On Monday 19 October 2009, Christian Campbell wrote: (to that which got attached as a p7m file)
> a former Assistant Chief of a Rescue Squad, > Training Officer and Advanced Certified EMT (EMT-I) since 1995 I got my first red cross training before I became a life-guard many years ago; working summers on Cape May and Wildwood in NJ. 10 years later I got EMT cert in Boston and stopped moonlighting cabs to ride shot-gun in a wagon for a bit. Mostly shuttling the infirm to-n-fro, but I also have seen the effects of stupid decisions made at the worst of times and sympathize with your POV. Unfortunately though, the Law does not prevent stupid, any more than cops deter crimes. Law operates after the fact, in response to those who break the 11 commandment. Contrarian that I am, this may a better alternative to living in a nanny State (like not-so-jolly England) replete with RFID in tires, GPS tracking, automated speed detectors emailing citations from some burg in Clinton CO, NY. My beef is lies in constitutionality, in-equality of dispensation, selective enforceability, insurance rackets, and most of all: asking how well it really serves the public good AOT the legislators, administrators, adjudicators and officers. (Note this is coming from having (mis?) spent my youth under the roof of an Asst Dep St Atty) > > While 30 can kill you, it doesn't mean that 70 is just as safe. Never argued otherwise. Sigh. Is all I'm trying to convey is that I often drive under the influence of something and its an honest fact that I speed when I say I have exceed the posted limits. > I've experienced this first hand with the hundreds of motor vehicle accidents > I have arrived at. Speeding, relative to losing control and accidents is more correlation than causation. As is same to the effect of the damage. That influence may be a headache and the motrin I took. Or some prescription drug, or non-prescription, or some alcohol. (a cell-phone, CD changer, crying baby, whatever) Who knows. Does it affect my driving? Maybe, maybe not. Personally, my proof is in another fact that I don't have accidents; which says it all. My 20yr old 300Z has over 200K on it and no scratches or dents, just rust-spots:) But you can substitute me for just about 2/3'd or more of the driving population. They manage to get around, often under the influence of something, maybe prone to distraction, maybe speeding, perfectly OK. > if they're going to hit me, I'd take the slower car. Point taken. But the odds of your not being hit (or getting out of the way) neither increase nor decrease just by the speed of the vehicle alone. It's still dependent on the driver and their their ability react from distraction (as well as yours). People should not need signs and lines to tell them what to do. Said devices turn motorists and pedestrians and cyclists into automatons; it dumbs them down. Presumption rules, auto-pilot and cruise-control on. Don't think for yourself, just obey in the name of Public Safety. > having no speed limit only increases the likelihood that > when there is a collision (and there will be...) it will create more > significant injuries due to the increased velocity. I find it interesting that your assumption is that removing posted limits will turn everyone into road warriors due for an inevitable crash. Your physics is not in dispute, only the raison d'etre of posted limits as lines in the sand illegal to cross. > We'd need a study. Wait... let's just use one that exists (July 16, 2009): > http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=103878. I'll see your study and raise you one more. Google "no traffic signals". The 1st link should be: Nov 16, 2006 ... Are streets without traffic signs conceivable? Seven cities and regions in Europe are giving it a try -- with good results. www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,448747,00.html If you add "+2009" there are more recent stories making MSN. Maybe the experience of those real places can make the argument|case better than me, the other links are rather interesting as well. I can tell you that 1st-hand, driving gypsies in a few cities, that when lights are broken intersections become fluid, moving like water, more cautiously for sure, but no accidents. > I need something to dissuade you from speeding in the first place (like a > very large ticket, increase in your insurance premiums or worse) BEFORE you > smash into my 3 year old and 18 month old. Ah, so preemption is your tack? Pass laws that raises fines and points to ridiculous levels as a deterrent? It's that cheap approach that's turned the courts into revolving-door revenue factories and done absolutely 0 to really make the highways safer. Because motoring is so integral to livelihood its become nearly impossible to remove bad motorists from their cars. What does it say when someone has 1/2 dozen DUI's and a valid license? That's just one bad example. Looking at how many people get cited and the multiplier for those who don't get caught, how well has the DMV worked so far? I don't think I've painted myself as a maniacal speed-daemon, only de-justifying the relative 'falsity' of speed limits. I also drive below those limits, I don't like people driving close behind me; so I let them pass at every opportunity. Like I said: I don't have accidents and I'd put YOUR kids in MY front seat, w/out belts on, w/100% confidence, even though saying such will have you calling me insane. C'est la Vie. > "Speed kills" So does a million other things. Not all accidents are caused by speeding, most probably are caused by something else. It is the causation of accidents that should be addressed. The influences that affect driving. Driving fast may influence you more than someone else; same for tolerance of booze, or loud music or anything else. > argument for speed limits is not only because speed > sometimes causes accidents, but mostly because when it an accident occurs, > the factor of speed has such a high influence on the outcome. Fully granted. Whomever was behind the wheel had no business going as fast as they were. The accident proves it and I hope they are off the road for a long time. But the posted signs also served no prevention. And, who knows, the motorist driving just as fast ahead of them got along fine. Speed is relative to who's doing the driving and what they drive. The Law, "Public Safety", sees you as something to manage; their jokes in private makes the Aristocrats sound like Mary Poppins. DMV regulations remove people from their surroundings while trying to get them through it. It has done very little to alter the attitude of motorists (being apart from rather than part of). I say: frack no-fault! If you're in any accident it's your fault! If you are subject to an accident (personal, not property) it's your fault (partially, at least) for being unaware enough to have not avoided it. In an accident that's not your cause? "No soup for you" - Points! Got jammed up? No space to get away? Then contest the citation and come make your case in a court willing to re-consider. Caused by you? Well, today we're culling the herd by one! And before (if) you get back on the road, it's driver's Ed for U. How's that for incentive? > Would you rather me hit you in the head with a wiffleball bat, or a sledge > hammer? I'll take door number three, thanks, and get out of the way of either:) But, if I have to get hit and it's my call, then I'll take a sledge to the head from a foot rather than the small end of the bat poked into my eyeball from 2 inches:) > Regards, > Christian And same to you, Christian, Rion -- email: rion_at_dluz.com web: http://dluz.com/Rion/ AIM/Jabber/Google: riondluz Phone: 802.644.2255 http://www.linkedin.com/pub/6/126/769 Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens'? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 1957. Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
