OT: What are your thoughts on this?

On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 19:02:22 -0700, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Seems to be there's a conflict between people understanding the rights
>they deserve and the rights they think they're eligible to take.
>==========================================================================
>It's the result of having so many laws that you can't live without being in
>violation of something. It has made people not care.

And I read it as the opposite. There's so many freedoms that people
feel at liberty to take more whenever they feel like it.

What's that saying "Unlimited power brings unlimited corruption and
stupidity".

On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 13:57:14 -0600, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 9/11/2012 8:26 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 00:48:11 -0600, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/10/2012 7:20 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 19:20:45 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/10/2012 6:41 PM, dpb wrote:
>>>>>> B) My second thought is looks like a wide-enough street to me to accept
>>>>>> the "go-'round"...
>>>>> Except for the little things, like the double, solid yellow line being a
>>>>> clear "Do Not Pass" in any traffic engineer's handbook in every state
>>>>> and state traffic statute.
>>>> In Vermont a solid (or double) yellow line is only a suggestion that you might
>>>> not want to pass; a "be careful" hint. Unless there is a white and black sign
>>>> saying "Do Not Pass" (rare), it's perfectly legal to do so.
>>>>
>>>>> Granted, in a society that ignores unethical behavior at every
>>>>> opportunity, breaking a law that is inconvenient, despite the fact that
>>>>> it is a rational, logical, and clear extension of a need for public
>>>>> safety, is no longer of much import ... from rolling stops, to political
>>>>> machinations, a society of scofflaws eventually breaks down.
>>>> I blame it on the national 55MPH speed limit.
>>> Amazing, Rip Van Winkle still lives. To bring you up to speed during
>>> your long sleep, ol' Rip, that law was repealed in 1995.
>> Well, your mental abilities are now out for all to see and there isn't much to
>> see.
>>
>>> The National Maximum Speed Law (NMSL) in the United States was a
>>> provision of the 1974 Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act that
>>> prohibited speed limits higher than 55 miles per hour (89 km/h). . .
>>> . The NMSL was modified in 1987 and 1988 to allow up to 65 mph (105
>>> km/h) limits on certain limited access, rural roads. Congress repealed
>>> the NMSL in 1995, fully returning speed limit setting authority to the
>>> states.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law
>> Capt. Obvious stikes again.
>>
>>> There are many areas in the western USA where the posted speed limit is
>>> 75MPH.
>> There are many areas that are 80MPH and one that's 85MPH. So?
>SO, there isn't a "national 55MPH speed limit as you falsely stated
>when you said, "I blame it on the national 55 MPH speed limit." There
>used to be one from about 1974 to 1987, but it was modified some 25
>years ago and repealed about 17 years ago.
>SO, you blamed drivers' behavior on a law that doesn't exist.

Idiot. Drivers got worse after the national limit went into effect and
ignored. It's been all downhill since.

"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> writes:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>>
>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 23:07:20 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>
>> <snip a lot of valuable info>
>> >
>> > How many more Billions of dollars will be spent to learn that we can not
>> > improve the automotive technology without going to small nuclear reactors.
>> >
>>
>> Now your talking, nuclear powered car, fusion I hope, comes with all the
>> fuel it will ever need and a cruising speed of 400 Mph. Bring it on!
>>
>> Hey, can we get with auxillary 3 phase out put to power our tools?
>
>May not be as far-fetched as you think. One of the long-shots in fusion
>research is a tabletop device that the Naval Research Lab is working on.

I believe that the NRL (which never sponsored the research, but rather one of
the NRL researchers was advocating it) has completely given up on the soi disant
cold-fusion research to which I suspect you are referring.

The only viable tabletop fusion is muon-catalyzed fusion which was known before
pons-fleichman and it takes more energy to produce the muons that is obtained from
the subsequent fusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion

scott

On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 23:14:21 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:


>
>If you send the evidence to every one at the same time, and cc all of
>this so every one knows that every one is watching and waiting for a
>response.... expect a lot of finger pointing.

A few years back, I took an adult ed course at a public school. We
were warned about how bad the boys bathroom was. I saw it and it was
a disgrace and has been for a couple of years.

A letter to the editor was all it took. Evidently, the superintendent
of schools reads the morning paper and repairs were started that day.

GarageWoodworks wrote:

>
> Sorry! I didn't know it was doing that. I corrected the problem and
> you should be able to see the images now. Thanks!

No - thank you. Being able to view the pictures in a larger format makes a
lot of difference. Now I can see the nature of the roadway better and that
answers some of the thoughts I raised earlier. I agree with your
assessement of this practice on this given stretch of road - does not appear
to be the smartest move on the part of the bus driver. This kind of thing
is so commonplace though, that it is often overlooked and just accepted.
Well - maybe not quite this kind of thing... I'm not much of an alarmist
(if that's the right word), and i would not find this particular practice to
be acceptable. Splitting the double line on a road with large enough
shoulders would be one thing, but this section of road just does not offer
enough space for even that - let alone full out in the other lane.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On 9/11/2012 6:19 PM, HeyBub wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
>> On 9/11/2012 9:21 AM, Dave wrote:
>>> I understand that's how they're perceived. But, those rights didn't
>>> just magically appear.
>>
>> The "magic" words: "We hold these truths to be self-evident ..." :)
>>
>>> They're words that someone wrote. They were
>>> proposed by men and developed by men, your congress and Thomas
>>> Jefferson. People in fact who were in a position of government. They
>>> were in fact created by your government. I think it's fair to suggest
>>> that if they hadn't been in government, those inalienable rights
>>> probably wouldn't have come into being.
>>
>> You are correct in your suggestion.
>>
>> The Declaration of Independence actually uses the term "unalienable":
>>
>> <quote>
>>
>> "Unalienable": incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and
>> transferred."
>> "You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are
>> a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any
>> circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have
>> unalienable rights."
>>
>> </quote>
>>
>> There is a legal/philosophical difference:
>>
>> <quote>
>>
>> "Inalienable rights": Rights which are not capable of being
>> surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such
>> rights.
>>
>> "You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent
>> either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent
>> in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable
>> rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights."
>>
>
> Ah, but there is an over-riding "right." You almost always have the right to
> waive a right. Think of the Miranda warning.

As clearly stated above, that would be a classic "inalienable right".

> I know of only one "right" that a defendant cannot waive. In Texas, a
> suspect cannot waive a jury trial in a capital murder case, nor can he plead
> guilty. That is, if indicted by a grand jury, the person MUST appear in a
> trial where his guilt or innocence is determined by a jury.

That is arguably still an "inalienable right", by definition, that has
modified by a power (government) that can alienate.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 23:07:20 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:

<snip a lot of valuable info>
>
> How many more Billions of dollars will be spent to learn that we can not
> improve the automotive technology without going to small nuclear reactors.
>

Now your talking, nuclear powered car, fusion I hope, comes with all the
fuel it will ever need and a cruising speed of 400 Mph. Bring it on!

Hey, can we get with auxillary 3 phase out put to power our tools?

basilisk

Doug Miller wrote:

> After the 55mph limit was adopted, IME
> traffic didn't slow down much in most states (Ohio, New York, and
> Utah being notable exceptions), and the norm became upper 60s to low
> 70s, that is, about 20-25% over the limit.
>

For sure - New York was one of the states that did slow down. Mostly
because of the aggressive State Police patrols on the interstates. They
have always given drivers up to 10 over, regardless of the 55mph or the
65mph limits on the interstates, but don't be doing 11 over. If memory
serves me correctly, Ohio (as you state) was like that as well. Can't
remember what Utah was like - it was too many years ago when I lived out
there. Most traffic here stays under 75mph on the interstates, and the ones
that don't usually show up on the shoulder of the road a few miles down.
That's not because we're law-abiding, it's all about those traffic fines...

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Just Wondering wrote:
> On 9/10/2012 10:45 PM, ChairMan wrote:
>> GarageWoodworks wrote:
>>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=180&pid=1375#pid1375
>> I think the school has some responsibility and should get involved
>> in a better way to pick the kids up, so as not to block the street.
>> They could widen the shoulder to accomodate a lane to wait in
>> allowing thru traffic claer access
>>
>>
> Schools generally lack the legal authority to do what you suggest.
> That authority rests with the political entity that owns the roads.

True, but they carry some influence in who and what can be done. And
would definitely be named in a lawsuit should anything ever happen
They would be heard more so than Brian making a complaint to said
entity

J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>>
>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>> On 9/10/2012 10:45 PM, ChairMan wrote:
>>>> GarageWoodworks wrote:
>>>>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=180&pid=1375#pid1375
>>>> I think the school has some responsibility and should get involved
>>>> in a better way to pick the kids up, so as not to block the street.
>>>> They could widen the shoulder to accomodate a lane to wait in
>>>> allowing thru traffic claer access
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Schools generally lack the legal authority to do what you suggest.
>>> That authority rests with the political entity that owns the roads.
>>
>> True, but they carry some influence in who and what can be done. And
>> would definitely be named in a lawsuit should anything ever happen
>> They would be heard more so than Brian making a complaint to said
>> entity
>
> If there was real risk of lawsuit in CT, the state would just put up a
> sign at each end "road legally closed".

Or post a cop there to direct traffic. Which might not be a bad idea.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On 9/10/2012 10:27 PM, dpb wrote:
> On 9/10/2012 7:20 PM, Swingman wrote:
>> On 9/10/2012 6:41 PM, dpb wrote:
>>> B) My second thought is looks like a wide-enough street to me to accept
>>> the "go-'round"...
>>
>> Except for the little things, like the double, solid yellow line being a
>> clear "Do Not Pass" in any traffic engineer's handbook in every state
>> and state traffic statute.
> ...
>
> And the application of a little common-sense that going by a
> standing-line of traffic parked in the street when there's sufficient
> clearance to make it easily doable is, at least where I'm from, common
> sense when the letter of the rule results in impasse.
>
> Sounds like the NC cops realize the reality as well...
>
> --


There is a blind hill. Look at my photos again (last one).

I could look the other way if it was just a car or two, but these are
buses packed with KIDS. The reality is laziness rules.

Dave wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 23:45:40 -0500, "ChairMan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I think the school has some responsibility and should get involved
>> in a better way to pick the kids up, so as not to block the street.
>> They could widen the shoulder to accomodate a lane to wait in
>> allowing thru traffic claer access
>
> I'm betting that nothing will happen until someone is killed or
> seriously injured and it results in a multimillion dollar lawsuit.
> That seems to be the only thing gets most people off their butts
> these
> days.

True, but it will probably take more than one death to get anything
done.

GarageWoodworks wrote:
> On 9/10/2012 7:41 PM, dpb wrote:
>> On 9/10/2012 5:41 PM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
>>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=180&pid=1375#pid1375
>>>
>>>
>>
>> A) My first thought is why is it posted on r.w?
>>
>> B) My second thought is looks like a wide-enough street to me to
>> accept the "go-'round"...
>>
>> --
>>
>
>
> It's a 0.2 mile "go around" with a blind hill. Unacceptable.

I guess my thoughts on it (having read everything else that's been posted),
is that the greater alarm should be raised about those in the cars that
create the unsafe situation by parking in the roadway. Something just seems
wrong with parking in a traffic lane and then getting alarmed because other
traffic has to take measures to avoid your presence.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Swingman wrote:
> On 9/10/2012 6:41 PM, dpb wrote:
>> B) My second thought is looks like a wide-enough street to me to
>> accept the "go-'round"...
>
> Except for the little things, like the double, solid yellow line
> being a clear "Do Not Pass" in any traffic engineer's handbook in
> every state and state traffic statute.
>

Which of course, completely ignores that in every state, there are allowable
circumstances to cross that double yellow. But... that would not make as
cool of a come back now, would it?

Perhaps you don't understand that the law means that you cannot pass a car
under normal passing situations. It does not mean that you cannot go around
an obstruction to traffic. What does your traffic engineer's handbook say
about that?

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On 9/11/2012 8:34 AM, dpb wrote:
> On 9/11/2012 6:54 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> ...
>
>> I guess my thoughts on it (having read everything else that's been
>> posted),
>> is that the greater alarm should be raised about those in the cars that
>> create the unsafe situation by parking in the roadway....
>
> +1
>
> I'll bet this has been going on at this school for quite a long
> time--and just guessing I'd reckon OP has just had the first few weeks
> of the first year at the location and is hyperventilating over a
> pretty-much normal school traffic situation all over the country...
>
> --


-1

He no longer agrees with you after seeing the photos.

On 9/10/2012 7:20 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 19:20:45 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 9/10/2012 6:41 PM, dpb wrote:
>>> B) My second thought is looks like a wide-enough street to me to accept
>>> the "go-'round"...
>> Except for the little things, like the double, solid yellow line being a
>> clear "Do Not Pass" in any traffic engineer's handbook in every state
>> and state traffic statute.
> In Vermont a solid (or double) yellow line is only a suggestion that you might
> not want to pass; a "be careful" hint. Unless there is a white and black sign
> saying "Do Not Pass" (rare), it's perfectly legal to do so.
>
>> Granted, in a society that ignores unethical behavior at every
>> opportunity, breaking a law that is inconvenient, despite the fact that
>> it is a rational, logical, and clear extension of a need for public
>> safety, is no longer of much import ... from rolling stops, to political
>> machinations, a society of scofflaws eventually breaks down.
> I blame it on the national 55MPH speed limit.

Amazing, Rip Van Winkle still lives. To bring you up to speed during
your long sleep, ol' Rip, that law was repealed in 1995.

The National Maximum Speed Law (NMSL) in the United States was a
provision of the 1974 Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act that
prohibited speed limits higher than 55 miles per hour (89 km/h). . .
. The NMSL was modified in 1987 and 1988 to allow up to 65 mph (105
km/h) limits on certain limited access, rural roads. Congress repealed
the NMSL in 1995, fully returning speed limit setting authority to the
states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law

There are many areas in the western USA where the posted speed limit is
75MPH.

On 9/10/2012 7:43 PM, Dave wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 19:20:45 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Granted, in a society that ignores unethical behavior at every
>> opportunity, breaking a law that is inconvenient, despite the fact that
>> it is a rational, logical, and clear extension of a need for public
>> safety, is no longer of much import ... from rolling stops, to political
>> machinations, a society of scofflaws eventually breaks down.
> Let me ask you a question. And please, feel absolutely free to shoot
> me down for asking it.
>
> The US has arguably, given its citizens the most freedoms and
> liberties of any country in history.

If by freedoms and liberties you include constitutional rights, the US
has not given them to its citizens. In the USA, we accept that such
rights are not given by government, but that all people are inherently
endowed with those rights without any act of government.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted
among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these
ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to
institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and
organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to
effect their Safety and Happiness."

Driving an automobile is not a right, it is a privilege that is extended
to those who qualify by satisfying certain legal requirements. It is a
privilege that can be revoked if a driver violates those requirements.

On 9/10/2012 10:45 PM, ChairMan wrote:
> GarageWoodworks wrote:
>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=180&pid=1375#pid1375
> I think the school has some responsibility and should get involved in a
> better way to pick the kids up, so as not to block the street.
> They could widen the shoulder to accomodate a lane to wait in allowing
> thru traffic claer access
>
>
Schools generally lack the legal authority to do what you suggest. That
authority rests with the political entity that owns the roads.

On 9/11/2012 6:55 AM, Swingman wrote:
> On 9/11/2012 7:34 AM, dpb wrote:
>> On 9/11/2012 6:54 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> I guess my thoughts on it (having read everything else that's been
>>> posted),
>>> is that the greater alarm should be raised about those in the cars that
>>> create the unsafe situation by parking in the roadway....
>>
>> +1
>>
>> I'll bet this has been going on at this school for quite a long
>> time--and just guessing I'd reckon OP has just had the first few weeks
>> of the first year at the location and is hyperventilating over a
>> pretty-much normal school traffic situation all over the country...
>
> Some folks never seem to grasp that elementary old axiom that two
> wrongs don't make a right ...
>
But three lefts do.

On 9/11/2012 10:19 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Dave wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 07:42:32 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Rights are inalienable, not granted by the government, and not
>>> subject to being voted upon.
>> I understand that's how they're perceived. But, those rights didn't
>> just magically appear. They're words that someone wrote. They were
>> proposed by men and developed by men, your congress and Thomas
>> Jefferson. People in fact who were in a position of government. They
>> were in fact created by your government. I think it's fair to suggest
>> that if they hadn't been in government, those inalienable rights
>> probably wouldn't have come into being.
>>
>> You may not think they were granted, but that's as good a description
>> as any for how they came into existence. Please understand, I'm not
>> trying to attack your declaration of independence in any way shape or
>> form.
> It's all in how you look at it, I guess. One could argue your point, or one
> could take the position that these men simply recognized and accepted what
> they "knew" to be true. The latter would not be a granting. Not to stir
> this pot any more, but there is also the notion that it really says that
> there are "certain" unalienable rights - it really never says that all
> rights are unalienable, or what they are in exhaustive terms.
>
Ever wonder why the U.S. Constitution has a Bill of Rights, the first
ten amendments to the Constitution?. Those rights were not originally
written into the Constitution the drafters understood that those rights
here inherent and unalienable and were NOT grants by the government, and
that since the Constitution did not grant the government the power to
abridge those rights, it could not do so. The drafters were concerned
that if individual rights were spelled out in the Constitution, people
would make the very mistake that Dave is making here - people would
wrongly assume that the rights were created by government, and being so
created could also be denied by government. They were also concerned
that the enumeration of certain rights would lead people erroneously to
conclude that the only rights people had were those that were
enumerated. But some states were also concerned that if certain rights
were not spelled out in writing, future government officials would try
to abridge those rights based on a mistaken claim that the rights were
granted by government and could therefore be abridged by government. It
was those concerns that led states to insist, as a condition to their
ratifying the Constitution, that it be amended to specifically identify
certain rights, and also to insist on the Ninth Amendment, "The
enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" and Tenth
Amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people."

For a more complete explanation, take a look at
http://teacher.scholastic.com/scholasticnews/indepth/constitution_day/background/index.asp?article=billofrights
http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2009/07/01/why_a_bill_of_rights/page/full/
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/billofrightsintro.html
http://mises.org/daily/1117

On 9/11/2012 4:32 PM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
> On 9/11/2012 6:31 PM, ChairMan wrote:
>> Mike Marlow wrote:
>>> -MIKE- wrote:
>>>> On 9/11/12 10:39 AM, dpb wrote:
>>>>> On 9/11/2012 7:41 AM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> He no longer agrees with you after seeing the photos.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know who "he" is nor much care whether whoever that is
>>>>> agrees or not... :)
>>>>>
>>>>> --bye, have a nice day obsessing. :)
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Nice trolling.
>>>> If he's obsessing, then what are you doing by continuing to reply to
>>>> the off topic post?
>>>
>>> Hey - wait a minute here... I'm losing track of the "he's"...
>>
>> he's on first
>>
>>
> I'm on third.


I don't know about that.

On 9/11/2012 8:26 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 00:48:11 -0600, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 9/10/2012 7:20 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 19:20:45 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/10/2012 6:41 PM, dpb wrote:
>>>>> B) My second thought is looks like a wide-enough street to me to accept
>>>>> the "go-'round"...
>>>> Except for the little things, like the double, solid yellow line being a
>>>> clear "Do Not Pass" in any traffic engineer's handbook in every state
>>>> and state traffic statute.
>>> In Vermont a solid (or double) yellow line is only a suggestion that you might
>>> not want to pass; a "be careful" hint. Unless there is a white and black sign
>>> saying "Do Not Pass" (rare), it's perfectly legal to do so.
>>>
>>>> Granted, in a society that ignores unethical behavior at every
>>>> opportunity, breaking a law that is inconvenient, despite the fact that
>>>> it is a rational, logical, and clear extension of a need for public
>>>> safety, is no longer of much import ... from rolling stops, to political
>>>> machinations, a society of scofflaws eventually breaks down.
>>> I blame it on the national 55MPH speed limit.
>> Amazing, Rip Van Winkle still lives. To bring you up to speed during
>> your long sleep, ol' Rip, that law was repealed in 1995.
> Well, your mental abilities are now out for all to see and there isn't much to
> see.
>
>> The National Maximum Speed Law (NMSL) in the United States was a
>> provision of the 1974 Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act that
>> prohibited speed limits higher than 55 miles per hour (89 km/h). . .
>> . The NMSL was modified in 1987 and 1988 to allow up to 65 mph (105
>> km/h) limits on certain limited access, rural roads. Congress repealed
>> the NMSL in 1995, fully returning speed limit setting authority to the
>> states.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law
> Capt. Obvious stikes again.
>
>> There are many areas in the western USA where the posted speed limit is
>> 75MPH.
> There are many areas that are 80MPH and one that's 85MPH. So?
SO, there isn't a "national 55MPH speed limit as you falsely stated
when you said, "I blame it on the national 55 MPH speed limit." There
used to be one from about 1974 to 1987, but it was modified some 25
years ago and repealed about 17 years ago.
SO, you blamed drivers' behavior on a law that doesn't exist.

On 9/11/2012 5:16 PM, HeyBub wrote:
> Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 9/11/2012 10:19 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>> Dave wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 07:42:32 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> Rights are inalienable, not granted by the government, and not
>>>>> subject to being voted upon.
>>>> I understand that's how they're perceived. But, those rights didn't
>>>> just magically appear. They're words that someone wrote. They were
>>>> proposed by men and developed by men, your congress and Thomas
>>>> Jefferson. People in fact who were in a position of government. They
>>>> were in fact created by your government. I think it's fair to
>>>> suggest that if they hadn't been in government, those inalienable
>>>> rights probably wouldn't have come into being.
>>>>
>>>> You may not think they were granted, but that's as good a
>>>> description as any for how they came into existence. Please
>>>> understand, I'm not trying to attack your declaration of
>>>> independence in any way shape or form.
>>> It's all in how you look at it, I guess. One could argue your
>>> point, or one could take the position that these men simply
>>> recognized and accepted what they "knew" to be true. The latter
>>> would not be a granting. Not to stir this pot any more, but there
>>> is also the notion that it really says that there are "certain"
>>> unalienable rights - it really never says that all rights are
>>> unalienable, or what they are in exhaustive terms.
>> Ever wonder why the U.S. Constitution has a Bill of Rights, the first
>> ten amendments to the Constitution?. Those rights were not originally
>> written into the Constitution the drafters understood that those
>> rights here inherent and unalienable and were NOT grants by the
>> government, and that since the Constitution did not grant the
>> government the power to abridge those rights, it could not do so. The
>> drafters were concerned that if individual rights were spelled out in
>> the Constitution, people would make the very mistake that Dave is
>> making here - people would wrongly assume that the rights were
>> created by government, and being so created could also be denied by
>> government. They were also concerned that the enumeration of certain
>> rights would lead people erroneously to conclude that the only rights
>> people had were those that were enumerated. But some states were
>> also concerned that if certain rights were not spelled out in
>> writing, future government officials would try to abridge those
>> rights based on a mistaken claim that the rights were granted by
>> government and could therefore be abridged by government. It was
>> those concerns that led states to insist, as a condition to their
>> ratifying the Constitution, that it be amended to specifically
>> identify certain rights, and also to insist on the Ninth Amendment,
>> "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
>> construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" and
>> Tenth Amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by
>> the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to
>> the States respectively, or to the people."
> Still, it's not black and white. For every established "right" there is a
> corresponding, but often unsaid, "duty" on the part of someone else. But
> what happens when a right creates a duty on someone else and that duty is an
> abridgment of that other person's right?
>
> A recent example is the push to allow concealed handgun owners the ability
> to have their gun in an employee parking lot even though the employer
> maintains a "gun free" zone. Here, the 2nd Amendment right to be armed
> imposes a duty on the employer to allow guns in the parking lot. However,
> prohibiting guns, or anything else, on private property is also a "right."
>
> The two rights conflict.

You're changing the subject. I was responding to the comment that our
rights are granted by the government to say it ain't so, not what
happens when two people's rights conflict. Do you have a differing
perspective on what is the source of our rights?

> There is a mandatory one-semester course in law school entitled "Conflicts
> of Laws"
True.
> that tries to sort this out.
>
False. The Conflict of Laws class deals with questions of whether
federal law or state law should be used in a given situation, or which
of two states' laws should apply.

On 9/12/2012 3:56 PM, HeyBub wrote:
> Just Wondering wrote:
>>> Still, it's not black and white. For every established "right" there
>>> is a corresponding, but often unsaid, "duty" on the part of someone
>>> else. But what happens when a right creates a duty on someone else
>>> and that duty is an abridgment of that other person's right?
>>>
>>> A recent example is the push to allow concealed handgun owners the
>>> ability to have their gun in an employee parking lot even though the
>>> employer maintains a "gun free" zone. Here, the 2nd Amendment right
>>> to be armed imposes a duty on the employer to allow guns in the
>>> parking lot. However, prohibiting guns, or anything else, on private
>>> property is also a "right." The two rights conflict.
>> You're changing the subject. I was responding to the comment that our
>> rights are granted by the government to say it ain't so, not what
>> happens when two people's rights conflict. Do you have a differing
>> perspective on what is the source of our rights?
> No, I don't.
>
> But consider: If the almighty is the source of our "rights," then the
> atheist has an inarguable defense!
>
>>> There is a mandatory one-semester course in law school entitled
>>> "Conflicts of Laws"
>> True.
>>> that tries to sort this out.
>>>
>> False. The Conflict of Laws class deals with questions of whether
>> federal law or state law should be used in a given situation, or which
>> of two states' laws should apply.
> When I took the course in law school, conflicts between state and federal
> laws was certainly touched upon, as well as interstate laws. Today, I'm sure
> the course would even include international laws. Most of the course I took,
> however, involved the theories behind various constitutional rights or
> regulations and how they were applied.

Not here; we studied constitutional rights, including the resolution of
conflicting rights, in Constitutional Law.
> Another area of interest is WHICH law to apply to a given set of
> circumstances. Obviously, too, the more laws and regulations in existence,
> the greater the chance of conflict.
>
> One I remember involved the Alaska Pipeline. It seems as if one federal law
> mandated a double-lane road next to an above-ground pipeline (it could be a
> primitive road, gravel for instance) and the Interior Department regulations
> specified that they could grant an easement of only twelve feet through a
> National Park. That's not enough room for a pipeline and a two-way road.
>
> It took quite a while to sort that out.
>
It might if there were two conflicting statutes. But if the
administrative regulation was adopted pursuant to a statute that was not
in conflict with the other federal statute, the statute should trump the
regulation.

On 9/13/2012 7:01 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>
> It is like southern squirrels, you look look at them and wonder how
> your grandparent cooked one for a meal and served four people. You
> then realize they were cooking fox squirrels not gray squirrels and
> realize it is possible.


Squirrels are rodents. Thanks, but I'll pass.

Keith Nuttle wrote:

> It is like southern squirrels, you look look at them and wonder how
> your grandparent cooked one for a meal and served four people. You
> then realize they were cooking fox squirrels not gray squirrels and
> realize it is possible.
------------------------------------------------------

"Just Wondering" wrote:

> Squirrels are rodents. Thanks, but I'll pass.
----------------------------------------
Ignorance is bliss.

Lew

Dave wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 07:42:32 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Rights are inalienable, not granted by the government, and not
>> subject to being voted upon.
>
> I understand that's how they're perceived. But, those rights didn't
> just magically appear. They're words that someone wrote. They were
> proposed by men and developed by men, your congress and Thomas
> Jefferson. People in fact who were in a position of government. They
> were in fact created by your government. I think it's fair to suggest
> that if they hadn't been in government, those inalienable rights
> probably wouldn't have come into being.
>
> You may not think they were granted, but that's as good a description
> as any for how they came into existence. Please understand, I'm not
> trying to attack your declaration of independence in any way shape or
> form.

It's all in how you look at it, I guess. One could argue your point, or one
could take the position that these men simply recognized and accepted what
they "knew" to be true. The latter would not be a granting. Not to stir
this pot any more, but there is also the notion that it really says that
there are "certain" unalienable rights - it really never says that all
rights are unalienable, or what they are in exhaustive terms.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 19:20:45 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 9/10/2012 6:41 PM, dpb wrote:
>> B) My second thought is looks like a wide-enough street to me to accept
>> the "go-'round"...
>
>Except for the little things, like the double, solid yellow line being a
>clear "Do Not Pass" in any traffic engineer's handbook in every state
>and state traffic statute.

In Vermont a solid (or double) yellow line is only a suggestion that you might
not want to pass; a "be careful" hint. Unless there is a white and black sign
saying "Do Not Pass" (rare), it's perfectly legal to do so.

>Granted, in a society that ignores unethical behavior at every
>opportunity, breaking a law that is inconvenient, despite the fact that
>it is a rational, logical, and clear extension of a need for public
>safety, is no longer of much import ... from rolling stops, to political
>machinations, a society of scofflaws eventually breaks down.

I blame it on the national 55MPH speed limit.

"Dave" wrote in message news:[email protected]...

On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 19:02:22 -0700, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Seems to be there's a conflict between people understanding the rights
>they deserve and the rights they think they're eligible to take.
>==========================================================================
>It's the result of having so many laws that you can't live without being in
>violation of something. It has made people not care.

And I read it as the opposite. There's so many freedoms that people
feel at liberty to take more whenever they feel like it.

What's that saying "Unlimited power brings unlimited corruption and
stupidity".
====================================================================
You have proven you have shit for brains. Your opinion doesn't matter. You
have lost all credibility.

Swingman wrote:
> On 9/11/2012 10:37 AM, dpb wrote:
>> On 9/11/2012 7:55 AM, Swingman wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> Some folks never seem to grasp that elementary old axiom that two
>>> wrongs don't make a right ...
>>
>> "Right" and "practical" don't necessarily mix, either... :)
>>
>> _IF_ the whoevers would prevent the pileup in front of the school by
>> one means or another the "problem" would go away. As long as it is
>> allowed to queue in a trafficway then it is never going to happen
>> (and is unreasonable to expect) that thru traffic is going to wait
>> for upwards of minutes while the line progresses.
>>
>> Is that ideal? Of course not. Is it reality? Definitely and it's
>> every bit or even more so that the wrong is being caused by the
>> "stoppers" as opposed to the "goers".
>>
>> Expecting otherwise is equivalent to expecting somebody following
>> farmer John on his tractor for a couple of miles rather than going
>> around when can just because there's some yellow paint on the road. It's
>> more dangerous to cause the backup than going around when clear
>> at a reasonable speed.
>
> All nicely proving my point of that elementary old axiom that two
> wrongs don't make a right ... :)

Not at all. But then...

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 19:43:05 -0400, GarageWoodworks <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 9/10/2012 7:41 PM, dpb wrote:
>> On 9/10/2012 5:41 PM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
>>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=180&pid=1375#pid1375
>>>
>>>
>>
>> A) My first thought is why is it posted on r.w?
>>
>> B) My second thought is looks like a wide-enough street to me to accept
>> the "go-'round"...
>>
>> --
>>
>
>
>What is r.w.?

Just a guess; rec.woodworking?

GarageWoodworks wrote:

>>
>> I guess my thoughts on it (having read everything else that's been
>> posted), is that the greater alarm should be raised about those in
>> the cars that create the unsafe situation by parking in the roadway.
>> Something just seems wrong with parking in a traffic lane and then
>> getting alarmed because other traffic has to take measures to avoid
>> your presence.
>
>
> It's not "parking in a traffic lane", but rather traffic congestion.
> They don't have to "avoid my presence", but rather wait in traffic
> with everyone else. Getting alarmed when children are driven into
> traffic *should* be a normal public response.

I understand what you have been saying, but from what I can see in the
pictures on your site, the congested traffic does not seem to have made any
effort to get as far off, or over to the right on the shoulder, as possilbe
in order to keep the real traffic lane open. It's admitedly hard to tell
because I could not open up the thumbnails and was looking at rather small
pictures. I can't really tell what the shoulder looks like on that road,
but most roads of that size have sufficient should to get most of, if not
all of a car off the traffic lane.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On 9/11/2012 3:57 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>>
>> On 9/11/2012 7:55 AM, Swingman wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> Some folks never seem to grasp that elementary old axiom that two wrongs
>>> don't make a right ...
>>
>> "Right" and "practical" don't necessarily mix, either... :)
>>
>> _IF_ the whoevers would prevent the pileup in front of the school by one
>> means or another the "problem" would go away. As long as it is allowed
>> to queue in a trafficway then it is never going to happen (and is
>> unreasonable to expect) that thru traffic is going to wait for upwards
>> of minutes while the line progresses.
>>
>> Is that ideal? Of course not. Is it reality? Definitely and it's
>> every bit or even more so that the wrong is being caused by the
>> "stoppers" as opposed to the "goers".
>>
>> Expecting otherwise is equivalent to expecting somebody following farmer
>> John on his tractor for a couple of miles rather than going around when
>> can just because there's some yellow paint on the road. It's more
>> dangerous to cause the backup than going around when clear at a
>> reasonable speed.
>
> How long has this been going on and how many crashes have there been?
> If it's been going on for 30 years and there's never been even a fender-
> bender then government has more important things that it should be
> dealing with.
>
>

We only had one 9-11 and we have more important things to do so we
shouldn't worry about it or prepare for another. Right?

On 9/10/2012 8:43 PM, Dave wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 19:20:45 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Granted, in a society that ignores unethical behavior at every
>> opportunity, breaking a law that is inconvenient, despite the fact that
>> it is a rational, logical, and clear extension of a need for public
>> safety, is no longer of much import ... from rolling stops, to political
>> machinations, a society of scofflaws eventually breaks down.
>
> Let me ask you a question. And please, feel absolutely free to shoot
> me down for asking it.
>
> The US has arguably, given its citizens the most freedoms and
> liberties of any country in history. What you're commenting on above
> suggests to me there's so many freedoms and liberties given that many
> people take additional liberties whenever and wherever because they
> think they deserve them.
>
> Seems to be there's a conflict between people understanding the rights
> they deserve and the rights they think they're eligible to take.

Rights are inalienable, not granted by the government, and not subject
to being voted upon.


--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

-MIKE- wrote:
> On 9/11/12 10:39 AM, dpb wrote:
>> On 9/11/2012 7:41 AM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> He no longer agrees with you after seeing the photos.
>>
>> I don't know who "he" is nor much care whether whoever that is
>> agrees or not... :)
>>
>> --bye, have a nice day obsessing. :)
>>
>> --
>
> Nice trolling.
> If he's obsessing, then what are you doing by continuing to reply to
> the off topic post?

Hey - wait a minute here... I'm losing track of the "he's"...

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On 9/10/2012 8:20 PM, Swingman wrote:
> On 9/10/2012 6:41 PM, dpb wrote:
>> B) My second thought is looks like a wide-enough street to me to accept
>> the "go-'round"...
>
> Except for the little things, like the double, solid yellow line being a
> clear "Do Not Pass" in any traffic engineer's handbook in every state
> and state traffic statute.
>
> Granted, in a society that ignores unethical behavior at every
> opportunity, breaking a law that is inconvenient, despite the fact that
> it is a rational, logical, and clear extension of a need for public
> safety, is no longer of much import ... from rolling stops, to political
> machinations, a society of scofflaws eventually breaks down.
>

I wish I could write ad eloquently as you Swing! Well said.

Swingman wrote:
> On 9/11/2012 9:21 AM, Dave wrote:
>> I understand that's how they're perceived. But, those rights didn't
>> just magically appear.
>
> The "magic" words: "We hold these truths to be self-evident ..." :)
>
>> They're words that someone wrote. They were
>> proposed by men and developed by men, your congress and Thomas
>> Jefferson. People in fact who were in a position of government. They
>> were in fact created by your government. I think it's fair to suggest
>> that if they hadn't been in government, those inalienable rights
>> probably wouldn't have come into being.
>
> You are correct in your suggestion.
>
> The Declaration of Independence actually uses the term "unalienable":
>
> <quote>
>
> "Unalienable": incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and
> transferred."
> "You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are
> a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any
> circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have
> unalienable rights."
>
> </quote>
>
> There is a legal/philosophical difference:
>
> <quote>
>
> "Inalienable rights": Rights which are not capable of being
> surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such
> rights.
>
> "You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent
> either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent
> in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable
> rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights."
>

Ah, but there is an over-riding "right." You almost always have the right to
waive a right. Think of the Miranda warning.

I know of only one "right" that a defendant cannot waive. In Texas, a
suspect cannot waive a jury trial in a capital murder case, nor can he plead
guilty. That is, if indicted by a grand jury, the person MUST appear in a
trial where his guilt or innocence is determined by a jury.

On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 09:01:22 -0400, Keith Nuttle
<[email protected]> wrote:



>Have you ever sat in the back seat of a 52 Ford 4 Door? There is more
>room in the back seat than in both seats of a modern cars.

My first car was a '53 Mercury Monterey, so yes.




>i Because of the size you could do things in the back
>seat of the cars of the 50's that are impossible in today's cars.
>

I don't know, I also had a Corvair. I could tell you a story about
the front seat of a '59 Chevy though.


>Your new car still gets the same efficiency from it engine as the car of
>80 years ago.
>

Engine efficiency is limited, but there has been much progress in
other areas. I'll take any car today over anything from the '50s and
a few decades with way. Aside from style that is. I'd like a '55 or
'58 Chevy body on a 2013 chassis. Come to think of it, my new car is
Pacific Blue Pearl Metallic. The color is not all that far from the
blue of a '58 Impala that I liked. I've had quite a few nice comments
about the color.

Just Wondering wrote:
> On 9/10/2012 7:20 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 19:20:45 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/10/2012 6:41 PM, dpb wrote:
>>>> B) My second thought is looks like a wide-enough street to me to
>>>> accept the "go-'round"...
>>> Except for the little things, like the double, solid yellow line
>>> being a clear "Do Not Pass" in any traffic engineer's handbook in
>>> every state and state traffic statute.
>> In Vermont a solid (or double) yellow line is only a suggestion that
>> you might not want to pass; a "be careful" hint. Unless there is a
>> white and black sign saying "Do Not Pass" (rare), it's perfectly
>> legal to do so.
>>> Granted, in a society that ignores unethical behavior at every
>>> opportunity, breaking a law that is inconvenient, despite the fact
>>> that it is a rational, logical, and clear extension of a need for
>>> public safety, is no longer of much import ... from rolling stops,
>>> to political machinations, a society of scofflaws eventually breaks
>>> down.
>> I blame it on the national 55MPH speed limit.
>
> Amazing, Rip Van Winkle still lives. To bring you up to speed during
> your long sleep, ol' Rip, that law was repealed in 1995.
>
> The National Maximum Speed Law (NMSL) in the United States was a
> provision of the 1974 Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act that
> prohibited speed limits higher than 55 miles per hour (89 km/h). . .
> . The NMSL was modified in 1987 and 1988 to allow up to 65 mph (105
> km/h) limits on certain limited access, rural roads. Congress repealed
> the NMSL in 1995, fully returning speed limit setting authority to the
> states.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law
>
> There are many areas in the western USA where the posted speed limit
> is 75MPH.

Eighty-five in Texas.

On 9/11/2012 7:34 AM, dpb wrote:
> On 9/11/2012 6:54 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> ...
>
>> I guess my thoughts on it (having read everything else that's been
>> posted),
>> is that the greater alarm should be raised about those in the cars that
>> create the unsafe situation by parking in the roadway....
>
> +1
>
> I'll bet this has been going on at this school for quite a long
> time--and just guessing I'd reckon OP has just had the first few weeks
> of the first year at the location and is hyperventilating over a
> pretty-much normal school traffic situation all over the country...

Some folks never seem to grasp that elementary old axiom that two wrongs
don't make a right ...


--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On 9/10/2012 6:41 PM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=180&pid=1375#pid1375
>



Just sent YMCA CEO (Neil J. Nicoll) a link to my website. Let's see if
he responds.

On 9/11/2012 8:06 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> GarageWoodworks wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I guess my thoughts on it (having read everything else that's been
>>> posted), is that the greater alarm should be raised about those in
>>> the cars that create the unsafe situation by parking in the roadway.
>>> Something just seems wrong with parking in a traffic lane and then
>>> getting alarmed because other traffic has to take measures to avoid
>>> your presence.
>>
>>
>> It's not "parking in a traffic lane", but rather traffic congestion.
>> They don't have to "avoid my presence", but rather wait in traffic
>> with everyone else. Getting alarmed when children are driven into
>> traffic *should* be a normal public response.
>
> I understand what you have been saying, but from what I can see in the
> pictures on your site, the congested traffic does not seem to have made any
> effort to get as far off, or over to the right on the shoulder, as possilbe
> in order to keep the real traffic lane open. It's admitedly hard to tell
> because I could not open up the thumbnails and was looking at rather small
> pictures. I can't really tell what the shoulder looks like on that road,
> but most roads of that size have sufficient should to get most of, if not
> all of a car off the traffic lane.
>


Why can't you open the thumbnails? Are you getting an error message?
What browser?

On 9/13/2012 3:10 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
> On 9/13/2012 2:36 PM, Leon wrote:
>> On 9/13/2012 8:01 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>> On 9/13/2012 6:00 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 23:07:20 -0400, Keith Nuttle
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>
>>>> Where have we improved? Compared to your older examples, it is
>>>> faster, more comfortable, air conditioned, power everything, seats
>>>> five comfortably, required much less maintenance, and the tires last
>
>>>
>>
>> Lets see here my old 79 GMC 350cid/5.7l with 165 hp got 12 mpg on the
>> highway.
>> My bigger 4 door 2007 Tundra with 347cid/5.7l with 380 hp gets 20 mph on
>> the highway.
>>
>> You do not see an improvement there?
>>
> Look to the gear ratios and gross vehicle weights. Trucks by definition
> are designed to pull or carry heavy loads they are geared significantly
> different than the standard passenger car which is designed for speed.
>
> A truck design for load are have low gear ratios. ad passenger car has
> high gear ratios.
> This is the specs for my 2005 Astro Van
> the Rear end ratio is 3.42/1 The van has a 4 speed transmission with
> Third Gear Ratio (:1): 1.00
>
> This is my 2002 Cavalier
> the Rear end ratio is 3.94/1 The car has a 5 speed transmission with
> Fourth Gear Ratio (:1): 0.98
>
> If you want to compare vehicle to vehicle with out considering what it
> is; My JD tractor gets much better mileage that my 1986 Omni which go 37
> mpg


Your dribble is pointless and with out direction.

On 9/10/2012 7:41 PM, dpb wrote:
> On 9/10/2012 5:41 PM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=180&pid=1375#pid1375
>>
>>
>
> A) My first thought is why is it posted on r.w?
>
> B) My second thought is looks like a wide-enough street to me to accept
> the "go-'round"...
>
> --
>


It's a 0.2 mile "go around" with a blind hill. Unacceptable.

On 9/10/2012 7:41 PM, dpb wrote:
> On 9/10/2012 5:41 PM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=180&pid=1375#pid1375
>>
>>
>
> A) My first thought is why is it posted on r.w?
>
> B) My second thought is looks like a wide-enough street to me to accept
> the "go-'round"...
>
> --
>


What is r.w.?

On 9/11/2012 9:21 AM, Dave wrote:
> I understand that's how they're perceived. But, those rights didn't
> just magically appear.

The "magic" words: "We hold these truths to be self-evident ..." :)

> They're words that someone wrote. They were
> proposed by men and developed by men, your congress and Thomas
> Jefferson. People in fact who were in a position of government. They
> were in fact created by your government. I think it's fair to suggest
> that if they hadn't been in government, those inalienable rights
> probably wouldn't have come into being.

You are correct in your suggestion.

The Declaration of Independence actually uses the term "unalienable":

<quote>

"Unalienable": incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred."

"You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a
gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any
circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable
rights."

</quote>

There is a legal/philosophical difference:

<quote>

"Inalienable rights": Rights which are not capable of being surrendered
or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights.

"You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent
either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent
in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable
rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights."

</quote>

You can argue it all the way back to at least Aristotle and "natural
law" ...

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On 9/10/2012 5:41 PM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=180&pid=1375#pid1375
>


Film the buses/situation, send that video to the police department,
transportation department, mayor, and the media. All at the same time.

On 9/10/2012 11:08 PM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
> On 9/11/2012 12:05 AM, Leon wrote:
>> On 9/10/2012 5:41 PM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
>>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=180&pid=1375#pid1375
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Film the buses/situation, send that video to the police department,
>> transportation department, mayor, and the media. All at the same time.
>
>
> Thought about capturing it in video and posting it on YouTube. I like
> your idea better.


If you send the evidence to every one at the same time, and cc all of
this so every one knows that every one is watching and waiting for a
response.... expect a lot of finger pointing.

On 9/10/2012 8:20 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 19:20:45 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 9/10/2012 6:41 PM, dpb wrote:
>>> B) My second thought is looks like a wide-enough street to me to accept
>>> the "go-'round"...
>>
>> Except for the little things, like the double, solid yellow line being a
>> clear "Do Not Pass" in any traffic engineer's handbook in every state
>> and state traffic statute.
>
> In Vermont a solid (or double) yellow line is only a suggestion that you might
> not want to pass; a "be careful" hint. Unless there is a white and black sign
> saying "Do Not Pass" (rare), it's perfectly legal to do so.
>
>> Granted, in a society that ignores unethical behavior at every
>> opportunity, breaking a law that is inconvenient, despite the fact that
>> it is a rational, logical, and clear extension of a need for public
>> safety, is no longer of much import ... from rolling stops, to political
>> machinations, a society of scofflaws eventually breaks down.
>
> I blame it on the national 55MPH speed limit.
>


I blame it on "every one gets a trophy, political correctness, liberal
attitudes, I am special I have a good enough reason.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
> On 9/11/2012 7:55 AM, Swingman wrote:
> ...
>
> > Some folks never seem to grasp that elementary old axiom that two wrongs
> > don't make a right ...
>
> "Right" and "practical" don't necessarily mix, either... :)
>
> _IF_ the whoevers would prevent the pileup in front of the school by one
> means or another the "problem" would go away. As long as it is allowed
> to queue in a trafficway then it is never going to happen (and is
> unreasonable to expect) that thru traffic is going to wait for upwards
> of minutes while the line progresses.
>
> Is that ideal? Of course not. Is it reality? Definitely and it's
> every bit or even more so that the wrong is being caused by the
> "stoppers" as opposed to the "goers".
>
> Expecting otherwise is equivalent to expecting somebody following farmer
> John on his tractor for a couple of miles rather than going around when
> can just because there's some yellow paint on the road. It's more
> dangerous to cause the backup than going around when clear at a
> reasonable speed.

How long has this been going on and how many crashes have there been?
If it's been going on for 30 years and there's never been even a fender-
bender then government has more important things that it should be
dealing with.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
> Just Wondering wrote:
> > On 9/10/2012 10:45 PM, ChairMan wrote:
> >> GarageWoodworks wrote:
> >>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=180&pid=1375#pid1375
> >> I think the school has some responsibility and should get involved
> >> in a better way to pick the kids up, so as not to block the street.
> >> They could widen the shoulder to accomodate a lane to wait in
> >> allowing thru traffic claer access
> >>
> >>
> > Schools generally lack the legal authority to do what you suggest.
> > That authority rests with the political entity that owns the roads.
>
> True, but they carry some influence in who and what can be done. And
> would definitely be named in a lawsuit should anything ever happen
> They would be heard more so than Brian making a complaint to said
> entity

If there was real risk of lawsuit in CT, the state would just put up a
sign at each end "road legally closed".

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
> On 9/11/2012 3:57 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> >>
> >> On 9/11/2012 7:55 AM, Swingman wrote:
> >> ...
> >>
> >>> Some folks never seem to grasp that elementary old axiom that two wrongs
> >>> don't make a right ...
> >>
> >> "Right" and "practical" don't necessarily mix, either... :)
> >>
> >> _IF_ the whoevers would prevent the pileup in front of the school by one
> >> means or another the "problem" would go away. As long as it is allowed
> >> to queue in a trafficway then it is never going to happen (and is
> >> unreasonable to expect) that thru traffic is going to wait for upwards
> >> of minutes while the line progresses.
> >>
> >> Is that ideal? Of course not. Is it reality? Definitely and it's
> >> every bit or even more so that the wrong is being caused by the
> >> "stoppers" as opposed to the "goers".
> >>
> >> Expecting otherwise is equivalent to expecting somebody following farmer
> >> John on his tractor for a couple of miles rather than going around when
> >> can just because there's some yellow paint on the road. It's more
> >> dangerous to cause the backup than going around when clear at a
> >> reasonable speed.
> >
> > How long has this been going on and how many crashes have there been?
> > If it's been going on for 30 years and there's never been even a fender-
> > bender then government has more important things that it should be
> > dealing with.
> >
> >
>
> We only had one 9-11 and we have more important things to do so we
> shouldn't worry about it or prepare for another. Right?

How does that follow from what I said? There _has_ been a 9/11. Has
there been a crash on this road?

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 23:07:20 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>
> <snip a lot of valuable info>
> >
> > How many more Billions of dollars will be spent to learn that we can not
> > improve the automotive technology without going to small nuclear reactors.
> >
>
> Now your talking, nuclear powered car, fusion I hope, comes with all the
> fuel it will ever need and a cruising speed of 400 Mph. Bring it on!
>
> Hey, can we get with auxillary 3 phase out put to power our tools?

May not be as far-fetched as you think. One of the long-shots in fusion
research is a tabletop device that the Naval Research Lab is working on.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
> On 9/13/2012 7:27 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] says...
> >>
> >> On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 23:07:20 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip a lot of valuable info>
> >>>
> >>> How many more Billions of dollars will be spent to learn that we can not
> >>> improve the automotive technology without going to small nuclear reactors.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Now your talking, nuclear powered car, fusion I hope, comes with all the
> >> fuel it will ever need and a cruising speed of 400 Mph. Bring it on!
> >>
> >> Hey, can we get with auxillary 3 phase out put to power our tools?
> >
> > May not be as far-fetched as you think. One of the long-shots in fusion
> > research is a tabletop device that the Naval Research Lab is working on.
> >
> >
> >
> A small nuclear unit was sent into space many years ago to supply power
> to a satellite.

The Russians have about 30 in orbit. That's reactors--cores,
reflectors, neutron chain reaction, the whole nine yards. Apollo put a
number of nuclear thermionic power cells on the Moon--those use isotope
decay rather than a neutron chain reaction. Curiosity, recently landed
on Mars, uses a similar power source. So do Pioneer 10 and 11.

All relatively low power though--SNAP-10 provided about 500 watts of
electric power for example. The reactors make lot of heat--about 40
horsepower worth in the case of SNAP-10, but conversion is another
story.

Incidentally, at one point the Soviets brought a model of the TOPAZ
reactor that they were then using to a conference in the US. The
Strategic Defense Initiative Office saw this and decided to see if they
could buy a couple of those reactors to study. The Soviets,
surprisingly, were willing to sell them. The subsequent actions of the
various agencies of the US government read like the plot for a Marx
Brothers movie.

Larry Jaques wrote:
>>
>> We only had one 9-11 and we have more important things to do so we
>> shouldn't worry about it or prepare for another. Right?
>
> Pretty much right. We went way overboard on our reactions to that
> incident. I would have happily flown the next day/week but other
> folks were scared to death to do so.
>
>
> CAUTION: Evil Stereotyping Ahead!
>
> Do you think a bunch of sloppy, GED-toting fools in an airport make it
> safer to fly when they catch Mom with her dangerous 1" sharp-pointed
> sewing scissors while others walk through with 8" sharpened pencils,
> sharpened credit cards, and Grandma comes through the safety check
> with her 12" knitting needles? Yeahright...

Admittedly before 9-11, but I had an impatient look on my face as one of the
security agents inspected my computer at Love Field in Dallas. A Dallas
cop-ette stepped over and volunteered "You know we're doing this for your
protection, don't you?"

"I don't believe that any more than I could flap my arms and fly," I
replied.

"Then why do you think we go to all this trouble?" the cop-ette rejoined.

"To give these cretins a job."

"I'll have you know we intercept guns in purses two or three times a week
from wives heading toward the gates to meet their husbands!"

"I didn't know that. You should be congratulated for preventing terrorism by
throwing housewives to the floor and putting them in jail. Outstanding! You
must be very proud."

She turned and struck out for her podium and returned to watching the
throngs.

On 9/11/2012 12:05 AM, Leon wrote:
> On 9/10/2012 5:41 PM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=180&pid=1375#pid1375
>>
>>
>
>
> Film the buses/situation, send that video to the police department,
> transportation department, mayor, and the media. All at the same time.


Thought about capturing it in video and posting it on YouTube. I like
your idea better.

On 9/11/2012 7:54 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> GarageWoodworks wrote:
>> On 9/10/2012 7:41 PM, dpb wrote:
>>> On 9/10/2012 5:41 PM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
>>>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=180&pid=1375#pid1375
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> A) My first thought is why is it posted on r.w?
>>>
>>> B) My second thought is looks like a wide-enough street to me to
>>> accept the "go-'round"...
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>
>>
>> It's a 0.2 mile "go around" with a blind hill. Unacceptable.
>
> I guess my thoughts on it (having read everything else that's been posted),
> is that the greater alarm should be raised about those in the cars that
> create the unsafe situation by parking in the roadway. Something just seems
> wrong with parking in a traffic lane and then getting alarmed because other
> traffic has to take measures to avoid your presence.
>


It's not "parking in a traffic lane", but rather traffic congestion.
They don't have to "avoid my presence", but rather wait in traffic with
everyone else. Getting alarmed when children are driven into traffic
*should* be a normal public response.

On 9/10/2012 8:03 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 19:43:05 -0400, GarageWoodworks <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 9/10/2012 7:41 PM, dpb wrote:
>>> On 9/10/2012 5:41 PM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
>>>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=180&pid=1375#pid1375
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> A) My first thought is why is it posted on r.w?
>>>
>>> B) My second thought is looks like a wide-enough street to me to accept
>>> the "go-'round"...
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>
>>
>> What is r.w.?
>
> Just a guess; rec.woodworking?
>

Yes. It hit me after I hit 'Send'. <duh>

I did preface the thread with OT (still stands for off topic right?)

Just Wondering wrote:
> On 9/11/2012 10:19 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Dave wrote:
>>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 07:42:32 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Rights are inalienable, not granted by the government, and not
>>>> subject to being voted upon.
>>> I understand that's how they're perceived. But, those rights didn't
>>> just magically appear. They're words that someone wrote. They were
>>> proposed by men and developed by men, your congress and Thomas
>>> Jefferson. People in fact who were in a position of government. They
>>> were in fact created by your government. I think it's fair to
>>> suggest that if they hadn't been in government, those inalienable
>>> rights probably wouldn't have come into being.
>>>
>>> You may not think they were granted, but that's as good a
>>> description as any for how they came into existence. Please
>>> understand, I'm not trying to attack your declaration of
>>> independence in any way shape or form.
>> It's all in how you look at it, I guess. One could argue your
>> point, or one could take the position that these men simply
>> recognized and accepted what they "knew" to be true. The latter
>> would not be a granting. Not to stir this pot any more, but there
>> is also the notion that it really says that there are "certain"
>> unalienable rights - it really never says that all rights are
>> unalienable, or what they are in exhaustive terms.
> Ever wonder why the U.S. Constitution has a Bill of Rights, the first
> ten amendments to the Constitution?. Those rights were not originally
> written into the Constitution the drafters understood that those
> rights here inherent and unalienable and were NOT grants by the
> government, and that since the Constitution did not grant the
> government the power to abridge those rights, it could not do so. The
> drafters were concerned that if individual rights were spelled out in
> the Constitution, people would make the very mistake that Dave is
> making here - people would wrongly assume that the rights were
> created by government, and being so created could also be denied by
> government. They were also concerned that the enumeration of certain
> rights would lead people erroneously to conclude that the only rights
> people had were those that were enumerated. But some states were
> also concerned that if certain rights were not spelled out in
> writing, future government officials would try to abridge those
> rights based on a mistaken claim that the rights were granted by
> government and could therefore be abridged by government. It was
> those concerns that led states to insist, as a condition to their
> ratifying the Constitution, that it be amended to specifically
> identify certain rights, and also to insist on the Ninth Amendment,
> "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
> construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" and
> Tenth Amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by
> the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to
> the States respectively, or to the people."

Still, it's not black and white. For every established "right" there is a
corresponding, but often unsaid, "duty" on the part of someone else. But
what happens when a right creates a duty on someone else and that duty is an
abridgment of that other person's right?

A recent example is the push to allow concealed handgun owners the ability
to have their gun in an employee parking lot even though the employer
maintains a "gun free" zone. Here, the 2nd Amendment right to be armed
imposes a duty on the employer to allow guns in the parking lot. However,
prohibiting guns, or anything else, on private property is also a "right."

The two rights conflict.

There is a mandatory one-semester course in law school entitled "Conflicts
of Laws" that tries to sort this out.

It ain't easy.

On 9/11/2012 1:48 AM, Just Wondering wrote

Snip
>
> The National Maximum Speed Law (NMSL) in the United States was a
> provision of the 1974 Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act that
> prohibited speed limits higher than 55 miles per hour (89 km/h). . .
> . The NMSL was modified in 1987 and 1988 to allow up to 65 mph (105
> km/h) limits on certain limited access, rural roads. Congress repealed
> the NMSL in 1995, fully returning speed limit setting authority to the
> states.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law
>
> There are many areas in the western USA where the posted speed limit is
> 75MPH.
>
>


State Highway 130 in Texas, a new toll road, has a posted speed limit of
85mph.

On 9/11/2012 7:19 AM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
> On 9/11/2012 8:15 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> GarageWoodworks wrote:
>>> On 9/11/2012 8:06 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>>> GarageWoodworks wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess my thoughts on it (having read everything else that's been
>>>>>> posted), is that the greater alarm should be raised about those in
>>>>>> the cars that create the unsafe situation by parking in the
>>>>>> roadway. Something just seems wrong with parking in a traffic lane
>>>>>> and then getting alarmed because other traffic has to take
>>>>>> measures to avoid your presence.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not "parking in a traffic lane", but rather traffic congestion.
>>>>> They don't have to "avoid my presence", but rather wait in traffic
>>>>> with everyone else. Getting alarmed when children are driven into
>>>>> traffic *should* be a normal public response.
>>>>
>>>> I understand what you have been saying, but from what I can see in
>>>> the pictures on your site, the congested traffic does not seem to
>>>> have made any effort to get as far off, or over to the right on the
>>>> shoulder, as possilbe in order to keep the real traffic lane open. It's
>>>> admitedly hard to tell because I could not open up the
>>>> thumbnails and was looking at rather small pictures. I can't really
>>>> tell what the shoulder looks like on that road, but most roads of
>>>> that size have sufficient should to get most of, if not all of a car
>>>> off the traffic lane.
>>>
>>>
>>> Why can't you open the thumbnails? Are you getting an error message?
>>> What browser?
>>
>> Oh no - not that kind of problem. When I clicked on them it took me to a
>> new tab (Firefox), advising me that I had to log in to see the
>> pictures. I
>> didn't want to create an account to log in, so I satisfied myself with
>> what
>> I could see from the thumbnails.
>>
>
>
> Sorry! I didn't know it was doing that. I corrected the problem and
> you should be able to see the images now. Thanks!

I had the log in problem too but was able to comprehend the problem as
stated by not having to see pictures.

On 9/11/2012 10:37 AM, dpb wrote:
> On 9/11/2012 7:55 AM, Swingman wrote:
> ...
>
>> Some folks never seem to grasp that elementary old axiom that two wrongs
>> don't make a right ...
>
> "Right" and "practical" don't necessarily mix, either... :)
>
> _IF_ the whoevers would prevent the pileup in front of the school by one
> means or another the "problem" would go away. As long as it is allowed
> to queue in a trafficway then it is never going to happen (and is
> unreasonable to expect) that thru traffic is going to wait for upwards
> of minutes while the line progresses.
>
> Is that ideal? Of course not. Is it reality? Definitely and it's
> every bit or even more so that the wrong is being caused by the
> "stoppers" as opposed to the "goers".
>
> Expecting otherwise is equivalent to expecting somebody following farmer
> John on his tractor for a couple of miles rather than going around when
> can just because there's some yellow paint on the road. It's more
> dangerous to cause the backup than going around when clear at a
> reasonable speed.

All nicely proving my point of that elementary old axiom that two wrongs
don't make a right ... :)

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

Mike Marlow wrote:
> -MIKE- wrote:
>> On 9/11/12 10:39 AM, dpb wrote:
>>> On 9/11/2012 7:41 AM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> He no longer agrees with you after seeing the photos.
>>>
>>> I don't know who "he" is nor much care whether whoever that is
>>> agrees or not... :)
>>>
>>> --bye, have a nice day obsessing. :)
>>>
>>> --
>>
>> Nice trolling.
>> If he's obsessing, then what are you doing by continuing to reply to
>> the off topic post?
>
> Hey - wait a minute here... I'm losing track of the "he's"...

he's on first

GarageWoodworks <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=180&pid=1375#pid1375

Send that to your local newspaper and TV station(s). There's probably someone on the staff
in one of those places who would love to publicize the refusal of the YMCA and the police
department to do anything about it.

A note to the state legislator(s) for your district, and your city councilman or alderman or
whatever you have there, might also produce some results.

dpb <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

> On 9/10/2012 6:42 PM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
> ...
>
>> It's a 0.2 mile "go around" with a blind hill. Unacceptable.
>
> So, go some other way 'round...it's _still_ not w-working :)

And it's _still_ clearly marked as OT.

"ChairMan" <[email protected]> wrote in news:kuQ3s.40752$0n7.12520
@fed04.iad:

> "Just Wondering" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On 9/11/2012 4:32 PM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
>>> On 9/11/2012 6:31 PM, ChairMan wrote:
>>>> Mike Marlow wrote:
>>>>> Hey - wait a minute here... I'm losing track of the "he's"...
>>>>
>>>> he's on first
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I'm on third.
>>
>>
>> I don't know about that.
>
> thats on second
>
No, what's on second.

Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in news:5050e785$0$22322$882e7ee2
@usenet-news.net:

> On 9/11/2012 8:26 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 00:48:11 -0600, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
>> There are many areas that are 80MPH and one that's 85MPH. So?
> SO, there isn't a "national 55MPH speed limit as you falsely stated
> when you said, "I blame it on the national 55 MPH speed limit." There
> used to be one from about 1974 to 1987, but it was modified some 25
> years ago and repealed about 17 years ago.
> SO, you blamed drivers' behavior on a law that doesn't exist.

Correction: on a law that *no longer* exists -- and rightly so, IMHO. The adoption of that law
-- largely unenforced and largely unenforceable -- encouraged drivers to ignore not only
that, but many other traffic laws as well.

Prior to its adoption, it was unusual to see drivers going more than 5-10% over the posted
speed limit -- on interstates with a posted 70mph limit, for instance, most traffic was moving
between 70 and 75, and speeds over 80 were rare. After the 55mph limit was adopted, IME
traffic didn't slow down much in most states (Ohio, New York, and Utah being notable
exceptions), and the norm became upper 60s to low 70s, that is, about 20-25% over the limit.

The 55mph limit has become "ancient history", but the habit it encouraged of driving 20+%
over the limit persists to this day. It is no longer unusual to see drivers going 85 on interstate
highways with a posted limit of 70 -- or 45-50 on city streets with a posted limit of 35.

It was also unusual, prior to the mid-1970s, to see the widespread disregard of stop signs,
red lights, no-passing zones, school bus "STOP" arms, and reduced-speed zones around
schools that I now observe nearly every day.

Unenforced and unenforceable laws encourage disrespect for all laws.

The national 55mph limit was a mistake for many reasons -- but that was the main one.

GarageWoodworks wrote:
> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=180&pid=1375#pid1375

I think the school has some responsibility and should get involved in a
better way to pick the kids up, so as not to block the street.
They could widen the shoulder to accomodate a lane to wait in allowing
thru traffic claer access
jmo

GarageWoodworks wrote:
> On 9/11/2012 8:06 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> GarageWoodworks wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> I guess my thoughts on it (having read everything else that's been
>>>> posted), is that the greater alarm should be raised about those in
>>>> the cars that create the unsafe situation by parking in the
>>>> roadway. Something just seems wrong with parking in a traffic lane
>>>> and then getting alarmed because other traffic has to take
>>>> measures to avoid your presence.
>>>
>>>
>>> It's not "parking in a traffic lane", but rather traffic congestion.
>>> They don't have to "avoid my presence", but rather wait in traffic
>>> with everyone else. Getting alarmed when children are driven into
>>> traffic *should* be a normal public response.
>>
>> I understand what you have been saying, but from what I can see in
>> the pictures on your site, the congested traffic does not seem to
>> have made any effort to get as far off, or over to the right on the
>> shoulder, as possilbe in order to keep the real traffic lane open. It's
>> admitedly hard to tell because I could not open up the
>> thumbnails and was looking at rather small pictures. I can't really
>> tell what the shoulder looks like on that road, but most roads of
>> that size have sufficient should to get most of, if not all of a car
>> off the traffic lane.
>
>
> Why can't you open the thumbnails? Are you getting an error message?
> What browser?

Oh no - not that kind of problem. When I clicked on them it took me to a
new tab (Firefox), advising me that I had to log in to see the pictures. I
didn't want to create an account to log in, so I satisfied myself with what
I could see from the thumbnails.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 23:13:14 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 9/12/12 10:16 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>> In contrast Kentucky with one speed limit is easy driving as there is
>> minimal back up caused by the slower vehicles.
>
>Except that every time I drive through it, you still have @$$holes
>driving slow in the passing lane... and they even has signs that read,
>"stay right!"

That's not unique to KY.

ChairMan wrote:
> Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 9/10/2012 10:45 PM, ChairMan wrote:
>>> GarageWoodworks wrote:
>>>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=180&pid=1375#pid1375
>>> I think the school has some responsibility and should get involved
>>> in a better way to pick the kids up, so as not to block the street.
>>> They could widen the shoulder to accomodate a lane to wait in
>>> allowing thru traffic claer access
>>>
>>>
>> Schools generally lack the legal authority to do what you suggest.
>> That authority rests with the political entity that owns the roads.
>
> True, but they carry some influence in who and what can be done. And
> would definitely be named in a lawsuit should anything ever happen
> They would be heard more so than Brian making a complaint to said
> entity

True. And to take that to a further extent, if they are the ones that are
creating the problem, they might (under some definitions) have some level of
responsibility for correcting that problem. Perhaps that might be building
a holding lot for traffic picking up their kids (off the roadway), or some
other alternative. But - I suspect that is the domain of the local
jurisdiction. Around here, schools are required to address situations like
this - may not be the same everywhere.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Sep 10, 3:41=A0pm, GarageWoodworks <[email protected]> wrote:
> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=3D180&pid=3D1375#=
...

My brother runs a school bus company and is president of his local
state owners
association. I suspect if I ran this across him, he'd fire the driver
and
then speak the police to try and figure out a solution that is safe
for the kids.

The owner is subjecting himself to a LOT of liability. If you have a
kid
on that bus, I'd raise holy hell with the owner, even if it is the
YMCA.
I suspect they contract it out.

MJ

On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 22:54:49 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 01:36:33 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>>The 55mph limit has become "ancient history", but the habit it encouraged of driving 20+%
>>over the limit persists to this day. It is no longer unusual to see drivers going 85 on interstate
>>highways with a posted limit of 70 -- or 45-50 on city streets with a posted limit of 35.
>>
>
>
>Proper speed limits would also help. I live in CT and work in MA. One
>road I drive every day has a 45 mph limit. If that road was in VA, it
>probably would be 50 mph, a fair speed to drive on it. VA seems to be
>more advanced in their thinking.
>
>Many speed limits were deemed to be safe back in the 1930's when car
>had poor lighting, poor brakes, poor tires, bumpy road surfaces, etc.
>It may have made sense back then, but not now.
>
>The lower the speed limit, the higher percentage drivers seem to
>travel over the posted limit.

When the national speed limit was droopped to 55, drivers lost every
single bit of their edge in driving. Everything went soft and was
lost. Defensive and aggressive driving went out the window and
everyone turned into a little old lady. Even in parking lots.

I got backed into once again in the parking lot yesterday. I looked
both ways and was swiveling twice a second when the lady right next to
me on my right backed right into me. Luckily, most of the rubber from
her once-white bumper ended up on my tire and rim. But a 4" crease
was made in the lower right bedside behind the tire. I looked at it
and said "Awfuggit." then let her go. I can probably lose most of it
with a torch and can of compressed air.

This was the second time this year some idiot backed into me without
looking, both at less than 10mph. Barkin' maroons.

--
Creativity can solve almost any problem. The creative act,
the defeat of habit by originality, overcomes everything.
-- George Lois

On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 23:16:20 -0400, Keith Nuttle <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On 9/12/2012 10:54 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 01:36:33 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> The 55mph limit has become "ancient history", but the habit it encouraged of driving 20+%
>>> over the limit persists to this day. It is no longer unusual to see drivers going 85 on interstate
>>> highways with a posted limit of 70 -- or 45-50 on city streets with a posted limit of 35.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Proper speed limits would also help. I live in CT and work in MA. One
>> road I drive every day has a 45 mph limit. If that road was in VA, it
>> probably would be 50 mph, a fair speed to drive on it. VA seems to be
>> more advanced in their thinking.
>>
>> Many speed limits were deemed to be safe back in the 1930's when car
>> had poor lighting, poor brakes, poor tires, bumpy road surfaces, etc.
>> It may have made sense back then, but not now.
>>
>> The lower the speed limit, the higher percentage drivers seem to
>> travel over the posted limit.
>>
>>
>>
>Virginia is a poor state to hold up as progressive in the traffic laws
>and speed limits. One of the best states for speed limits is Kentucky.
> They have a 70 mph limit on their interstates, and one speed limits
>for all types of vehicles.
>
>Indiana has one of the worst. While they have 70mph on their
>interstates, trucks have a slower limit that cars. So it is a constant
>jockeying as you back up behind the slow trucks, maneuver to pass them
>and the repositioning of the cars in front of the truck.
>
>In contrast Kentucky with one speed limit is easy driving as there is
>minimal back up caused by the slower vehicles.

Most of the South is 70MPH for both trucks and cars (and they give an easy
80MPH). I did see a few spots in Kentucky and one in Tennesee, over the
weekend, that were 65MPH, though. Surprising since these were outside of
congested spots where a slow-down might be expected.

As mentioned elsewhere here, Texas is 80MPH, with the new toll road speed
limit set at 85MPH, AIUI. Makes sense.

On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 07:42:32 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>Rights are inalienable, not granted by the government, and not subject
>to being voted upon.

I understand that's how they're perceived. But, those rights didn't
just magically appear. They're words that someone wrote. They were
proposed by men and developed by men, your congress and Thomas
Jefferson. People in fact who were in a position of government. They
were in fact created by your government. I think it's fair to suggest
that if they hadn't been in government, those inalienable rights
probably wouldn't have come into being.

You may not think they were granted, but that's as good a description
as any for how they came into existence. Please understand, I'm not
trying to attack your declaration of independence in any way shape or
form.

On 9/11/2012 7:42 AM, Swingman wrote:

> Rights are inalienable, not granted by the government, and not subject
> to being voted upon.

Obviously, while I learned to spell _before_ I took that PS course, too
many years have intervened ... placing an "i", when it should have been
a "u", is a non-starter.

I stand corrected ...


--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 15:27:21 -0600, Just Wondering
>would make the very mistake that Dave is making here - people would
>wrongly assume that the rights were created by government, and being so
>created could also be denied by government.

Well, in my own defense, I'm Canadian so I don't look at or view your
rights in exactly the same way that you do. :) But, because our two
societies are so very similar in many areas, I understand and fully
support the nature of your rights.

I tend to be very literal when discussing things, nevertheless, I
believe I do realize the intangible nature of what your rights
symbolize.

On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 23:45:40 -0500, "ChairMan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>I think the school has some responsibility and should get involved in a
>better way to pick the kids up, so as not to block the street.
>They could widen the shoulder to accomodate a lane to wait in allowing
>thru traffic claer access

I'm betting that nothing will happen until someone is killed or
seriously injured and it results in a multimillion dollar lawsuit.
That seems to be the only thing gets most people off their butts these
days.

On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 16:48:15 -0400, GarageWoodworks <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 9/11/2012 3:57 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>>>
>>> On 9/11/2012 7:55 AM, Swingman wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> Some folks never seem to grasp that elementary old axiom that two wrongs
>>>> don't make a right ...
>>>
>>> "Right" and "practical" don't necessarily mix, either... :)
>>>
>>> _IF_ the whoevers would prevent the pileup in front of the school by one
>>> means or another the "problem" would go away. As long as it is allowed
>>> to queue in a trafficway then it is never going to happen (and is
>>> unreasonable to expect) that thru traffic is going to wait for upwards
>>> of minutes while the line progresses.
>>>
>>> Is that ideal? Of course not. Is it reality? Definitely and it's
>>> every bit or even more so that the wrong is being caused by the
>>> "stoppers" as opposed to the "goers".
>>>
>>> Expecting otherwise is equivalent to expecting somebody following farmer
>>> John on his tractor for a couple of miles rather than going around when
>>> can just because there's some yellow paint on the road. It's more
>>> dangerous to cause the backup than going around when clear at a
>>> reasonable speed.
>>
>> How long has this been going on and how many crashes have there been?
>> If it's been going on for 30 years and there's never been even a fender-
>> bender then government has more important things that it should be
>> dealing with.
>>
>>
>
>We only had one 9-11 and we have more important things to do so we
>shouldn't worry about it or prepare for another. Right?

Pretty much right. We went way overboard on our reactions to that
incident. I would have happily flown the next day/week but other
folks were scared to death to do so.


CAUTION: Evil Stereotyping Ahead!

Do you think a bunch of sloppy, GED-toting fools in an airport make it
safer to fly when they catch Mom with her dangerous 1" sharp-pointed
sewing scissors while others walk through with 8" sharpened pencils,
sharpened credit cards, and Grandma comes through the safety check
with her 12" knitting needles? Yeahright...

--
Courage and perseverance have a magical talisman, before
which difficulties disappear and obstacles vanish into air.
-- John Quincy Adams

On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 00:48:11 -0600, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 9/10/2012 7:20 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 19:20:45 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/10/2012 6:41 PM, dpb wrote:
>>>> B) My second thought is looks like a wide-enough street to me to accept
>>>> the "go-'round"...
>>> Except for the little things, like the double, solid yellow line being a
>>> clear "Do Not Pass" in any traffic engineer's handbook in every state
>>> and state traffic statute.
>> In Vermont a solid (or double) yellow line is only a suggestion that you might
>> not want to pass; a "be careful" hint. Unless there is a white and black sign
>> saying "Do Not Pass" (rare), it's perfectly legal to do so.
>>
>>> Granted, in a society that ignores unethical behavior at every
>>> opportunity, breaking a law that is inconvenient, despite the fact that
>>> it is a rational, logical, and clear extension of a need for public
>>> safety, is no longer of much import ... from rolling stops, to political
>>> machinations, a society of scofflaws eventually breaks down.
>> I blame it on the national 55MPH speed limit.
>
>Amazing, Rip Van Winkle still lives. To bring you up to speed during
>your long sleep, ol' Rip, that law was repealed in 1995.

Well, your mental abilities are now out for all to see and there isn't much to
see.

>The National Maximum Speed Law (NMSL) in the United States was a
>provision of the 1974 Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act that
>prohibited speed limits higher than 55 miles per hour (89 km/h). . .
>. The NMSL was modified in 1987 and 1988 to allow up to 65 mph (105
>km/h) limits on certain limited access, rural roads. Congress repealed
>the NMSL in 1995, fully returning speed limit setting authority to the
>states.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law

Capt. Obvious stikes again.

>There are many areas in the western USA where the posted speed limit is
>75MPH.

There are many areas that are 80MPH and one that's 85MPH. So?

On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 12:34:15 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:

>All nicely proving my point of that elementary old axiom that two wrongs
>don't make a right ... :)


But three lefts do! ;)

On 9/12/2012 10:07 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:

> The 55mph was another wishful thinking law, like the current increases
> mpg that they are pushing now
>
> The the Ford Model T's got about 18-20 mpg They had low ratio in the
> rear ends and three speed transmissions with 1:1 high gear (1 revolution
> of motor to 1 revolution of the rear wheels)
>
> My 1952 Ford Flat-head-V8 with 3 speed standard transmission and 1:1
> ratio in he high gear, got about 18-20 mpg. There were some automatics
> of this period that got lower gas mileage and some had 2 speed
> transmission. Also the 1952 Ford 4-door had the capacity of my Astro
> van and probably was heavier.
>
> Current cars get about 35 miles, have four to five speed transmission,
> higher rear ends and the top gear in the transmission is some where
> between gear ratio of 1.3 to 1.4 ratio. They have become so small that
> some normal sized people can not get into them, and the have been
> stripped down to the minimal weight and still able to maintain their
> shape. The rear ends have higher ratios so the engine need 4 gears
> instead of three to get to the 1:1 ratio. The 18 -20 mpg times the
> highest gear ratio in current cars of 1.35 plus the high rear ends
> equals the 35 mpg that current cars get.
>
> Where have we improved?
>
> To met the new standards, the transmission automakers are modifying
> their transmission plants to produce 6 to 8 gear transmissions.
> So with the new standards will we have 5 gears to get 1:1 ratio and
> several more gears so the final ratio is near 2.0 to get the 54 mpg?

Let me throw some actual facts into the mix here. My wife and I just
purchased a 2012 Camry SE V6. In town we are averaging 26 mpg in the
first thousand miles, on the highway better than 35 mpg, those numbers
will improve as the engine and trans break in. Our car has 268 hp and
shifts into 6th great at around 35-40 mph. This from a 3400 lb vehicle,
only 1600 lbs lighter weight than our Tundra.

The transmissions do not only have more speeds to increase gas mileage,
they have more speeds to give a smoother ride. Shift points are almost
undetectable other than looking at the tach.

>
> Gasoline has a limited amount of energy per given weight of gasoline. In
> 100 years we have not improved the basic engine efficiency.

I have heard that line before, from some one that reads a lot about cars
but does not really understand the dynamics that are involved. I can
assure that fuel injection, computer controlled ignition timing and
variable valve timing does a world of good for gas mileage.

By simply raising the octane of the fuel and advancing the ignition
timing you will increase gas mileage and performance. Same fuel, higher
octane. Higher octane fuels enable engines to run more efficiently.




We have
> spent Billions of dollars and found the best technology was fossil fuel
> electric engine developed for trains and submarines over 120 years ago.
>

I believe you are clueless.

"GarageWoodworks" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

http://www.garagewoodworks.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=180&pid=1375#pid1375
======================================================================================================
Generally, nothing will be done about something like that until someone gets
killed. Often, it takes multiple deaths.

On 9/10/2012 5:41 PM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=180&pid=1375#pid1375
>

A) My first thought is why is it posted on r.w?

B) My second thought is looks like a wide-enough street to me to accept
the "go-'round"...

--

On 9/10/12 7:20 PM, Swingman wrote:
> Except for the little things, like the double, solid yellow line being a
> clear "Do Not Pass" in any traffic engineer's handbook in every state
> and state traffic statute.

We have a main drag in the middle of which are two turning lanes, one
for each direction. There is a clear, solid, double yellow line
separating the two. It is very common to see cars waiting to turn left,
on the wrong side of the double yellow line.
They are essentially driving on the wrong side of the road.

The other common idiotic occurrence is drivers who will turn onto the
road from a driveway or side street and pull into the turning lane and
just stop and wait for traffic to clear up so they can pull into the
lane.
We were taught that you could pull into the turning lane while
continuing to accelerate and merge into traffic when there was room.
I don't know when it because acceptable to simply park in the middle
of the street.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 9/10/2012 6:42 PM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
...


> It's a 0.2 mile "go around" with a blind hill. Unacceptable.

So, go some other way 'round...it's _still_ not w-working :)

--

On 9/10/2012 7:20 PM, Swingman wrote:
> On 9/10/2012 6:41 PM, dpb wrote:
>> B) My second thought is looks like a wide-enough street to me to accept
>> the "go-'round"...
>
> Except for the little things, like the double, solid yellow line being a
> clear "Do Not Pass" in any traffic engineer's handbook in every state
> and state traffic statute.
...

And the application of a little common-sense that going by a
standing-line of traffic parked in the street when there's sufficient
clearance to make it easily doable is, at least where I'm from, common
sense when the letter of the rule results in impasse.

Sounds like the NC cops realize the reality as well...

--

On 9/11/2012 6:54 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
...

> I guess my thoughts on it (having read everything else that's been posted),
> is that the greater alarm should be raised about those in the cars that
> create the unsafe situation by parking in the roadway....

+1

I'll bet this has been going on at this school for quite a long
time--and just guessing I'd reckon OP has just had the first few weeks
of the first year at the location and is hyperventilating over a
pretty-much normal school traffic situation all over the country...

--

On 9/11/2012 7:55 AM, Swingman wrote:
...

> Some folks never seem to grasp that elementary old axiom that two wrongs
> don't make a right ...

"Right" and "practical" don't necessarily mix, either... :)

_IF_ the whoevers would prevent the pileup in front of the school by one
means or another the "problem" would go away. As long as it is allowed
to queue in a trafficway then it is never going to happen (and is
unreasonable to expect) that thru traffic is going to wait for upwards
of minutes while the line progresses.

Is that ideal? Of course not. Is it reality? Definitely and it's
every bit or even more so that the wrong is being caused by the
"stoppers" as opposed to the "goers".

Expecting otherwise is equivalent to expecting somebody following farmer
John on his tractor for a couple of miles rather than going around when
can just because there's some yellow paint on the road. It's more
dangerous to cause the backup than going around when clear at a
reasonable speed.

--

On 9/11/2012 7:41 AM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
...

> He no longer agrees with you after seeing the photos.

I don't know who "he" is nor much care whether whoever that is agrees or
not... :)

--bye, have a nice day obsessing. :)

--

On 9/10/12 11:08 PM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
> On 9/11/2012 12:05 AM, Leon wrote:
>> On 9/10/2012 5:41 PM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
>>> http://www.garagewoodworks.com/Forum/showthread.php?tid=180&pid=1375#pid1375
>>>
>>
>> Film the buses/situation, send that video to the police department,
>> transportation department, mayor, and the media. All at the same time.
>
>
> Thought about capturing it in video and posting it on YouTube. I like
> your idea better.

Youtube would probably be easier for all parties involved.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 9/11/12 10:39 AM, dpb wrote:
> On 9/11/2012 7:41 AM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
> ...
>
>> He no longer agrees with you after seeing the photos.
>
> I don't know who "he" is nor much care whether whoever that is agrees or
> not... :)
>
> --bye, have a nice day obsessing. :)
>
> --

Nice trolling.
If he's obsessing, then what are you doing by continuing to reply to the
off topic post?


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 9/12/2012 9:36 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
> Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in news:5050e785$0$22322$882e7ee2
> @usenet-news.net:
>
>> On 9/11/2012 8:26 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 00:48:11 -0600, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> There are many areas that are 80MPH and one that's 85MPH. So?
>> SO, there isn't a "national 55MPH speed limit as you falsely stated
>> when you said, "I blame it on the national 55 MPH speed limit." There
>> used to be one from about 1974 to 1987, but it was modified some 25
>> years ago and repealed about 17 years ago.
>> SO, you blamed drivers' behavior on a law that doesn't exist.
>
> Correction: on a law that *no longer* exists -- and rightly so, IMHO. The adoption of that law
> -- largely unenforced and largely unenforceable -- encouraged drivers to ignore not only
> that, but many other traffic laws as well.
>
> Prior to its adoption, it was unusual to see drivers going more than 5-10% over the posted
> speed limit -- on interstates with a posted 70mph limit, for instance, most traffic was moving
> between 70 and 75, and speeds over 80 were rare. After the 55mph limit was adopted, IME
> traffic didn't slow down much in most states (Ohio, New York, and Utah being notable
> exceptions), and the norm became upper 60s to low 70s, that is, about 20-25% over the limit.
>
> The 55mph limit has become "ancient history", but the habit it encouraged of driving 20+%
> over the limit persists to this day. It is no longer unusual to see drivers going 85 on interstate
> highways with a posted limit of 70 -- or 45-50 on city streets with a posted limit of 35.
>
> It was also unusual, prior to the mid-1970s, to see the widespread disregard of stop signs,
> red lights, no-passing zones, school bus "STOP" arms, and reduced-speed zones around
> schools that I now observe nearly every day.
>
> Unenforced and unenforceable laws encourage disrespect for all laws.
>
> The national 55mph limit was a mistake for many reasons -- but that was the main one.
>

The 55mph was another wishful thinking law, like the current increases
mpg that they are pushing now

The the Ford Model T's got about 18-20 mpg They had low ratio in the
rear ends and three speed transmissions with 1:1 high gear (1 revolution
of motor to 1 revolution of the rear wheels)

My 1952 Ford Flat-head-V8 with 3 speed standard transmission and 1:1
ratio in he high gear, got about 18-20 mpg. There were some automatics
of this period that got lower gas mileage and some had 2 speed
transmission. Also the 1952 Ford 4-door had the capacity of my Astro
van and probably was heavier.

Current cars get about 35 miles, have four to five speed transmission,
higher rear ends and the top gear in the transmission is some where
between gear ratio of 1.3 to 1.4 ratio. They have become so small that
some normal sized people can not get into them, and the have been
stripped down to the minimal weight and still able to maintain their
shape. The rear ends have higher ratios so the engine need 4 gears
instead of three to get to the 1:1 ratio. The 18 -20 mpg times the
highest gear ratio in current cars of 1.35 plus the high rear ends
equals the 35 mpg that current cars get.

Where have we improved?

To met the new standards, the transmission automakers are modifying
their transmission plants to produce 6 to 8 gear transmissions.
So with the new standards will we have 5 gears to get 1:1 ratio and
several more gears so the final ratio is near 2.0 to get the 54 mpg?

Gasoline has a limited amount of energy per given weight of gasoline. In
100 years we have not improved the basic engine efficiency. We have
spent Billions of dollars and found the best technology was fossil fuel
electric engine developed for trains and submarines over 120 years ago.

How many more Billions of dollars will be spent to learn that we can not
improve the automotive technology without going to small nuclear reactors.

The current environmentalist have no knowledge of basic physical limits
in carbon chemistry and the electrical and solar properties of matter,
so come up with the unrealistic ideas.

On 9/12/2012 10:54 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 01:36:33 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>> The 55mph limit has become "ancient history", but the habit it encouraged of driving 20+%
>> over the limit persists to this day. It is no longer unusual to see drivers going 85 on interstate
>> highways with a posted limit of 70 -- or 45-50 on city streets with a posted limit of 35.
>>
>
>
> Proper speed limits would also help. I live in CT and work in MA. One
> road I drive every day has a 45 mph limit. If that road was in VA, it
> probably would be 50 mph, a fair speed to drive on it. VA seems to be
> more advanced in their thinking.
>
> Many speed limits were deemed to be safe back in the 1930's when car
> had poor lighting, poor brakes, poor tires, bumpy road surfaces, etc.
> It may have made sense back then, but not now.
>
> The lower the speed limit, the higher percentage drivers seem to
> travel over the posted limit.
>
>
>
Virginia is a poor state to hold up as progressive in the traffic laws
and speed limits. One of the best states for speed limits is Kentucky.
They have a 70 mph limit on their interstates, and one speed limits
for all types of vehicles.

Indiana has one of the worst. While they have 70mph on their
interstates, trucks have a slower limit that cars. So it is a constant
jockeying as you back up behind the slow trucks, maneuver to pass them
and the repositioning of the cars in front of the truck.

In contrast Kentucky with one speed limit is easy driving as there is
minimal back up caused by the slower vehicles.