The one irreplaceable commodity a person has it time. That is one thing think that can not be bought. But apparently time is irrelevant to you, that you put no value on your time whatsoever. If you have to sit in a box for 1, 2, 5, 10 hour, an extra 100 or 1000 0r 10,000 hours of your life so you are safe and poise no danger to others, you're all for it.
So, then, you now have justify anyone leaving their home without a compelling reason to do so. If they say in their homes they endanger no now. Endangering others is intolerable to you, right? Thus, a person leaving their house unless truly necessary should be considered criminal reckless endangerment to others.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Highways outlaw pedestrian traffic, so that isn't an issue there.
You may dispense with the strawmen and argumenta ad hominem. When you do, we can resume our debate.
I was thinking along the lines of preventing such - I would think a crash more likely at higher speeds because less time to react.
If you don't like the actual issue why are you even on this thread? And if you see anyone disagreeing with you as a personal attack then debate forums may not be the best place...
But I will give you a clue as you may have missed.
1. Contrary what you may think, people have limited life spans.
2. The slower a vehicle is going the longer it takes to arrive at a destination.
3. The longer a person is prohibited from doing what they want or need to do because they are in a vehicle, the less effective lifetime that person has.
Slower speed limits reduce people's effective lifetimes.
May not matter to you. You may prefer to sit and stare at a wall in an empty room for all I know. But some people actually have places to go and things to do when they get there.
Well, then this whole topic is irrelevant since there also are speed limits. Therefore no speed limiters on cars would ever have any relevancy.
The speed limit is adjusted by trail and error. It starts out at whatever the design speed of the project is, which determines many things about the road like radii of horizontal curves, differences in beginning/ending slopes of vertical curves and their length, side-street visibility or ramp length, signage placement, etc, etc. Then the amount of traffic, pedestrian traffic, number of side-streets, etc. are factored in and that's what's originally posted. As the road gets used, police accumulate statistics on speeding and accidents. If the results show a lot of speeders (more than the standard 15%) and not a lot of accidents then the speed limit is considered again and maybe a traffic study is done to gather data on actual, instead of theoretical, traffic volumes. Sometimes the limit is raised (if possible by state/city laws), sometimes it isn't. In places where they decide not to raise the limit, they often reduce enforcement.Right. I'm honestly curious as to whether this percentile is taken to be fixed (which I'm guessing it is) or if they ever readjust it it.
I'm talking about the responses to said law. I've been all over the country, and some places such as Arkansas have amazingly slow drivers. For others, such as many Atlantans, the speed limit is only a concept.
I see lots of people speed every day. I haven't seen someone walking on a highway where pedestrians are illegal in several years.Well, then this whole topic is irrelevant since there also are speed limits. Therefore no speed limiters on cars would ever have any relevancy. No pedestrians are ever on highways because it is illegal and no one never exceeds speed limits because it is illegal. Problem solved as obviously there is no problem.
I see lots of people speed every day. I haven't seen someone walking on a highway where pedestrians are illegal in several years.
You didn't really address my point.Why do so many people live in such constant fear of everything? Do they just stay in their houses because statistically it is safer than going into public and being safe is the singular purpose of life or something?
Frankly, it seems kinda dumb.Well, almost 80% of people in this poll think that the OP is not a good idea.
Good.
Do you realize how immature it sounds to bring up nullification as an attempt to enable people to drive however dangerously they want?
What I find immature is the pompous righteousness of complete strangers telling me they know how I should live my own life. Immaturity is the belief that a rule will somehow magically make everything uncomfortable disappear. Nullification is the way for liberty-loving people to throw the chains of servitude from their ankles emplaced by pretentious do-gooders.
Exactly, because nobody should tell me to turn on my lights at night, stop for trains, or do anything else that might reduce the risk of a collision. Give me a break.
Why is it so difficult to understand that determining the proper speed at which to drive is simply one more decision everyone is capable of making?
You're exactly right. Nobody has to tell you those things because you are fully capable of recognizing the merits of each. It is not against the law to set yourself on fire, drink gasoline, jump out of a plane without a parachute, or punch a grizzly bear in the face, and yet nobody is in a hurry to outlaw them. Why not? Because it is obvious that everyone can make these decisions. Why is it so difficult to understand that determining the proper speed at which to drive is simply one more decision everyone is capable of making?
Yeah, like this guy. :roll:
There are a couple here that are not interstates where pedestrian traffic is illegal but when I talk about it I generally mean interstates.I see people walking and riding bikes along state and county highways all the time. Nor do I have any idea where he concluded it is illegal to walk on highways? I know of NO highway around here where it is illegal to walk or ride a bike. The only one I can think of are Interstates. Its quite a distance to the nearest Interstate.
Your rights end where my face begins. You do NOT have the right to participate in any activity that directly harms my safety. Like the ones I mentioned above.
Geez, dude. Can you not see how your attitude enable road rage?
Virtually every driver in America exceeds the speed limit on a daily basis. It is common knowledge that law enforcement generally allows a “leeway” above the legal limit. This directly proves that the speed limit itself is primarily arbitrary and does nothing to promote safety or any excess of this limit would be punished. A person driving ten miles over the limit on a deserted stretch of highway is endangering nobody. To claim that every instance of speeding “directly harms [your] safety” is a flat out lie. The vast majority of accidents involve poor judgment and ability, not speed by itself.
My motto is lead, follow, or get out of the way. The biggest problem with most roadways in America is ignorance and arrogance. My attitude is one of indifference. Go faster than me, go slower than me, it makes no difference. However, there are many drivers who seem to have no understanding of proper road etiquette. Get your butt in the right lane and stay there unless you’re passing. This more than any other reason causes traffic flow problems and decreases the safety of other drivers. It is this action coupled with other drivers’ poor judgment (i.e. tailgating, weaving, etc.) which creates an unsafe environment, not speed.
Phys251 said:Will you please tone down the rhetoric and stop the lies and false dichotomy?
Phys251 said:My belief is that speed-related fatalities are a much more common problem in town than on the open road, and I'm willing to accept clear evidence to the contrary.
Phys251 said:And this, sir, is an attitude that enables road rage.
Phys251 said:You don't like someone driving 60 mph in a 60-mph zone?
Because setting yourself on fire, drinking gasoline, jumping out of a plane without a parachute, and punching a grizzly bear in the face are all actions which in the vast majority of cases only cause harm to yourself.You're exactly right. Nobody has to tell you those things because you are fully capable of recognizing the merits of each. It is not against the law to set yourself on fire, drink gasoline, jump out of a plane without a parachute, or punch a grizzly bear in the face, and yet nobody is in a hurry to outlaw them. Why not? Because it is obvious that everyone can make these decisions. Why is it so difficult to understand that determining the proper speed at which to drive is simply one more decision everyone is capable of making?
Because setting yourself on fire, drinking gasoline, jumping out of a plane without a parachute, and punching a grizzly bear in the face are all actions which in the vast majority of cases only cause harm to yourself. However, driving really fast and hitting someone causes harm to someone other than yourself, which is why speed limits.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?