Subject: Re: The REAL REASON PEOPLE SPEED!

From: [email-masked] (Adam Neil Villani)
Date: 28 Jul 1995 20:32:18 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
KENNY MORSE <[email-masked]> wrote:
>EXACTLY! Forget the NMA Study!
>do with how speed limits should be set than anything
>else.  Get people to respect EACH OTHER, then
>they might respect speed laws arrived at fairly.
>

Forget the facts, in other words? Mr Traffic, of course we would
all be a hell of a lot better if the drivers all respected each other.
But this has NOTHING to do with the fact that speed limits are set
too low, and that if they are increased to a reasonable rates, then 
speeds on highways will NOT show a corresponding increase.

After all this IS the reason why you keep arguing with us. Because
you think that drivers will continue to speed even with reasonable
limits. But this is NOT TRUE. You have yet to refute any specific
point in the T&W study; you've only repeated claims that by
dealing with people who've gotten tickets, you just KNOW that
people will continue to speed. Guess what. You're WRONG.

-- 
Adam Villani
[email-masked]
http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~addam
"I was in this prematurely air-conditioned supermarket..."

---

From: [email-masked] (KENNY MORSE)
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 10:59:14

I SUGGEST YOU SAVE THIS TO FILE AND READ OFF LINE
IF YOU ARE PAYING FOR INTERNET SERVICE!

---

From: [email-masked] (FolsomMan)
Date: 29 Jul 1995 20:22:29 -0400

[email-masked] (KENNY MORSE) wrote:

...
>Closer to home, many drivers commented how courteous others
>were immediately after the Northridge earthquake.
>Not much later, though, the novelty of togetherness waned
>and we reverted to our old ways.

>Thall suggested that it was almost inevitable as we sought to
>"retreive individuality" amd define ourselves anew.

>Translation: Our inner Good Goofy lost out yet again to
>our inner Bad Goofy."

>EXACTLY!  Forget the NMA study.  THIS has more to

>Kenny Morse
>"Mr. Traffic"

Obviously just another pretty TV face with nothing behind it but air.

Mark Folsom

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 2 Aug 1995 18:02:50 -0700

[email-masked] wrote:
 = One could take a different tack: this indicates that we should remove speed
 = limits entirely and let people find their own accomodation.  Why should
 = reasonable people need speed limits anyway?  They will, of course, behave in
 = a reasonable manner.
 = And reasonable includes making some allowances for others' behavior, such as
 = not sitting on the left-hand lane when someone faster wants to pass.

Yesssss!  Best idea all week.  And we can hope that, in the absence of 
laws to protect them from their own unreason/stupidity, the unreasonable 
will eventually disappear into public transportation.

---

From: [email-masked] (Jamie Hanrahan, Kernel Mode Systems)
Date: 3 Aug 95 23:07:39 PDT

Kenny Morse wrote:

> : EXACTLY!  Forget the NMA study.  THIS has more to
> : do with how speed limits should be set than anything
> : else.  Get people to respect EACH OTHER, then
> : they might respect speed laws arrived at fairly.

The paper you quoted has a lot to do with why people are discurteous 
to each other while driving.  I don't see what this has to do with 
speeding.  I'm not being "disrespectful" of other drivers by wanting 
to drive at a reasonable speed for the road (as do they). 

	--- Jamie Hanrahan, Kernel Mode Systems, San Diego CA
Internet: [email-masked] (JH645)  CompuServe: 74140,2055

---

From: [email-masked] (KENNY MORSE)
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 1995 02:05:08

>Internet: [email-masked] (JH645)  CompuServe: 74140,2055  

Jaime...we keep missing each other on the info superhighway....

The discourteousness of drivers causes them to do the "Me first....
screw you" attitude, which can manifest itself in dangerous ways, 
and THEN speed becomes the factor (Speed in an of itself is only
basically dangerous if you hit something...or get a blow out).

Tonight, I was driving with my best friend.  He was going doen the street
as someone pulled out of a strip mall into the street.  My friend HAD the
fight of way, but this guy was hell bent on cutting in front. My friend said
"Oh no ya dont" and almost allowed this guy to hit him.  Attutudes of
drivers is what I have been talking about all along, while you quote
me stats on whether people will speed up or not if a sign is changed.
I tell you that the current state of drivers attitudes WILL contribute
to more illegal speeding, the higher the speed limits, and you showed me 
the study.

As I told another poster, I do NOT care what anyone says.....I have
seen it for mysef and heard it for myself (and....asked the questions
I was asked to ask in class).  People WILL speed no matter
what the speed limit (as the study suggested), but the reasons
are what I address.  The lack of respect for the system is NOT
rooted in the disrespect for the 55.....its rooted in people's attitudes
towards each other....especially when they are behind the wheel and
MORPH into something other than what they do the rest of the time.

You might be interested to hear that a very pretty female student I
had in class about a year ago told me...and the class, that when she
goes out on a date with a guy....she's putting on her best face....the
guy is putting on his...each wanted each other to like each other.
She said that she decides FINALLY if there will be a date #2, when
she sees  HOW HE DRIVES.  If he is a weaver, a speeder, a finger
waver, then THAT is who he really is, and she might as well find that
out now and make a decision.  Something, eh?

I KNOW 55 is currently unfair. I wish that a group OTHER than the
NMA would band together and get some WAY saner traffic laws
on the books. The NMA does NOT do a good job, sadly, but they
are one of the only ones out there.  The AAA is a much more effective
lobbying organization, but remember, they have their insurance company
at stake too, so their vested interests can be at odds with motorists.

What do we motorists want? To be safe should be the #1 consideration.
#2 is to feel that we can traverse our taxpayer paid roads unencumbered.
And #3, to have laws that make sense for the times in which we live, and
enforced fairly, and NOT selectively.  In California, there are 20 MILLION
licensed drivers...a HUGELY powerful lobby if we would only get it 
together.  But we don't.  We don't even go vote.  THAT makes me
angry and sad.

This anti cop/government stance is a self-defeating attitude.  We disrespect
the police for doing the job we pay them to do....see people breaking the
law, and cite them to deter them.  THEY didn't make the laws!! We get
pissed off at THEM when we get CAUGHT!  Then we expect THEM
to come running when we dial 9-1-1????  Sorry. Doesn't work like that.
They're human beings too, and when they feel that the public doesn't 
support them because they're pissed off at getting caught....it's disheartening.

I reject this argument that many people have been posting, that the disrespect
for the SPEED LAWS is the foundation of lawbreaking on the road.  It is
a factor.....it's not the main one. There is NO entrapment here
to breaking the law.  Its done quite willingly.  Its unnecessary if people
will plan their time better.  Not gonna happen. 

I hope there will be a saner speeding law coming down the pike, so as to
at least put THIS canard to rest.

Kenny Morse
"Mr. Traffic"

---

From: [email-masked] (FolsomMan)
Date: 4 Aug 1995 20:58:38 -0400

Kenny Morse (Mr. Traffic) wrote:

...
>support them because they're pissed off at getting caught....it's
disheartening.

I have been complimented by CHP for being courteous while they give me
tickets, and I don't get pissed off at them when they catch me (except
when they lie about it, which is fairly common).  I am, however, pissed
off about the stupid speed law.

>will plan their time better.  Not gonna happen. 

Planning your time better like living close to where you work, for
instance?  Like some people don't want or can't afford?  You ought to be
able to understand that when people are jerked around by silly speed
limits, they do lose respect for the law and tend to disregard speed
limits as a guide for safe driving.  When someone sees the same speed
limit on remote stretches of 101 between Salinas and Paso Robles as there
are going through Prunedale, it is OBVIOUS that the limits are not set for
safety.  Ever driven down a road riddled with driveways, blind turns and
crossroads with a 55 mph speed limit?  Limited access freeways in suburban
areas have the same limits.  101 going by San Juan Bautista has the same
speed limit as 156 going through San Juan.

---

From: [email-masked] (FolsomMan)
Date: 4 Aug 1995 21:00:11 -0400

> : they might respect speed laws arrived at fairly.

A lot of drivers show disrespect by getting into the left lane and
blocking faster traffic to help enforce the speed limit.  Then further
disrespect is shown by those who undertake unnecessary maneuvers to get by
the righteous ones.  If speed limits were set at speeds that people drive
at, the law would no longer be on the side of the assholes who block the
fast lane and they could be ticketed as they so richly deserve.  After
which, they might actually stop their anal retentive behavior on the
highway.

Mark Folsom

---

From: [email-masked] (KENNY MORSE)
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 1995 18:23:39

>which, they might actually stop their anal retentive behavior on the

I agree with you Mark up to the point where you assert 
<<If speed limits were set at speeds that people drive at>.....
you and I differ at this point......I say if you up the speed limit
to ANYTHING....65....75....85 (right, we wish), then people
will STILL break those limits.

Kenny Morse
"Mr. Traffic" responding to>

---

From: [email-masked] (KENNY MORSE)
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 1995 18:57:40

In article <[email-masked]> Scott Dunn wrote:
>In article <[email-masked]>,
>Between 408 and 510... <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>[email-masked] (KENNY MORSE) writes:
>
>>

And then Scott writes:
>If this were true, the govenment would have put governors on every single 
>automobile a long time ago.  Despite the whinings of the auto industry.

Nonesense. And it IS true.  When YOU start teaching traffic school,
or talk to thousands of motorists for a living, THEN call me with your
"informed" opinion.
>
>>
>>PS. Yes, we all know, what's the deal - $$$.
>>
>KENNY knows better than many of us.  He's in a position to profit from 
>the insanely low speed limits.  And as far as I can tell, he doesn't seem 
>to have a bothered conscience about it, either.  He would do well in a 
>communist country with an attitude like his.  The fact that we 
>indavertently support his position with 'dollars' suggests that this 
>country is highly socialist.  Couldn't KENNY do something more productive 
>like manufacturing doorknobs?

What an intelligent post. My, you must sit up nights with your coloring
books to have come up with that.

YOU BET $$$ is the deal....YOU....the guy who so willingly forks
over your $$$ to the state, and then they pay guys like ME to have
to face the likes of YOU for 8 hours. And all for what? Minutes?
You getting somewhere a few minutes sooner? Idicocy! 

I profit from people who break the law.  If you don't like the law,
change it, or be the poor patsy who forks over your $$$.  The majority
of the people I teach were going in excess of 65 mph. COnscience?
Yeah....I feel bad that people are too stupid to obey the laws of
the state, and if they don't like the law, at least stay in a zone of
speed that WON'T get then singled out for a ticket.  
Oh, and guess what....YOU profit from people who break the law
too.  If it wasn't for the 100 million+ that people who break the
law (and not all speeders) contribute to the California General Fund,
then YOUR taxes would be a helluva lot higher than now.
But, I suppose you don't mind THAT!

I'll say it one last time for the thinking impaired ......PEOPLE SPEED 
***NOT***
because of archaic speed laws (which they are), but because they
have selfish motives.  Their disrespet for these laws comes NOT
from BIG BROTHER'S tyranny, but from their OWN attitudes
and taking for granted the driving priveledge.

Yeah Scott....I'll make doornobs, but people like you will
find a way to break it, and then bitch about the communists
who made a buck manufacturing doornobs.

Oh, and the next time you want to call someone a communist,
(ooooo, like he REALLY hurt me), look in the mirror first.

Kenny Morse
"Mr. Traffic"
>responding to
>-- 
>Scott Dunn : [email-masked] : who is some kind of
FOIA/PA researcher, tutor ....tutor of WHAT??
>"When there is crime in government, there is no justice." --Potato
>" When there is inanity in one's position, I'll call ya a name"---Mr. Potato Head
>

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Dunn)
Date: Sun, 6 Aug 1995 05:21:10 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,

>or talk to thousands of motorists for a living, THEN call me with your

Of course, you never really teach what the law says.  You just teach them 
what you want them to think: obedience.

>You getting somewhere a few minutes sooner? Idicocy! 

Willingly?  Sorry KENNY.  My goal is to find every single procedural, or 
legal error made by law-eforcement types and D.A.s and make their 
prosecution of me as EXPENSIVE as possible.  I would encourage everyone 
who reads this to read the Vehicle Code and look for inconsistencies.

Why?  You do not get "due process of law" when you are dealing with a 
traffic ticket.  What you do get is "accepted practice."  Here's an 
example for you to ponder.  Before arraignment, the ticket (hereinafter 
'complaint') must be filed with the magistrate.  Is it EVER filed with 
any magistrate?  NO.  Never.  It's delivered to the data room in the 
court house for entering into their computers.

The constitution clearly states that you have the right to assistance of 
cousel.  The courts have ruled that defendants have a right to assistance 
of counsel at EVERY STAGE of the proceedings.  An advocate is a better 
word for it.  That advocate is the magistrate.  Every complaint must be 
verified before a magistrate.  The process is called a probable cause 
hearing.  Bet you never had one of those before arraignment, eh?

No, I don't willingly fork it over to profiteers like KENNY.

-- 
Scott Dunn : [email-masked] : FOIA/PA researcher, tutor 
"When there is crime in government, there is no justice." --Potato

---

From: [email-masked] (Adam Neil Villani)
Date: 5 Aug 1995 20:49:46 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>,
>like manufacturing doorknobs?

Well, _I_ sure don't support him. I've only been driving 5 years, have
received no traffic tickets, and have even beaten each of the four
parking tickets I've received. Proud of it, too! :-)

---

From: [email-masked] (KENNY MORSE)
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 1995 19:03:12

>parking tickets I've received. Proud of it, too! :-)

 Thats my boy Adam. Proud of ya.
Keep it up!  I really DON'T want you, or anyone else
to see my class. 

Since I derive my $$$ from working on TV NOT as Mr. Traffic
(I work on a CBS TV Series that will stay anonymous), the $$$ I make
from traffic school is a pittance, which I have turned around and donated
to charities, causes like MADD, and paid for public service programming
at MY cost to help people like SCOTT when he has a problem.

Believe me, I've met worse than him, and many who post here.

I'm glad you have kept your nose clean Adam, and hope it will stay that
way.

But I care not what he or others think of my position....I state it for the
sake of intelligent discussion (which he seems to have a problem with).
There's an old saying......"What other people think of me is none of my
business!"
EXACTLY!

Kenny

---

From: [email-masked] (Michael R. Kesti)
Date: 7 Aug 1995 15:40:51 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>
                      [email-masked] (KENNY MORSE) writes:

>                               People WILL speed no matter
>are what I address.

The premise that people will exceed always speed limits is demonstrably
incorrect by taking the matter to the extreme.  If the premise was
correct, and the speed limit was 1000 MPH, then we would expect some
significant portion of drivers to drive 1010 MPH, but I don't believe
that this would happen.

I believe that the reason people exceed posted speed limits is not
because they enjoy breaking the law, which is implied in the premise
that they will always exceed posted limits.  Instead, I believe that
they exceed posted speed limits because they find the balance of risks
and benefits to be satisfactory at speeds greater than the inappropriately
low limits that have been set.

I also believe that there is danger in setting low speed limits on roads
that were designed for and can reasonably support higher speeds.  Part of
the balance of risks and benefits is that one will, when allowed to freely
choose one's speed, choose a speed that is high enough that it provides
sufficient stimulation that one maintains concentration on the road.  In
other words, there is danger in forcing people to drive slower than they
otherwise would, and that danger is that their attention will wander.  A
common response to this is that it neglects those whose driving skills and
reaction times are insufficient.  My answer to this is that we need to
finally begin a meaningful program of training and testing to ensure that
those licensed to drive are actually qualified to do so, as well as an
enforcement policy intended to enhance safety rather than generate revenue.

Of course, these ideas are political hot potatos, and will never be
implemented as long as we continue to elect "leaders" and "representatives"
who are more interested in removing personal liberties and keeping their
jobs than in legislating sensible laws that actually address the problems
they intend to solve.

Please note that I am posting this just prior to beginning a vacation
trip, and will not be available to respond to comments this article may
generate for the next 10 days.

-- 
============================================================================
            Michael Kesti               | "And like, one and one don't make
         Grass Valley Group             |  two, one and one make one."
       [email-masked]           |         - The Who, Bargain

---

From: [email-masked] (Scott Dunn)
Date: Sat, 5 Aug 1995 15:21:58 GMT

>difference at about 75-80 mph, and this is the speed limit people
>set to themselves. There always will be some people who drive >100 mph
>(from time to time), no matter what is the speed limit - 55 or 75,
>so what's the deal? 
>
>	Leo
>

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 6 Aug 1995 18:44:45 -0700

The real reason people speed is -- get ready for this --

        	B e c a u s e   I t   F e e l s   G o o d !

Always has, always will.  As soon as somebody invents something, somebody
else makes it work faster, and a third person says "let's have a race." 
So doesn't it make more sense to develop systems that permit this natural
exercise of a deep inner need shared by -- I'm just guessing here -- 95%
of the population rather than ineffectually attempting to squelch it
entirely? 

Our interstates already support speeds in excess of 85 mph.  So do many
lesser highways.  How about NO speed limits, and stringent penalties for
not moving over to allow a faster driver to pass or for passing on the
right?  Or maybe minimum and maximum speed limits on a lane basis, with no
maximum in the fast lane.  Anyone incapable of observing these simple and
appropriate rules should not be on the highways to begin with, and
everyone would be much safer without them.  Hmmm....perhaps special
highway licenses, like motorcycle licenses, with stiff penalties for
violation... 

And we all know what a highway is:  I-5 and the rest of the interstate 
system, 395, etc.  NOT Mulholland Drive and its equivalent in northern 
California.  Not the street you live on.  NOT the street your kid walks 
to school on . . .

Anybody here with legal experience who wants to get up an internet 
petition to send to our lawfakers?  It couldn't hurt, and somehow voting 
just doesn't do what it's supposed to...

Bev               [email-masked] 
*************************************************
          Finger for spotted owl recipe.

---

From: Rahul Dhesi <[email-masked]>
Date: 8 Aug 1995 08:12:10 GMT

In <[email-masked]> [email-masked] writes:

>How about NO speed limits, and stringent penalties for
>right? 

And for making more than two lane changes, not all in the same
direction, in two minutes.  And for following a vehicle at less than
two seconds' distance for more than ten seconds.

However, passing on the right is legal in California, and ought to
remain so, when such passing does not involve crossing the shoulder.
Else a single slow motorist would cause all lanes to the right of him
to slow down -- unsafe and silly.
-- 
Rahul Dhesi <[email-masked]>
"please ignore Dhesi" -- Mark Crispin <[email-masked]>

---

From: [email-masked] (Larry McMahan)
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 00:22:29 GMT

Rahul Dhesi ([email-masked]) writes:

: However, passing on the right is legal in California, and ought to
: remain so, when such passing does not involve crossing the shoulder.
: Else a single slow motorist would cause all lanes to the right of him
: to slow down -- unsafe and silly.
: -- 
: Rahul Dhesi <[email-masked]>
: "please ignore Dhesi" -- Mark Crispin <[email-masked]>

Passing on the right should not be illegal.  Being passed when you
are on the left *should*.

---

From: Rahul Dhesi <[email-masked]>
Date: 9 Aug 1995 09:34:39 GMT

>are on the left *should*.

It is impossible to avoid being passed on the right.  How would you
avoid it?  By cutting in in front of the motorist diagonally to the
rear right of you, whom you were passing but who suddenly speeds up,
because his lane opens up while yours is still clogged?  I see this
happen all the time.  Especially in stop-and-go traffic, I often see
one lane stopped for a while while an adjacent lane is going at a good
25 mph or so.
-- 
Rahul Dhesi <[email-masked]>
"please ignore Dhesi" -- Mark Crispin <[email-masked]>

---

From: Rahul Dhesi <[email-masked]>
Date: 10 Aug 1995 10:13:34 GMT

>I often see it happen that a driver dawdles along in the left lane all
>alone until I attempt to pass on the right, whereupon they cut sharply
>into the right lane, causing me to have to execute a high-g maneuver...

So are we agreed that it's this sort of cutting that ought to
be illegal, not mere passing of any type?
-- 
Rahul Dhesi <[email-masked]>
"please ignore Dhesi" -- Mark Crispin <[email-masked]>

---

From: [email-masked] (Between 408 and 510...)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 1995 01:46:17 GMT

Rahul Dhesi <[email-masked]> writes:

>In <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Between 408 and 510...) writes:

>>	I think what you described is not passing in legal sense,
>> as it is legal even in the countries where "passing" on the right is illegal.

>What's a good definition of 'passing' that would make this so?

	To 'pass' a car you have to be behind it in the same lane,
then change lane, actually pass the car, and (optionally) return to
the original lane.

>How can you pass a car without 'passing' it?

	By staying in one lane and changing your speed. Or by preserving
your speed while a car in an adjacent lane slows down.

	Leo

---

From: Rahul Dhesi <[email-masked]>
Date: 11 Aug 1995 07:14:56 GMT

>then change lane, actually pass the car, and (optionally) return to

So if I understand correctly, if you have recently changed lanes
towards the right, then you are not permitted to speed up to the normal
flow of traffic in your new lane, should such flow of traffic happen to
be faster than the one in the lane on the left?  But it's ok to change
lanes towards the right and then remain driving slowly, and holding up
others behind you, so long as you are no faster than the lane you just
left?

It still makes no sense to me.
-- 
Rahul Dhesi <[email-masked]>
"please ignore Dhesi" -- Mark Crispin <[email-masked]>

---

From: [email-masked] (Adam Neil Villani)
Date: 11 Aug 1995 08:11:38 GMT

>It still makes no sense to me.

Excellent point. And I've also never seen a satisfactory explanation
for why passing on the right is wrong in the first place. _Being_
passed on the right is most certainly wrong.

---

From: Rahul Dhesi <[email-masked]>
Date: 11 Aug 1995 10:10:16 GMT

In <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Adam Neil

>passed on the right is most certainly wrong.

This is one of those 'wheel has come full circle', is it not?
You are following up to a follow up to a follow up to this:

   one lane stopped for a while while an adjacent lane is going at a
   good 25 mph or so.

---

From: Rahul Dhesi <[email-masked]>
Date: 10 Aug 1995 22:52:04 GMT