[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Solve speeding by limiting cars!




In article <randy-1411951810100001@philly48.voicenet.com>, randy@omni.voicenet.com said:
>In article <4893a6$oar@nntp.atlanta.com>, dwarner@atlanta.com wrote:
>> Besides, the 55/65 limit has no realistic basis..  
>
>Sure it does.

No, it doesn't. A correct interpretation of various studies shows that not
only did the 55mph limit not save any lives, but the 65mph limit did not 
increase the highway fatality rate (per million miles traveled) AND if 
anything a low speed limit (lower than the 85th percentile speed of freely
flowing traffic) contributes to a higher accident rate, rather than the 
opposite. In fact, a low speed limit is more likely to increase accidents
than a high speed limit is. See the NMA home page:

  http://www.msn.fullfeed.com/nma/

>> 55 was a temporary law
>> designed to make the public think the politicians were doing something about 
>> a phony fuel crisis, 
>
>How do you know it was phony?

Because anyone alive at the time knows that the shortage of fuel was caused
not by an actual shortage of supply at the oil well, but by an embargo by
the OPEC nations trying to extort more money out of the USA market. Not the
fault of our politicians directly, but phony nonetheless.

>> and the insurance industry bribed the politicians to keep 
>> it on the books to protect the bonanaza of ticket surcharge income it >
>generated.
>
>How do you know the insurance companies bribed the politicians?

Can you say PAC? Can you say "campaign contribution"? Can you say "bribe"?
The fact is that insurance companies pump large amounts of money into
lobbying politicians to keep the NMSL. A bribe by any other name smells
just as foul.

>> 
>> Besides, If my car had a speed governor, I'd just disable it, as most everyone
>> else would.
>
>Which leads me to believe that you have no regard for law. Are you above
>the law?

Damned right I have no regard for that particular law. As a free citizen,
I consider it my DUTY to disregard laws that are clearly unjust, as 
determined by the question "does breaking this law actually harm anyone?".
If the answer is no, the law is unjust. Removing the speed limiter from one's
car would not harm anybody, hence it would be an unjust law that imposed it.

Clearly murder, assault, rape, robbery, larceny, and so on harm others and
should be outlawed. Such laws I respect. Driving my car at greater than the 
posted limit but nonetheless in a responsible manner does not harm (or even 
endanger) anyone, thus the speed limit is unjust. Obviously most everyone 
else thinks so too, since the majority of drivers regularly exceed the 
speed limit on most roads.

>Randy

Michael Johnson                                     http://mordor.relay.com/
Relay Technology, Inc.
The opinions above are my own and not necessarily shared by Relay Technology




References: