Reckless, Aggressive Drivers: Homegrown Terrorists

Jack May

"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f27c6d4e-5a05-4d62-ace1-f563de6670cb@q33g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 21, 12:57 am, Miles Bader <miles.ba...@necel.com> wrote:
> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:

>In Jack's Utopia new tecknologies won't pollute and big SUVs won't
>kill people. Always up in the future. Just like communism. Big dreams
>and dreary reality.

Your stupidity is running rampant again. The alternative transportation
modes also pollute and kill people.

donquijote1954

On Feb 21, 9:56*pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote:
> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f28c947a-a060-4e62-913e-44432af6647f@q33g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 21, 8:16 pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:7553955a-67a9-4d7b-8254-c9d571284087@q70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> > On Feb 21, 7:37 am, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Martin Edwards wrote:
> > > > Tom Sherman wrote:
> > > >> Jack May wrote:
> > > >>> "Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > >>>news:fpiv5h$g12$5@registered.motzarella.org...
> > > >>>> Jack May wrote:
> > > >>>>> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > >>>>>news:41f30ecb-9b61-46f4-b144-20b20107e322@b29g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
> >Yeah sure, just because fat lazy drivers are too stupid to consider
> >other options, it doesn't mean they wouldn't change if traffic safety
> >were to become a presidential issue or revolution whatever.
>
> Sorry you have to meet needs of users to get them to use something, not just
> call them names. * That is why people like you never accomplish anythingof
> significance in life .

That's a reality they can see in the mirror. But they can always
reverse it by riding a bike, walking whatever. Besides, some humor
doesn't hurt.

>
> As I said to you previously there is a lot of money and work going into
> developing cars that radically drop the death and accident rates. *You have
> presented nothing that will be anywhere near as effective as what is now
> being developed.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well, the Germans and Nordics seem to emphasize *safety now*, not in
some distant future. People are needless dying now as we speak. AND WE
EVEN HAVE SOME HIGH TECHNOLOGIES THAT ARE *NOT* PUT TO USE. Case in
point is the steering wheel immobilizer that senses the alcohol in
your breath. That would be a nice way to prevent DUIs, but like the
book "It's No Accident" states, the government turns a blind eye to
it. Too much money --and too many lawyers and MADD-- involved in that
business.

donquijote1954

On Feb 21, 10:02*pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote:
> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1a35b7bc-e926-44de-9338-2739a5ff2dce@71g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> > 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.

donquijote1954

On Feb 21, 10:05*pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Miles Bader" <miles.ba...@necel.com> wrote in message
>
> news:buok5kykg0z.fsf@dhapc248.dev.necel.com...
>
> > Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
> >> How will this prevent the cagers from squishing cyclists, pedestrians
> >> and animals? Will all of the latter have to be equipped with
> >> transponders?
>
> > I think in Jack's ideal world, everybody's body is grafted onto an
> > automobile from birth...
>
> Remember in my world, technology evolves over time to best meet the needs of
> people. *That is very different than your world where you want to force
> people to use failed transportation systems that almost all of the people
> have already rejected.
>
> Obviously you want a dictatorship. * I want a democracy.

A democracy where SUVs (a symbol of power and wealth) rule the roads?
I thought democracy meant the poor people having a chance to ride
bikes and scooters...

"Democracy is when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the
rulers" -Aristotle

donquijote1954

On Feb 21, 10:07*pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote:
> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f27c6d4e-5a05-4d62-ace1-f563de6670cb@q33g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 21, 12:57 am, Miles Bader <miles.ba...@necel.com> wrote:
>
> > Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> writes:
> >In Jack's Utopia new tecknologies won't pollute and big SUVs won't
> >kill people. Always up in the future. Just like communism. Big dreams
> >and dreary reality.
>
> Your stupidity is running rampant again. * The alternative transportation
> modes also pollute and kill people.

Yeah, but so much less. You pollute needlessly. Just for the hell of
it, so you can show who's the boss.

Pat

On Feb 22, 9:13*am, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> On Feb 21, 10:02*pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:1a35b7bc-e926-44de-9338-2739a5ff2dce@71g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > 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 are: 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Anyway, whoever it is. Stay safe and have fun. 2 months or so until
I can get back on the bike. Too much snow right now. So my nice warm
van is a comfort.

donquijote1954

On Feb 22, 9:53*am, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote:
> On Feb 22, 9:13*am, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 21, 10:02*pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:1a35b7bc-e926-44de-9338-2739a5ff2dce@71g2000hse.googlegroups.com....
>
> > > > 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 are: 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?

Martin Edwards

donquijote1954 wrote:
> On Feb 21, 9:56 pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote:
>> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:f28c947a-a060-4e62-913e-44432af6647f@q33g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> On Feb 21, 8:16 pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:7553955a-67a9-4d7b-8254-c9d571284087@q70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Feb 21, 7:37 am, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Martin Edwards wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> Jack May wrote:
>>>>>>> "Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:fpiv5h$g12$5@registered.motzarella.org...
>>>>>>>> Jack May wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:41f30ecb-9b61-46f4-b144-20b20107e322@b29g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>>> Yeah sure, just because fat lazy drivers are too stupid to consider
>>> other options, it doesn't mean they wouldn't change if traffic safety
>>> were to become a presidential issue or revolution whatever.
>> Sorry you have to meet needs of users to get them to use something, not just
>> call them names. That is why people like you never accomplish anything of
>> significance in life .
>
> That's a reality they can see in the mirror. But they can always
> reverse it by riding a bike, walking whatever. Besides, some humor
> doesn't hurt.
>
No, but where Jack is concerned, it is entirely superfluous.

--
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”

donquijote1954

(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 [!]

- 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

- 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

- driving too slow (15mph under the limit)

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

Martin Edwards

Jack May wrote:
> "Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:fpj28m$srp$2@registered.motzarella.org...
>> Jack May wrote:
>>> "Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:fpiv5h$g12$5@registered.motzarella.org...
>>>> Jack May wrote:
>>>>> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:41f30ecb-9b61-46f4-b144-20b20107e322@b29g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
>> 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”

Bolwerk

Martin Edwards wrote:
> Jack May wrote:
>> "Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:fpj28m$srp$2@registered.motzarella.org...
>>> Jack May wrote:
>>>> "Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:fpiv5h$g12$5@registered.motzarella.org...
>>>>> Jack May wrote:
>>>>>> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:41f30ecb-9b61-46f4-b144-20b20107e322@b29g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>
>>
>>> 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.

donquijote1954

On Feb 22, 11:33*am, Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Jack May wrote:
> > "Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:fpj28m$srp$2@registered.motzarella.org...
> >> Jack May wrote:
> >>> "Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:fpiv5h$g12$5@registered.motzarella.org...
> >>>> Jack May wrote:
> >>>>> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:41f30ecb-9b61-46f4-b144-20b20107e322@b29g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> 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

Pat

On Feb 22, 11:04*am, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> On Feb 22, 9:53*am, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 22, 9:13*am, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 21, 10:02*pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:1a35b7bc-e926-44de-9338-2739a5ff2dce@71g2000hse.googlegroups.com....
>
> > > > > 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) offthe
> > > > > 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 are: 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.

Pat

On Feb 22, 11:32*am, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com>
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?