The bigger the vehicle, the lower it’s speed limit. Compact cars could
drive twice as fast as luxury lemos. After all, the larger the car,
the greater threat they pose.
28
Jun
Big Cars Must Drive Slower
proffsl wrote:
> The bigger the vehicle, the lower it’s speed limit. Compact cars could
> drive twice as fast as luxury lemos. After all, the larger the car,
> the greater threat they pose.
Not a bad idea but it does mess up the highways when vehicles are going
different speeds. I think a better idea is to have the same speed
limit for all but the penalties for speeding should vary with the
listed weight of the vehicle. A 2000 pound car doing 80 in a 60 gets a
$500 fine while a 6000 pounder doing the same gets a $2000 fine plus a
month in jail and a DL suspension for a year.
You’re absolutely right that the bigger the car, the bigger the threat
to others.
In article <1130095640.248001.224…@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" <xeton2…@yahoo.com> wrote:
> proffsl wrote:
> > The bigger the vehicle, the lower it’s speed limit. Compact cars could
> > drive twice as fast as luxury lemos. After all, the larger the car,
> > the greater threat they pose.
> Not a bad idea but it does mess up the highways when vehicles are going
> different speeds. I think a better idea is to have the same speed
> limit for all but the penalties for speeding should vary with the
> listed weight of the vehicle. A 2000 pound car doing 80 in a 60 gets a
> $500 fine while a 6000 pounder doing the same gets a $2000 fine plus a
> month in jail and a DL suspension for a year.
> You’re absolutely right that the bigger the car, the bigger the threat
> to others.
As usual, you miss the important issues for the minutiae.
The most important factor in road safety — far out-weighing all others
— is driver skill. If all drivers were properly trained and tested (and
then re-tested periodically) our roads could be made far safer.
Almost every accident can be traced back to one driver (and often two)
doing something that was incorrect. The number one cause of accidents
isn’t speeding, it isn’t DUI, it’s failure to yield the right of way.
–
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you’ll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
"Alan Baker" <alangba…@telus.net> wrote in message
news:alangbaker-EBED4B.13552123102005@news.telus.net…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> In article <1130095640.248001.224…@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" <xeton2…@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> proffsl wrote:
>> > The bigger the vehicle, the lower it’s speed limit. Compact cars could
>> > drive twice as fast as luxury lemos. After all, the larger the car,
>> > the greater threat they pose.
>> Not a bad idea but it does mess up the highways when vehicles are going
>> different speeds. I think a better idea is to have the same speed
>> limit for all but the penalties for speeding should vary with the
>> listed weight of the vehicle. A 2000 pound car doing 80 in a 60 gets a
>> $500 fine while a 6000 pounder doing the same gets a $2000 fine plus a
>> month in jail and a DL suspension for a year.
>> You’re absolutely right that the bigger the car, the bigger the threat
>> to others.
> As usual, you miss the important issues for the minutiae.
Not really. Braking distance and steering stability is definitely a factor.
A Porsche Carerra is a safer car in an emergency than a Hummer H2. There’s
simply no way for a vehicle that heavy to stop quickly or steer sharply
without losing traction.
> The most important factor in road safety — far out-weighing all others
> — is driver skill. If all drivers were properly trained and tested (and
> then re-tested periodically) our roads could be made far safer.
> Almost every accident can be traced back to one driver (and often two)
> doing something that was incorrect. The number one cause of accidents
> isn’t speeding, it isn’t DUI, it’s failure to yield the right of way.
I have no doubt that this is true. I’ll bet that the #1 reason for this
failure to yield is cell phone use. Drivers simply are not paying attention
when they’re on the damned phone!
Laura Bush murdered her boy friend:
> Not a bad idea but it does mess up the highways when vehicles are going
> different speeds. I think a better idea is to have the same speed
> limit for all but the penalties for speeding should vary with the
> listed weight of the vehicle. A 2000 pound car doing 80 in a 60 gets a
> $500 fine while a 6000 pounder doing the same gets a $2000 fine plus a
> month in jail and a DL suspension for a year.
You sorry assed hypocrite douchebag! And just what shall we do with you,
little miss 41 in a 25? I propose shoving a 6′ samurai sword up your fat
ass.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Alan Baker wrote:
> Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
> > proffsl wrote:
> > > The bigger the vehicle, the lower it’s speed limit. Compact cars
> > > could drive twice as fast as luxury lemos. After all, the larger the
> > > car, the greater threat they pose.
> > Not a bad idea but it does mess up the highways when vehicles are
> > going different speeds. I think a better idea is to have the same
> > speed limit for all but the penalties for speeding should vary with the
> > listed weight of the vehicle. A 2000 pound car doing 80 in a 60 gets
> > a $500 fine while a 6000 pounder doing the same gets a $2000 fine
> > plus a month in jail and a DL suspension for a year.
> > You’re absolutely right that the bigger the car, the bigger the
> > threat to others.
> As usual, you miss the important issues for the minutiae.
> The most important factor in road safety — far out-weighing all
> others — is driver skill. If all drivers were properly trained and tested
> (and then re-tested periodically) our roads could be made far safer.
> Almost every accident can be traced back to one driver (and often
> two) doing something that was incorrect. The number one cause
> of accidents isn’t speeding, it isn’t DUI, it’s failure to yield the right
> of way.
Actually, my original post here was on the facitious side. Actually, a
bigger vehicle with a better driver posses less of a danger than a
smaller vehicle with a worse driver.
Now, to your point. Almost every accident can be traced back to one
driver (and often two) who know who has the right of way, yet failed to
yield the right of way anyway. The problem isn’t if people CAN drive
safely. The problem is if people WILL drive safely. Driver Testing
can only determine if a person CAN drive safely. Virtually everybody
CAN drive safely. Driver Testing can not determine if a person WILL
drive safely.
The only way you can determine if a person WILL drive safely is to
allow them to drive. Then, If a person’s driving endangers others,
they are not driving safely, and should be prosecuted. If they do so
habitually, prohibit them from driving. If they still continue, put
them in jail for a while. And, this is all done WITHOUT Driver
Licensing.
On 23 Oct 2005 12:27:20 -0700, "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend"
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
<xeton2…@yahoo.com> wrote:
>proffsl wrote:
>> The bigger the vehicle, the lower it’s speed limit. Compact cars could
>> drive twice as fast as luxury lemos. After all, the larger the car,
>> the greater threat they pose.
>Not a bad idea but it does mess up the highways when vehicles are going
>different speeds. I think a better idea is to have the same speed
>limit for all but the penalties for speeding should vary with the
>listed weight of the vehicle. A 2000 pound car doing 80 in a 60 gets a
>$500 fine while a 6000 pounder doing the same gets a $2000 fine plus a
>month in jail and a DL suspension for a year.
>You’re absolutely right that the bigger the car, the bigger the threat
>to others.
I would be happy if vehicles over a certain size get a special place
in parking lots where they must park. It’s hard enough pulling out of
the parking space, even when you backed in, when you’re flanked by
Excursions.
"What Me Worry?" <__@____.___> wrote in message
news:dXS6f.509514$xm3.76232@attbi_s21…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> "Alan Baker" <alangba…@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:alangbaker-EBED4B.13552123102005@news.telus.net…
>> In article <1130095640.248001.224…@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
>> "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" <xeton2…@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> proffsl wrote:
>>> > The bigger the vehicle, the lower it’s speed limit. Compact cars
>>> > could
>>> > drive twice as fast as luxury lemos. After all, the larger the car,
>>> > the greater threat they pose.
>>> Not a bad idea but it does mess up the highways when vehicles are going
>>> different speeds. I think a better idea is to have the same speed
>>> limit for all but the penalties for speeding should vary with the
>>> listed weight of the vehicle. A 2000 pound car doing 80 in a 60 gets a
>>> $500 fine while a 6000 pounder doing the same gets a $2000 fine plus a
>>> month in jail and a DL suspension for a year.
>>> You’re absolutely right that the bigger the car, the bigger the threat
>>> to others.
>> As usual, you miss the important issues for the minutiae.
> Not really. Braking distance and steering stability is definitely a
> factor. A Porsche Carerra is a safer car in an emergency than a Hummer H2.
> There’s simply no way for a vehicle that heavy to stop quickly or steer
> sharply without losing traction.
>> The most important factor in road safety — far out-weighing all others
>> — is driver skill. If all drivers were properly trained and tested (and
>> then re-tested periodically) our roads could be made far safer.
>> Almost every accident can be traced back to one driver (and often two)
>> doing something that was incorrect. The number one cause of accidents
>> isn’t speeding, it isn’t DUI, it’s failure to yield the right of way.
> I have no doubt that this is true. I’ll bet that the #1 reason for this
> failure to yield is cell phone use. Drivers simply are not paying
> attention when they’re on the damned phone!
LOL thats what they said about the am raido too.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
"The Etobian" <p…@myway.com> wrote in message
news:rm4ol19igdps7kg4gdv3slccooug34aaqv@4ax.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> On 23 Oct 2005 12:27:20 -0700, "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend"
> <xeton2…@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>proffsl wrote:
>>> The bigger the vehicle, the lower it’s speed limit. Compact cars could
>>> drive twice as fast as luxury lemos. After all, the larger the car,
>>> the greater threat they pose.
>>Not a bad idea but it does mess up the highways when vehicles are going
>>different speeds. I think a better idea is to have the same speed
>>limit for all but the penalties for speeding should vary with the
>>listed weight of the vehicle. A 2000 pound car doing 80 in a 60 gets a
>>$500 fine while a 6000 pounder doing the same gets a $2000 fine plus a
>>month in jail and a DL suspension for a year.
>>You’re absolutely right that the bigger the car, the bigger the threat
>>to others.
> I would be happy if vehicles over a certain size get a special place
> in parking lots where they must park. It’s hard enough pulling out of
> the parking space, even when you backed in, when you’re flanked by
> Excursions.
Me too, the bigger the vehicle the closer to the store. make those prissy
ass vehicles park in the rear
On 23 Oct 2005 12:27:20 -0700, "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend"
<xeton2…@yahoo.com> was understood to have stated the following:
>Not a bad idea but it does mess up the highways when vehicles are going
>different speeds. I think a better idea is to have the same speed
>limit for all but the penalties for speeding should vary with the
>listed weight of the vehicle. A 2000 pound car doing 80 in a 60 gets a
>$500 fine while a 6000 pounder doing the same gets a $2000 fine plus a
>month in jail and a DL suspension for a year.
How much should I have gotten for doing 110mph in a 55mph in a 2000
pound car?
[trimmed]
In article <mu6ol1173ps6cjl7mp00860ljsg89br…@4ax.com>,
Ted ‘waddya mean you are pregnant and can not swim’ Kennedy
<s…@microsoft.com> wrote:
> On 23 Oct 2005 12:27:20 -0700, "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend"
> <xeton2…@yahoo.com> was understood to have stated the following:
> >Not a bad idea but it does mess up the highways when vehicles are going
> >different speeds. I think a better idea is to have the same speed
> >limit for all but the penalties for speeding should vary with the
> >listed weight of the vehicle. A 2000 pound car doing 80 in a 60 gets a
> >$500 fine while a 6000 pounder doing the same gets a $2000 fine plus a
> >month in jail and a DL suspension for a year.
> How much should I have gotten for doing 110mph in a 55mph in a 2000
> pound car?
Kinetic energy fines; mv^2 if you must but the whole premise is flawed.
Are you sure you want to penalize people for driving cars with airbags
and door and roof reinforcements? What about a heavy bank of batteries
in a hybrid? We have a way of making people pay extra for their choice
of vehicle, we call it insurance.
"Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" <xeton2…@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1130095640.248001.224170@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com…
> proffsl wrote:
> > The bigger the vehicle, the lower it’s speed limit. Compact cars could
> > drive twice as fast as luxury lemos. After all, the larger the car,
> > the greater threat they pose.
> Not a bad idea but it does mess up the highways when vehicles are going
> different speeds. I think a better idea is to have the same speed
> limit for all but the penalties for speeding should vary with the
> listed weight of the vehicle. A 2000 pound car doing 80 in a 60 gets a
> $500 fine while a 6000 pounder doing the same gets a $2000 fine plus a
> month in jail and a DL suspension for a year.
I love this idea. A 500 pound motorcycle would get a hundred dollar fine
and two points *deducted* from the rider’s license.
Yeah, that works!
"Ted ‘waddya mean you are pregnant and can not swim’ Kennedy"
<s…@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:mu6ol1173ps6cjl7mp00860ljsg89brpof@4ax.com…
> On 23 Oct 2005 12:27:20 -0700, "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend"
> <xeton2…@yahoo.com> was understood to have stated the following:
>>Not a bad idea but it does mess up the highways when vehicles are going
>>different speeds. I think a better idea is to have the same speed
>>limit for all but the penalties for speeding should vary with the
>>listed weight of the vehicle. A 2000 pound car doing 80 in a 60 gets a
>>$500 fine while a 6000 pounder doing the same gets a $2000 fine plus a
>>month in jail and a DL suspension for a year.
> How much should I have gotten for doing 110mph in a 55mph in a 2000
> pound car?
In most states that scenario crossed the boundary from speeding to reckless
driving, but I realize that this line of argument has too many holes to
sustain itself (for e.g. a big rig, add a trailer, add two trailers, etc. A
Lotus Esprit weighing 1700lbs going 100, A Ducati, weighing 500, going 150
etc.)
"Billy" <neverm…@cox.net> wrote in message
news:T%U6f.8474$i%.1954@fed1read07…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> "What Me Worry?" <__@____.___> wrote in message
> news:dXS6f.509514$xm3.76232@attbi_s21…
>> "Alan Baker" <alangba…@telus.net> wrote in message
>> news:alangbaker-EBED4B.13552123102005@news.telus.net…
>>> In article <1130095640.248001.224…@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
>>> "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" <xeton2…@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> proffsl wrote:
>>>> > The bigger the vehicle, the lower it’s speed limit. Compact cars
>>>> > could
>>>> > drive twice as fast as luxury lemos. After all, the larger the car,
>>>> > the greater threat they pose.
>>>> Not a bad idea but it does mess up the highways when vehicles are going
>>>> different speeds. I think a better idea is to have the same speed
>>>> limit for all but the penalties for speeding should vary with the
>>>> listed weight of the vehicle. A 2000 pound car doing 80 in a 60 gets a
>>>> $500 fine while a 6000 pounder doing the same gets a $2000 fine plus a
>>>> month in jail and a DL suspension for a year.
>>>> You’re absolutely right that the bigger the car, the bigger the threat
>>>> to others.
>>> As usual, you miss the important issues for the minutiae.
>> Not really. Braking distance and steering stability is definitely a
>> factor. A Porsche Carerra is a safer car in an emergency than a Hummer
>> H2. There’s simply no way for a vehicle that heavy to stop quickly or
>> steer sharply without losing traction.
>>> The most important factor in road safety — far out-weighing all others
>>> — is driver skill. If all drivers were properly trained and tested (and
>>> then re-tested periodically) our roads could be made far safer.
>>> Almost every accident can be traced back to one driver (and often two)
>>> doing something that was incorrect. The number one cause of accidents
>>> isn’t speeding, it isn’t DUI, it’s failure to yield the right of way.
>> I have no doubt that this is true. I’ll bet that the #1 reason for this
>> failure to yield is cell phone use. Drivers simply are not paying
>> attention when they’re on the damned phone!
> LOL thats what they said about the am raido too.
My father purchased a 1938 Packard (I’m also a 1938 model) and, since radios
had to be added ( big box of tubes which sat on the floor, with a cable
attached tuner that was mounted on the steering column) that was exactly
the warning that he was given.. That tuning the radio would cause him to
crash the car. He told me that the persons giving the warning were, without
exception, "slow" people. From 1938 to 1957, when he left this mortal coil,
he never crashed the car.
I have always been amazed at the people who, apparently cannot do any two
things at one time, thinking that the rest of the population is likewise
limited. Helicopter pilots routinely fly with the left hand on the cyclic,
right hand on the stick, left foot on the left rudder, right foot on the
right rudder, and talking, through a headset into at least one, and usually
two, and sometimes four, radios. Formula One drivers routinely drive over a
hunderd miles an hour while talking on the radio.
What this means is that there should be a graduated driving license, just
like they have in Germany. They take a two-week intensive course, costing
thousands of dollars, and if they are slow, they get a limited license that
allows local roads only, no autobahn driving.
I am always tempted to respond to a person who says one cannot drive and
talk on the radio, with, "you mean *you* can’t." because that is probably
the truth, but no one wants to hear it, and I am too nice to say it.
American democracy being what it is, they just want to drag everyone down to
the lowest common denominator – if *I* can’t do it then *no one* should be
able to do it.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Billy wrote:
> "What Me Worry?" <__@____.___> wrote in message
> news:dXS6f.509514$xm3.76232@attbi_s21…
> > "Alan Baker" <alangba…@telus.net> wrote in message
> > news:alangbaker-EBED4B.13552123102005@news.telus.net…
> >> In article <1130095640.248001.224…@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> >> "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" <xeton2…@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> proffsl wrote:
> >>> > The bigger the vehicle, the lower it’s speed limit. Compact cars
> >>> > could
> >>> > drive twice as fast as luxury lemos. After all, the larger the car,
> >>> > the greater threat they pose.
> >>> Not a bad idea but it does mess up the highways when vehicles are going
> >>> different speeds. I think a better idea is to have the same speed
> >>> limit for all but the penalties for speeding should vary with the
> >>> listed weight of the vehicle. A 2000 pound car doing 80 in a 60 gets a
> >>> $500 fine while a 6000 pounder doing the same gets a $2000 fine plus a
> >>> month in jail and a DL suspension for a year.
> >>> You’re absolutely right that the bigger the car, the bigger the threat
> >>> to others.
> >> As usual, you miss the important issues for the minutiae.
> > Not really. Braking distance and steering stability is definitely a
> > factor. A Porsche Carerra is a safer car in an emergency than a Hummer H2.
> > There’s simply no way for a vehicle that heavy to stop quickly or steer
> > sharply without losing traction.
> >> The most important factor in road safety — far out-weighing all others
> >> — is driver skill. If all drivers were properly trained and tested (and
> >> then re-tested periodically) our roads could be made far safer.
> >> Almost every accident can be traced back to one driver (and often two)
> >> doing something that was incorrect. The number one cause of accidents
> >> isn’t speeding, it isn’t DUI, it’s failure to yield the right of way.
> > I have no doubt that this is true. I’ll bet that the #1 reason for this
> > failure to yield is cell phone use. Drivers simply are not paying
> > attention when they’re on the damned phone!
> LOL thats what they said about the am raido too.
And it’s true. Radios are a huge distraction and should be banned from
cars too. Also no food or drink allowed in the passenger compartment.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
The Etobian wrote:
> I would be happy if vehicles over a certain size get a special place
> in parking lots where they must park. It’s hard enough pulling out of
> the parking space, even when you backed in, when you’re flanked by
> Excursions.
I’m all for making the SUV owners park in the rear of the lot. It
should be handled like handicapped parking. A special sticker on the
plate designating this vehicle as a highway tank that must be parked in
the tank area.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Bo Raxo wrote:
> "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" <xeton2…@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1130095640.248001.224170@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com…
> > proffsl wrote:
> > > The bigger the vehicle, the lower it’s speed limit. Compact cars could
> > > drive twice as fast as luxury lemos. After all, the larger the car,
> > > the greater threat they pose.
> > Not a bad idea but it does mess up the highways when vehicles are going
> > different speeds. I think a better idea is to have the same speed
> > limit for all but the penalties for speeding should vary with the
> > listed weight of the vehicle. A 2000 pound car doing 80 in a 60 gets a
> > $500 fine while a 6000 pounder doing the same gets a $2000 fine plus a
> > month in jail and a DL suspension for a year.
> I love this idea. A 500 pound motorcycle would get a hundred dollar fine
> and two points *deducted* from the rider’s license.
Something like that. Motorcyclists are pretty safe drivers anyway, in
my experience. They KNOW they’re the little guy and have to be careful.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Yeah, that works!
"Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" <xeton2…@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1130116119.960875.168470@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Bo Raxo wrote:
> > "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" <xeton2…@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
> > news:1130095640.248001.224170@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com…
> > > proffsl wrote:
> > > > The bigger the vehicle, the lower it’s speed limit. Compact cars
could
> > > > drive twice as fast as luxury lemos. After all, the larger the car,
> > > > the greater threat they pose.
> > > Not a bad idea but it does mess up the highways when vehicles are
going
> > > different speeds. I think a better idea is to have the same speed
> > > limit for all but the penalties for speeding should vary with the
> > > listed weight of the vehicle. A 2000 pound car doing 80 in a 60 gets a
> > > $500 fine while a 6000 pounder doing the same gets a $2000 fine plus a
> > > month in jail and a DL suspension for a year.
> > I love this idea. A 500 pound motorcycle would get a hundred dollar
fine
> > and two points *deducted* from the rider’s license.
> Something like that. Motorcyclists are pretty safe drivers anyway, in
> my experience. They KNOW they’re the little guy and have to be careful.
I’ve ridden for most of my life, and much as it pains me to say it, you’re
so completely wrong. If it isn’t some middle-aged idiot who just got a
Harley he doesn’t know how to ride, it’s a 20-something idiot who just got a
sportbike he doesn’t know how to ride.
As another poster suggested, we really need graduated licenses. Even more
so for bikes. Do it like many Asian countries – you get a 500cc and under
license for a year or two, a 750 and under license for a period, and then a
full license.
It would be better for the sport, as fewer people would buy too much bike,
crash in their first year, and never ride again.
Billzz wrote:
> I am always tempted to respond to a person who says one cannot drive and
> talk on the radio, with, "you mean *you* can’t."
And again, I say that I can drive better when I devote the vast majority
of my attention to the driving task. People aren’t saying that they
can’t drive while talking on the cell phone, eating, drinking, changing
tapes or cds, tuning the radio, entering options into their in-car
navigation system, etc. They’re saying that they can drive better when
they’re not trying to do those things while driving.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Bo Raxo wrote:
> "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" <xeton2…@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1130116119.960875.168470@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com…
> > Something like that. Motorcyclists are pretty safe drivers anyway, in
> > my experience. They KNOW they’re the little guy and have to be careful.
> I’ve ridden for most of my life, and much as it pains me to say it, you’re
> so completely wrong. If it isn’t some middle-aged idiot who just got a
> Harley he doesn’t know how to ride, it’s a 20-something idiot who just got a
> sportbike he doesn’t know how to ride.
> As another poster suggested, we really need graduated licenses. Even more
> so for bikes. Do it like many Asian countries – you get a 500cc and under
> license for a year or two, a 750 and under license for a period, and then a
> full license.
That would wipe out the motorcycle industry. Nobody would take up
biking if they were told they had to buy two "trainer" bikes until they
could get a real cycle.
Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Bo Raxo wrote:
>>"Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" <xeton2…@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:1130116119.960875.168470@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com…
>>>Something like that. Motorcyclists are pretty safe drivers anyway, in
>>>my experience. They KNOW they’re the little guy and have to be careful.
>>I’ve ridden for most of my life, and much as it pains me to say it, you’re
>>so completely wrong. If it isn’t some middle-aged idiot who just got a
>>Harley he doesn’t know how to ride, it’s a 20-something idiot who just got a
>>sportbike he doesn’t know how to ride.
>>As another poster suggested, we really need graduated licenses. Even more
>>so for bikes. Do it like many Asian countries – you get a 500cc and under
>>license for a year or two, a 750 and under license for a period, and then a
>>full license.
> That would wipe out the motorcycle industry. Nobody would take up
> biking if they were told they had to buy two "trainer" bikes until they
> could get a real cycle.
a 750 isn’t a real bike I guess? I thought there were some pretty
decent ones on the market.
nate
–
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
"Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" <xeton2…@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1130116890.053550.249410@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Bo Raxo wrote:
> > "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" <xeton2…@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
> > news:1130116119.960875.168470@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com…
> > > Something like that. Motorcyclists are pretty safe drivers anyway, in
> > > my experience. They KNOW they’re the little guy and have to be
careful.
> > I’ve ridden for most of my life, and much as it pains me to say it,
you’re
> > so completely wrong. If it isn’t some middle-aged idiot who just got a
> > Harley he doesn’t know how to ride, it’s a 20-something idiot who just
got a
> > sportbike he doesn’t know how to ride.
> > As another poster suggested, we really need graduated licenses. Even
more
> > so for bikes. Do it like many Asian countries – you get a 500cc and
under
> > license for a year or two, a 750 and under license for a period, and
then a
> > full license.
> That would wipe out the motorcycle industry. Nobody would take up
> biking if they were told they had to buy two "trainer" bikes until they
> could get a real cycle.
Funny, it hasn’t wiped it out in countries that use this system.
I think it would sell a lot more bikes. The majority of people (in my
experience) who get a bike quit after a year or two, usually after their
first crash. It would make it easier to enter the sport, since you could
get one of the smaller bikes used pretty cheap – you can get a clean EX-500
(great starter bike) for around $2500. It would put some premium on having
a full license, and we all know exclusivity breeds envy and desire.
And it would create an incentive for the industry to come out with some
interesting small displacement bikes. They used to make 500cc and 600cc
cruisers, and they were a godsend to short people who wanted to ride. Pass
such a law and you might have fewer people start riding, but a much greater
percentage who do would keep riding for many years.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
The Etobian wrote:
> On 23 Oct 2005 12:27:20 -0700, "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend"
> <xeton2…@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >proffsl wrote:
> >> The bigger the vehicle, the lower it’s speed limit. Compact cars could
> >> drive twice as fast as luxury lemos. After all, the larger the car,
> >> the greater threat they pose.
> >Not a bad idea but it does mess up the highways when vehicles are going
> >different speeds. I think a better idea is to have the same speed
> >limit for all but the penalties for speeding should vary with the
> >listed weight of the vehicle. A 2000 pound car doing 80 in a 60 gets a
> >$500 fine while a 6000 pounder doing the same gets a $2000 fine plus a
> >month in jail and a DL suspension for a year.
> >You’re absolutely right that the bigger the car, the bigger the threat
> >to others.
> I would be happy if vehicles over a certain size get a special place
> in parking lots where they must park. It’s hard enough pulling out of
> the parking space, even when you backed in, when you’re flanked by
> Excursions.
This is why John always yields to vehicles backing out of
parking spaces regardless of size of the vehicle doing the
backing and driver ability to see if other traffic is
present.
FYI I drive a Ford Focus ZX3.
–
John in the sand box of Maryland’s eastern shore.
"Arif Khokar" <akhokar1…@wvu.edu> wrote in message
news:VEW6f.115$lg.60@news01.roc.ny…
> Billzz wrote:
>> I am always tempted to respond to a person who says one cannot drive and
>> talk on the radio, with, "you mean *you* can’t."
> And again, I say that I can drive better when I devote the vast majority
> of my attention to the driving task. People aren’t saying that they can’t
> drive while talking on the cell phone, eating, drinking, changing tapes or
> cds, tuning the radio, entering options into their in-car navigation
> system, etc. They’re saying that they can drive better when they’re not
> trying to do those things while driving.
That’s exactly what I said. I am polite enough to not say to a person who
says, one cannot drive and talk on the radio, with, "you mean *you* can’t."
Maybe you do not understand, as my father’s generation of non-drivers did
not understand how one could drive a car and tune a radio.
Maybe *you* can’t.
*You* can drive better when *you* devote the vast majority of *your*
attention to the driving task.
I appreciate that. Others can talk on multiple radios, while looking at a
laptop computer, hosting a GPS device, and drive across the country, twenty
times.
Everybody is different.
Another argument for graduated licenses, which I am all for. Give a real
driving test, with cellphones, and blaring sirens, and screeching semis, and
illegal street racing, and fire trucks, and max legal speed in the left
lane, and getting tail-gated, all of that stuff. Separate the Juan Fangio’s
from the Elmer Fudds.
It is a good thing for me that my helicopter driver could autorotate and
talk on the radio at the same time because that is why I am alive today.
But some people cannot do that. They should probably not only not be
talking, they should not be driving – because apparently anything distracts
them.
But this is a never-ending sequential argument which will go nowhere
because, basically, if you do not get it, you do not get it.
There was a book, written by Tom Wolfe, about this subject called, "The
Right Stuff." If you have it, you have it. If you do not have it, you do
not even recognize that you do not have it.
But I am not saying that some people do not have it, they should know, but
they don’t, so I refrain from the obvious.
Billzz wrote:
> "Arif Khokar" <akhokar1…@wvu.edu> wrote in message
> news:VEW6f.115$lg.60@news01.roc.ny…
>>>I am always tempted to respond to a person who says one cannot drive and
>>>talk on the radio, with, "you mean *you* can’t."
>>And again, I say that I can drive better when I devote the vast majority
>>of my attention to the driving task. People aren’t saying that they can’t
>>drive while talking on the cell phone, eating, drinking, changing tapes or
>>cds, tuning the radio, entering options into their in-car navigation
>>system, etc. They’re saying that they can drive better when they’re not
>>trying to do those things while driving.
> That’s exactly what I said.
No, it isn’t. You’re saying that there are some people who can drive
while multitaking and others who can’t. I’m saying that all people
drive better when they’re devoting more attention to driving as opposed
to other tasks (even the ones who think they drive just fine while
multitasking).
> *You* can drive better when *you* devote the vast majority of *your*
> attention to the driving task.
> I appreciate that. Others can talk on multiple radios, while looking at a
> laptop computer, hosting a GPS device, and drive across the country, twenty
> times.
Again, does that mean that people who can talk on multiple radios, while
looking at a laptop computer, hosting a GPS device, and drive across the
country 20 times are not capable of better driving if they weren’t
engaged in multiple secondary tasks?
To me, that doesn’t make sense. Every single person will drive better
if they’re devoting 99% of their attention to the driving task as
opposed to 70%. Sure, there are numerous drivers who get away without
crashing while only devoting 7/10 of their attention to the driving
task, but that doesn’t mean that their liklihood of failing to maintain
control of the vehicle when a situation (that they didn’t notice
initially since some of their attention was focused on the GPS device
instead of the road ahead) arises.