Re: Repeal of the National Speed Limit Law
firstname.lastname@example.org (AAPR RB) spews:
>If they were going for cash, wouldn't they rather write one or two
>littering fines at $1,000 each instead of the 8 to 10 speeding tickets
>that would make up the same ammount of money? Where does the money go? It
>goes to court costs to pay for judges who see people trying to fight their
>80 MPH tickets. Everybody knows the speed limit. If you get caught
>speeding you knew what you were doing was wrong. If you REALLY want to
>stop giving your money to the courts, stop speeding - or keep at least one
>person going faster than you.
This is typical spew from the brain-dead. The idea that going 10-20-30 mph
above a posted speed limit on a regular interstate highway is going to harm
somebody is ridiculous.
The only reason "55" and "65" have been kept around is because it raises a
hell of a lot of money. I don't see cops pulling over people because they
swerve multiple lanes without signaling. I don't see cops pulling over cars
with bald tires, shot suspensions, or a fog of white/blue smoke coming from
the tailpipe. I certainly don't see cops pulling over those slow leftlaners.
I don't see cops arresting those idiots that enter interstate onramps at 25
miles an hour and then stop because they're afraid to merge. And I sure don't
see them pulling over those bums drinking 40 oz bottles while behind the
wheel. Hell, I don't see cops pulling over people lacking LICENSE PLATES.
My god, you just know these people DON'T HAVE INSURANCE. I would think
these bums would be as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. It's just a helluva
lot easier, and profitable, for these cops to sit on their fat asses with a
radar gun (that may or may not cause testicular cancer) between their legs
just waiting for me to "violate the law" by driving 75 instead of 65 instead
of trying to catch some people that REALLY cause accidents.
Also, I just loathe people with that "Go along to get along" attitude. Why
don't you let the Federal Government plant a microchip up your butt and tattoo
your Social Security Number on your forehead while you're at it?
>Isn't it also odd that all the speed surveys done by people who have
>something to lose and people to be accountable to (read government and
>safety officials) come up with speed and alcohol as the number one and two
>causes of traffic fatalitys? The only ones who find speed to be a
>non-contributing factor are those who have their own agendas like selling
>books or creating lobbying groups and are not held accountable for
>anything? This isn't politics, its common sense.
Duh, speed is obviously going to be a contributing factor in an accident.
However, that's an ancillary reason. If you run a red light and hit someone
then what is the reason? Speed, or running a red light? If you're drunk and
going 90, then what is the reason? Speed, or the alcohol? If you fall asleep
and go into a ditch, then what is the reason? Speed, or not being awake? If
you try to outrun a train and get hit, then what is the reason? Speed (or
lack thereof), or stupidity? This isn't brain-surgery, it's common sense.
>Have you ever driven to Vegas (where speed is king) and not come across a
>fatal/serious accadent? Have you noticed how many miles you can drive in
>the city at slower speeds, with more cars and have fewer serious
You people with AOL domains. What is it? Are you just naturally stupid, or
looking for everyone to laugh at you with totally false statements like the
>Mark my words now. I am saying this on the record. If the speed limits are
>raised by 20 MPH or more there will be an immediate increase in accidents
>and fatalities in those cars not equipped with air bags. The greatest
>increase will be of people under 30 years old.
I think the only air bag is you, pal.