PDA

View Full Version : Speeding for Ron Paul




Fields
05-31-2008, 11:53 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUfmMKEP7N4

Fields
06-01-2008, 04:07 PM
Jiffy is best.

Kludge
06-01-2008, 04:09 PM
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/8ndeLUUbdHE/default.jpg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ndeLUUbdHE&feature=related)http://s.ytimg.com/yt/img/pixel-vfl73.gif (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUfmMKEP7N4#)

wtf.



The argument against speeding is more that it gives you much less time to react, which is also why tailgating is frowned upon (if not illegal, I'm unsure).

On a philosophical level, The State has no right to protect people on the roads, it's the fault of... whoever's fault it was (as determined by a jury). Consumers must use caution.

A Ron Paul Rebel
06-01-2008, 07:58 PM
There is some truth to that in the fact that:

a) unnecessary slowing creates more traffic problems
b) less time spent on the road = less chance of an accident
c) faster speeds are easier to HEAR and SEE movement
d) No question on who's going first

The future of driving I see ie: "The Complete Science of Driving"
people will be responsible, be aware, think for themselves (as
opposed to a law telling them what is right or wrong).


Hunter

Fields
06-01-2008, 08:51 PM
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/8ndeLUUbdHE/default.jpg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ndeLUUbdHE&feature=related)http://s.ytimg.com/yt/img/pixel-vfl73.gif (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUfmMKEP7N4#)

wtf.




wtf X 2

NEPA_Revolution
06-01-2008, 09:49 PM
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/8ndeLUUbdHE/default.jpg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ndeLUUbdHE&feature=related)http://s.ytimg.com/yt/img/pixel-vfl73.gif (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUfmMKEP7N4#)

wtf.



The argument against speeding is more that it gives you much less time to react, which is also why tailgating is frowned upon (if not illegal, I'm unsure).

On a philosophical level, The State has no right to protect people on the roads, it's the fault of... whoever's fault it was (as determined by a jury). Consumers must use caution.


WTF x3

trispear
06-01-2008, 10:24 PM
On a philosophical level, The State has no right to protect people on the roads

Actually it does. Streets are not private property. They can do regulate them how they want. States rights and all that, remember?

On Speeding: Studies show that on Americans roads its safer to go 10mph above the limit than 10mph below it. The speed limits are set artificially low to make everyone a criminal and to collect money/tickets easier. I like near a highway still marked 55, everyone goes about 70 or so. It would be dangerous to go 55, against the natural flow of traffic.

I would suppose having a realistic speed limit also keeps the driver's mind more engaged in what he's doing instead of wandering off.

Christianalwaysg124RP
06-01-2008, 10:33 PM
Seat belt laws, should we try to abolish them in our own states?

Kludge
06-02-2008, 03:23 AM
Actually it does. Streets are not private property. They can do regulate them how they want. States rights and all that, remember?

On Speeding: Studies show that on Americans roads its safer to go 10mph above the limit than 10mph below it. The speed limits are set artificially low to make everyone a criminal and to collect money/tickets easier. I like near a highway still marked 55, everyone goes about 70 or so. It would be dangerous to go 55, against the natural flow of traffic.

I would suppose having a realistic speed limit also keeps the driver's mind more engaged in what he's doing instead of wandering off.

Irrelevant. The State has no right to protect against potential dangers.

It is the drivers' responsibility to drive in a manner which is safe for them and other drivers on the road. It is also their fault if any accidents result from it.

malkusm
06-02-2008, 05:32 AM
The way I see it (and this recently happened to me):

If I'm going 75-80 on a 65 MPH highway with no one else around, am I endangering anyone but myself? As such, I should only pay the consequenses that arise - if I am indeed incapable of driving at this speed safely, I will have an accident and have no one to blame but myself. I don't feel that it's the state's job, or anyone else's, to tell me how fast I can safely drive....I can safely drive as fast as I feel safe driving.

The same applies for seat belt laws I think...I ALWAYS wear a seat belt, but so what if I didn't? Who is this affecting besides me? (The only exception to this, I would think, would be children...children don't deserve to be endangered by irresponsible parents and I can see the merits of requiring children to be buckled up)

A Ron Paul Rebel
06-02-2008, 06:26 AM
Seat belt laws, should we try to abolish them in our own states?

I spoke in front of the N.H. State Senate last year (along with 100 other people)
and we had an 16 to8 vote against 'mandatory seatbelts'. N.H. is the ONLY state
without a 'mandatory seatbelt law'.

I'll share some of my knowledgeable facts if you'd like. My main point is that
seatbelts do create irresponsible drivers, which is true... just like
'pedestrians have the right-a-way' creates irresponsible pedestrians AND
irresponsible drivers!!! I backed it up with facts of course.

Hunter

A Ron Paul Rebel
06-02-2008, 06:31 AM
The way I see it (and this recently happened to me):

If I'm going 75-80 on a 65 MPH highway with no one else around, am I endangering anyone but myself? As such, I should only pay the consequenses that arise - if I am indeed incapable of driving at this speed safely, I will have an accident and have no one to blame but myself. I don't feel that it's the state's job, or anyone else's, to tell me how fast I can safely drive....I can safely drive as fast as I feel safe driving.

The same applies for seat belt laws I think...I ALWAYS wear a seat belt, but so what if I didn't? Who is this affecting besides me? (The only exception to this, I would think, would be children...children don't deserve to be endangered by irresponsible parents and I can see the merits of requiring children to be buckled up)


80 provides skills (any speed does). And proof is when we slow
down coming into town and it feels SOOOOO SLOW. That's because
we increase control with the 80!

It's good to experience all kinds of difficulties like 'driving in the snow',
speed, hills, curves, rushhour traffic, etc... Each on makes all the others
easier. That's why setting arbitrarily low speed limits does more harm
than good. Not only does it create more traffic problems, but it provides
very little skill thus will result in more problems and more accidents.

Hunter

trispear
06-03-2008, 01:47 AM
Irrelevant. The State has no right to protect against potential dangers.

I think the 10th Amendment gives the states every right. If you were on your own private road, you'd have a case.

Although I don't quite get what you are arguing philosophically. If the state did not have the right to protect you from potential dangers in these instances, people could drink as much as they wanted before stepping in their vehicle.

Knowing quite a few drunks and the lives they lead, I really don't want that.


My main point is that
seatbelts do create irresponsible drivers, which is true...0

I suppose we ought to put very sharp spikes no steering wheels then:D

I disagree, seatbelts help in a number of ways though.

I would likely agree with irresponsible pedestrians remark. Particularly in Europe, I had people on foot and on bikes move around the road without care. It's rather irrating when your driving a van with a large blindspot.


The same applies for seat belt laws I think...I ALWAYS wear a seat belt, but so what if I didn't? Who is this affecting besides me?

It depends how far you want to take it. In Europe after an accident, they cut part of the seatbelt off and determine by the tension in the threads if you wearing it. This determines if your insurance company will pay your full healthcare costs or you will (as your decision has societal costs).

Wearing a seatbelt also helps you stay in your seat, especially during violent turns/manuevers (evasive?), etc.

In the end, you are on a public road, and the state can regulate how to drive it. In the same way, it can regulate if you are allowed to have any blood alcohol in your system during driving, and whether you can text message people or not during driving (statistics show this is dangerous).

Kludge
06-03-2008, 06:05 PM
I think the 10th Amendment gives the states every right. If you were on your own private road, you'd have a case.

Although I don't quite get what you are arguing philosophically. If the state did not have the right to protect you from potential dangers in these instances, people could drink as much as they wanted before stepping in their vehicle.

Knowing quite a few drunks and the lives they lead, I really don't want that.

When you drink, you assume all responsibilities for the side effects, as with using any drugs (legal or otherwise....). Education is key - not that drinking alcohol may be lethal to you and others, but that you're fully responsible for any aggression that occurs while you're drunk.

Hopefully, parents will do their job and educate their kids. The current anti-drug programs are a joke.

roshie
06-03-2008, 06:13 PM
When you drink, you assume all responsibilities for the side effects, as with using any drugs (legal or otherwise....). Education is key - not that drinking alcohol may be lethal to you and others, but that you're fully responsible for any aggression that occurs while you're drunk.

Hopefully, parents will do their job and educate their kids. The current anti-drug programs are a joke.

No matter how much you wish parents will do their job, there will always be one that doesn't and thus, causes a problem on the roads.

I do support speed limits / laws against certain driving on the road. They are a public health hazard, but of course, there are limits. I guess this is part of how the limited government is supposed to protect your life.

Fields
06-03-2008, 09:40 PM
bump