highways were designed for and were once legal--until Congress 
decided they knew better.  Haven't had a collision in many, many years.  (I 
did get in a wreck once when I was very young and did drive irresponsibly--and 
I was driving under the speed limit at the time.)

>>It should be self-evident that when the vast majority are unwilling to obey a
>>law, that law is wrong.  In a democracy, by definition there would be no such
>>law.  There are few laws in America where the will of the people is so 
>>obvious, and the contempt the elite have for the people equally obvious, as 
>>our highway speed limits.

>Ever hear of SLAVERY?  The tyranny of the majority? Just because
>everybody doesn't like a law doesn't mean it should be dumped!  Before
>you start turning blue...remember...I am FOR raising the speed limit from
>55!

Good, we agree on something. <g>  Slavery and tyranny of the majority is an 
amazingly bad analogy, though.  Since when does *freedom* (from repressive 
speed limits) equate with slavery and tyranny?  This is backwards, sir.

>>The elite say we must all be made lawbreakers to protect us from driving like
>>crazy people.  Guess what, Kenny?  When the law continually insults drivers,
>>when it makes nearly all of us lawbreakers, people start to go crazy.  You 
>>can't be insulted every time you go on the highway and not be affected by it.

>Wrong again....the Elite do NOT make you a lawbreaker.....YOU DO! Ever
>hearof personal responsibility?? An abberation in 1995!

I'm all for personal responsibility.  Yes, we choose to break the law.  The 
fact remains that our lawmakers have chosen to make ordinary behavior of 
normal people illegal.

>>One death is too many?  Want to bet there aren't a few people who have died 
>>precisely because our traffic laws have made people crazy?  There have.

>I'll let THAT speak for itself!

I stand by my statement, and I will give you some more explanation.  Have you 
ever heard of a "double bind"?  This is where no response to a situation is 
acceptable.  Ask a psychologist about it--it's a really good way to mess
someone up.

I don't know about your area, but here in the South Bay, the situation we have 
on any freeway with moderate but free-flowing traffic is a classic double 
bind.  All the traffic will be moving well above the speed limit.  If you 
obey the law, you will cause a dangerous traffic situation.  If you drive at a 
safe, responsible speed, you will be breaking the law.

There is literally no speed you can drive at that will be both safe and legal. 
 Do you think this is a good way to encourage people to be the kind of 
responsible, courteous drivers we would both like to see?  I don't.

>(not much of a flame, kiddo.  Better work on that. I don't 
>respond to flames....you, actually had some rationality in
>your disagreement).

Darn, I guess we will have to stick with gentlemanly disagreement, then. <g>

-Mike



References: