^ qed
![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
alasdair
alasdair
-
Life Advice & Visual Arts
Posting Rules Bluelight Rules 🌌 Share Your Dreams! 🌌 📸 15 Years of Photo Contests 📸 -
LAVA Moderator: Shinji Ikari
Speeding vs. law enforcement discussion
- Thread starter Fjones
- Start date
Fjones, it's okay if some people disagree with you, especially if it's about something trivial that isn't going to adversely affect your life in any way. This discussion has been interesting and fruitful in parts but everyone's entitled to their own opinions even though they may conflict with your own.
KStoner6tb
Bluelighter
I don't agree with you in the above statement :D
Our goverment isn't dumb, no matter how many of yall will flame me for saying that. I don't care. Just drive the damn posted speed limits. Yah, most speed limits are very prudent, they're just trying to save lives. Go with the flow breeze.
Fjones
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2008
- Messages
- 3,326
If every car on the road is going 55 MPH, it is probably not a good idea to drive 75 MPH.
I think most people would agree with that statement.
But what about this one --
"If most drivers are driving 75, it is dangerous to drive 55."
Do people agree with that?
I do, but I suspect a lot of people don't.
But, does that really make sense? Both situations have a driver being a road hazard by not going with the flow.
Yes, most cops will not pull over a car if everyone is going 75 MPH. But they can. If they see a flashy sports car, or just need to make quota, or something, they can pull over any car out of a group that is all going the same speed.
Or, if a car happens to increase his speed slightly for a few moments for whatever reason, now he stands out as going 82 MPH and might get a ticket.
People don't get a ticket for going 62 in a 55, but if all drivers are going 75 and one goes 82, he has a good chance of getting a ticket.
Meanwhile, cars may pass right by a cop while tailgating the car in front of them, and the cop doesn't do anything.
Why is this?
Can't we agree that tailgating is dangerous, and that it's more important to curtail tailgating than it is to stop someone from going 82 MPH on a clear stretch of a highway?
I am trying to find SOME common ground with people in this thread, but it seems people are unwilling to budge from the "No! All traffic laws must be obeyed at all times" mentality. Why is such a rigid black-and white right-or-wrong approach acceptable in this thread, yet rejected in other threads?
Does anyone think the Rockefeller laws were fair? Should someone spend 15 years in prison for minor drug offenses? Would it be fair to say to someone who was hit with a harsh sentence under those laws, "Tough shit, those were the rules, they are in your place for your safety and the safety of others, and you should have obeyed them, now stop whining about it?"
Are all of you law abiding citizens in every way possible? Or do you bend or break certain laws sometimes depending on the situation?
I think most people would agree with that statement.
But what about this one --
"If most drivers are driving 75, it is dangerous to drive 55."
Do people agree with that?
I do, but I suspect a lot of people don't.
But, does that really make sense? Both situations have a driver being a road hazard by not going with the flow.
Yes, most cops will not pull over a car if everyone is going 75 MPH. But they can. If they see a flashy sports car, or just need to make quota, or something, they can pull over any car out of a group that is all going the same speed.
Or, if a car happens to increase his speed slightly for a few moments for whatever reason, now he stands out as going 82 MPH and might get a ticket.
People don't get a ticket for going 62 in a 55, but if all drivers are going 75 and one goes 82, he has a good chance of getting a ticket.
Meanwhile, cars may pass right by a cop while tailgating the car in front of them, and the cop doesn't do anything.
Why is this?
Can't we agree that tailgating is dangerous, and that it's more important to curtail tailgating than it is to stop someone from going 82 MPH on a clear stretch of a highway?
I am trying to find SOME common ground with people in this thread, but it seems people are unwilling to budge from the "No! All traffic laws must be obeyed at all times" mentality. Why is such a rigid black-and white right-or-wrong approach acceptable in this thread, yet rejected in other threads?
Does anyone think the Rockefeller laws were fair? Should someone spend 15 years in prison for minor drug offenses? Would it be fair to say to someone who was hit with a harsh sentence under those laws, "Tough shit, those were the rules, they are in your place for your safety and the safety of others, and you should have obeyed them, now stop whining about it?"
Are all of you law abiding citizens in every way possible? Or do you bend or break certain laws sometimes depending on the situation?
Last edited:
vibr8tor
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- May 27, 2000
- Messages
- 16,213
if the majority of the cars are following the speed limit, or close to it, it does make it unsafe to be a random car exceeding (or going excessively under) the limit. the speed limit is what gauges the "herd," and it isn't an arbitrary number. it's based on past accidents, congestion, road conditions, animals, visibility, changes in direction, and lots of other factors. and while you may be familiar with the route and highways you take day in and day out, there are always going to be people sharing the road with you who are not, as well as people with slower (but hopefully still up-to-par) reaction times. my night vision is crap due to laser eye surgery, but i still see well enough to maintain a license. i always follow the posted limit at night, so i can tell you first hand that extreme variances in another vehicle pose a risk for me. and that poses a risk for everyone else on the road.
well i am a police officer, and yes speeding tickets are to generate money. But without speed limits you would have people on the interstate going 120+ and in towns you would have people going 75. Its just stupid people. Ignorant people who think they must go so fast to get some where in very little time. So sometimes it is fun to pull them over and delay them 20 minutes. Rarely will anyone get out of a speeding ticket by me. Especially if they have even a speeding warning, Why? because its the law, without it there would be more death. Sure you may think youre being safe going 80 in the interstate, but what about the idiot who thinks hes being safe going 100 on the interstate and smashes into the back of a car with 3 children and a mother in it and kills them all? Without stopping all speeders that would be a double standard. pull over the guy going 35 over the speed limit but not the guy going 15 over? thats why the guy going 35 over gets a 225 dollar fine and the 15 over gets a 95.
So next time you are speeding think about your child and how you would feel if the government did nothing to limit the speed at which you could drive on any given road and some idiot going 100 on the interstate killed them. But yet could be charged with nothing because there is no law against it.
So next time you are speeding think about your child and how you would feel if the government did nothing to limit the speed at which you could drive on any given road and some idiot going 100 on the interstate killed them. But yet could be charged with nothing because there is no law against it.
RedLeader
Bluelight Crew
Why it is equally unsafe to drive 35 when people are going 75 as it is to drive 75 when peopele are going 35?
The argument that the question seems to be looking for is that, in fact, the two situations are identical; in either case, you have some cars going 75, some going 35. This would be a fallacy however, since the proportion of cars going at 35 and 75 may not be the same, and that may very well factor into the chance of a collision. Not to mention if one car was a F150 and the other a Mini Cooper. So we side-step the fallacy by creating a hypothetical situation where an equal number of similar cars are going at both speeds.
One's likelihood of a collision with an object is determined by how fast you are going relative to it. If you are going 75 and the car in front of you is going 0, you'll likely hit it. If you're going 75 and the car in front of you is going exactly 75, you'll never hit it. If you are going 75 and it is going 70, it is no different than if you were going 5 and it 0, and you can likely avoid it. The speed "75 mph" refers to your speed relative to the ground, and the ground does not come into play when discussing a collision between cars. Thus in either case, you and the car with which you may collide have a difference in speed of 40 mph, which ones intuition for the first case (you going 75, those around you 35) shows is dangerous.
Relative, not actual speed, governs this situation. If you bump into another person of similar size going 5 miles per hour in opposite directs in a train aisle, it's no different than bumbing into them while on the street. In a frame of reference moving at the speed of the train, both people would bounce back a bit, obtaining the same amount of physical damage.
Again, this is with respect to collisions with other cars only, not when the 75mph car subsequently smashes into a non-car object moving at 0 (such as a road sign). So if the argument is made with equal amounts of cars at each speed, and foreign objects NOT considered as crash-sensative objects, then the crashes are isomorphic for the parties.
The argument that the question seems to be looking for is that, in fact, the two situations are identical; in either case, you have some cars going 75, some going 35. This would be a fallacy however, since the proportion of cars going at 35 and 75 may not be the same, and that may very well factor into the chance of a collision. Not to mention if one car was a F150 and the other a Mini Cooper. So we side-step the fallacy by creating a hypothetical situation where an equal number of similar cars are going at both speeds.
One's likelihood of a collision with an object is determined by how fast you are going relative to it. If you are going 75 and the car in front of you is going 0, you'll likely hit it. If you're going 75 and the car in front of you is going exactly 75, you'll never hit it. If you are going 75 and it is going 70, it is no different than if you were going 5 and it 0, and you can likely avoid it. The speed "75 mph" refers to your speed relative to the ground, and the ground does not come into play when discussing a collision between cars. Thus in either case, you and the car with which you may collide have a difference in speed of 40 mph, which ones intuition for the first case (you going 75, those around you 35) shows is dangerous.
Relative, not actual speed, governs this situation. If you bump into another person of similar size going 5 miles per hour in opposite directs in a train aisle, it's no different than bumbing into them while on the street. In a frame of reference moving at the speed of the train, both people would bounce back a bit, obtaining the same amount of physical damage.
Again, this is with respect to collisions with other cars only, not when the 75mph car subsequently smashes into a non-car object moving at 0 (such as a road sign). So if the argument is made with equal amounts of cars at each speed, and foreign objects NOT considered as crash-sensative objects, then the crashes are isomorphic for the parties.
Last edited:
Well fjones with the laser radar equipment now-a-days i can legally give you a ticket for going 56 in a 55 and it will hold up in court. I choose not to give people ridiculous tickets like this. but i can at any moment. Say i pull you over because you have a pair of fuzzy dice on your mirror (obstruction of view) then youre a complete asshole to me and i also had you on li-dar going 56 in a 55 i would in fact write you that ticket also. its all about how you come off to people, as you do in this forum. everyone has their own opinion. but yet everyone has to call you an idiot and you call them the same. I dont understand a "discussion" when all it really is, is a way for you guys to argue why the government makes up riduculous law saving laws while another guy mourns the death of his wife and children because some ignorant guy thought it was safer to go 85 than 65 .
RedLeader
Bluelight Crew
And you're coming off as a police officer admitting to being subjective when writing tickets.
For every family which dies because of a collision with a speeding car, probably 10,000 people get speeding tickets. You're being ignornant to actual empirical probabilies when making your appeal to pathos (I could say "That poor woman who suffered from extreme hemorrhagic bleeding because she was forced to give birth in the backseat of a car moving 25 miles per hour legally on the way to the hospital...if only we could speed!!"). This type of emotional appeal, or George Bush or Barack Obama kissing a baby for that matter, only works on those who can sell their personal wool for profit.
---
Look, I think something needs to be cleared up here. Fjones, me and a few others on here have been academically trained in the arts of logic and deductive/inductive reasoning. Although we wish that everyone got this training so that arguments could be about topics and not inevidably stray into "we're arguing on different levels" debates within debates, it's a given that most people in the world do not seek this particular type of academic route. And I totally respect that choice - clearly such higher ed can cause frustrations that most people don't even know (it's a trade-off). So what seems normal to us might come off as hausty or "holier-than-thou" to others, but it's not done intentionally to make others irritated or belittled. For example, "argument" in its social definition is different than "argument" within the confines of logical models (through which valid/sound arguments are made). In the academic treating, argument does not carry any negative connotation, and simply is a term used for establishing a conclusion based on premises and symmantics within a model. So I fear people are taking our words as more personal than we intend them to be (though we might cross the line a bit when we don't have our Xanax
) Also, academic training seems to condition one to be able to hande discussions/arguments without taking things too personaly. Why? Becuase you learn that a valid or invalid argument is not part of you - it's not like an arm or a leg. It exists regardless of whether you, the Earth, little green men, etc. do. So I guess, at least for me, it is easier to argue a point without any emotional involvement, because I know the argument is ontologically its own class of object and has no essential connection to me or any other living thing. And I understand the same to be about the person with whom I am exchanging arguments.
Last edited:
Fjones
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2008
- Messages
- 3,326
I think some good points were made in the above posts.
It should be noted that in Maryland, consequences begin at 5 points (must take a test to show you are a good driver), then become more severe at 8 points (license suspension), and very severe at 12 points (license revocation).
So, obviously, a 5 point violation is very serious, whereas a 2 point violation is relatively minor.
I bring this up because in MD, the following statements are true --
Speeding up to 29 MPH over the limit is a 2 point violation, but
Speeding 20 MPH over the limit in a 65 zone is a 5 point violation.
So, if you are on a curvy backwoods two way road (with driveways and such) going 69 in a 40, the violation is 2 points, but
If you are going 85 on a 4 lane interstate highway, the violation is 5 points?
That doesn't make a lot of sense from the standpoint of safety, but it does make sense from a standpoint of revenue. It is a perfect example of a case where the punishments are not proportional to the level of danger.
Camg550, I appreciate the input from a person with a different perspective than the rest of us. I will say this in response to your post number 426 -- I have not been advocating going 75 in residential or 120 on the highway, and I don't think anyone else has either. For the last several hundred posts, the discussion has shifted to highway driving at speeds within 20 MPH of the speed limit.
Also, I don't see a double standard in pulling over a guy going 35 MPH over while ignoring a guy going 15 MPH over. A double standard is when you apply two different rules to people doing the exact same thing. As you already noted, the guy going 35 MPH over is not doing the same thing as the guy going 15 MPH over.
Traffic can do a pretty good job of regulating itself, within reason. If a highway is not very busy, it isn't unsafe for a series of cars to be going 80 MPH, as long as they are respecting each other's space and obeying all other traffic laws.
But, now there is a police officer sitting in the median, and suddenly people begin braking. Some people may even slow down to below the speed limit, causing other non-speeders to change lanes unnecessarily. And the person who gets the ticket is the first guy who doesn't notice the cop car and maintains his 75 or 80 MPH pace.
So now you have people changing lanes unnecessarily, braking more than necessary, and focusing their attention on the side of the road instead of on the road in front of them.
Also, the opportunity cost of any deployment must be considered. Baltimore has some of the worst crime problems in the nation. Any time a cop is sitting in a highway median giving out tickets, it means he is NOT out on the beat in Baltimore making the city safer. Is this really justifiable, considering how many serious problems exist in Baltimore?
It should be noted that in Maryland, consequences begin at 5 points (must take a test to show you are a good driver), then become more severe at 8 points (license suspension), and very severe at 12 points (license revocation).
So, obviously, a 5 point violation is very serious, whereas a 2 point violation is relatively minor.
I bring this up because in MD, the following statements are true --
Speeding up to 29 MPH over the limit is a 2 point violation, but
Speeding 20 MPH over the limit in a 65 zone is a 5 point violation.
So, if you are on a curvy backwoods two way road (with driveways and such) going 69 in a 40, the violation is 2 points, but
If you are going 85 on a 4 lane interstate highway, the violation is 5 points?
That doesn't make a lot of sense from the standpoint of safety, but it does make sense from a standpoint of revenue. It is a perfect example of a case where the punishments are not proportional to the level of danger.
Camg550, I appreciate the input from a person with a different perspective than the rest of us. I will say this in response to your post number 426 -- I have not been advocating going 75 in residential or 120 on the highway, and I don't think anyone else has either. For the last several hundred posts, the discussion has shifted to highway driving at speeds within 20 MPH of the speed limit.
Also, I don't see a double standard in pulling over a guy going 35 MPH over while ignoring a guy going 15 MPH over. A double standard is when you apply two different rules to people doing the exact same thing. As you already noted, the guy going 35 MPH over is not doing the same thing as the guy going 15 MPH over.
Traffic can do a pretty good job of regulating itself, within reason. If a highway is not very busy, it isn't unsafe for a series of cars to be going 80 MPH, as long as they are respecting each other's space and obeying all other traffic laws.
But, now there is a police officer sitting in the median, and suddenly people begin braking. Some people may even slow down to below the speed limit, causing other non-speeders to change lanes unnecessarily. And the person who gets the ticket is the first guy who doesn't notice the cop car and maintains his 75 or 80 MPH pace.
So now you have people changing lanes unnecessarily, braking more than necessary, and focusing their attention on the side of the road instead of on the road in front of them.
Also, the opportunity cost of any deployment must be considered. Baltimore has some of the worst crime problems in the nation. Any time a cop is sitting in a highway median giving out tickets, it means he is NOT out on the beat in Baltimore making the city safer. Is this really justifiable, considering how many serious problems exist in Baltimore?
harley89
Bluelighter
(1) Yes of course i have, but he said he had to change two lanes to get there. Why would a person who is driving at 70,be in the slow lane? They would pull out into the fast lane. When i am in the fast lane i am generally overtaking cars from the middle lane, if i am not I change lanes. If i am going somewhere i usually have a good idea of where the next exit is and get in the exit lane as soon as possible, because i will be slowing down to take the exit. When i come home from college, i could drive 130 MPH easily and still have time to recognize that my exit is coming up and so i drive past cars on my left until i can see them in my rear view mirror and change lanes.
(2) What exactly do you mean it doesn't matter about planning? If i am in the Fast lane, and a vehicle comes up behind me, i will check my mirrors, wait until it is feasible to change lanes and then change. I have never encountered any trouble whilst traveling slower than many cars, in changing lanes. Unless someone is beside you and doing the same speed, in which case i would lift off the accelerator, let the car move in font and then change over. If you know that you're exit is coming up, do you either (A) Keep in the fast lane, and then try to cut across two lanes? or (B) Get into the right lane before your exit is coming up? I'm pretty sure, it's B, that is planning. He did say that he had to cut across two lanes to get to his exit, from fast lane to the slow lane, i really don't see how other people's speed effects that, you just wait until there is a gap in the traffic and change lanes. If someone is traveling faster than you in the middle lane, you should not be in the fast lane surely?
(3) I completely agree with you, that driving slowly on a highway is dangerous, due to people entering the highways with you going to slow, it is hard to judge if you should pull in front or behind the slow moving car. I drive very fast, fast and slowly, depending on how the flow of traffic is, but if i see a car coming up to enter, i will either change lanes or if that is not possible gauge how fast the car is traveling and adjust my speed accordingly. I always check my mirrors and look ahead of myself when driving, to see that if something is happening i can react. If the car in front of me put's on their brakes lights, i look forward past that particular car to see what is going on. I very rarely use my brakes on a highway, it creates tailbacks and is generally not a good way to drive, as it put's me in a position where i have to judge if they have braked for something, like a car changing lanes or because they think they are going to fast. The problem is that drivers seem to brake when there is not a reason to, if i need to slow up a bit i drop the car into 4th or 3rd gear briefly, to void using my brakes and then back into 5th. It does not make the car behind me put their brakes on as i have not used mine. Some people are on autopilot whilst driving and brake the minute they see another car's brake lights without even assessing the situation.
I think you're confused and should go back and read his post. The statement I bolded is incorrect, he didn't state he went from fast lane to slow lane. He was forced to drive the speed limit, and was driving in the slow lane. The exit was on the left, so he had to cut across. Given the fact that the majority of people drive about 70-75 in the middle lane, and 75-80 in the fast lane, he was a road hazard and would have been no matter what. It's not related to his ability to change lanes or plan. Why don't you try it out yourself? Drive 65 in the fast lane and stay there (he had to stay there for his exit), you will become a road hazard.
harley89
Bluelighter
Is the slow lane not on the left hand side, where the exit is? I always thought it was, well atleast it is in my country. Exit on the left and the fast lane on the right, nearer the barrier between the oncoming cars. I still don't get why his speed would have any difference when crossing lanes. Unless the highway is jammed packed, and turning is not an option. Fair enough but, why was he in the fast lane driving the speed limit, which is usually where people drive fast, if it was me and I could see that my speed was a hazard in that lane I would move over to let the people get past me
^^ Ahhh yes, there could be some confusion over which sides of the road you guys are talking about.
America and Europe (and others) = right-side of traffic
England and Australia (and others) = left-side of traffic
Keep that in mind when we're discussing fast and slow lanes
America and Europe (and others) = right-side of traffic
England and Australia (and others) = left-side of traffic
Keep that in mind when we're discussing fast and slow lanes
Fjones
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2008
- Messages
- 3,326
I am in absolute disbelief. I have laid this out in painstaking detail, as has Cheah. I'll try one last time.
The road in question is a three lane highway, with the "slow lane" on the right, and the "fast lane" on the left.
I was driving the speed limit, and thus was the SLOWEST car on the road. I was driving in the RIGHT LANE (the SLOW LANE) so as to minimize the extent to which I was a road hazard. Sometimes I had to get into the middle lane to yield to the cars entering the highway (Yes, you read that right -- Though legally THEY are supposed to merge and yield to ME, they don't). While in the middle lane, cars were passing me on both sides and cutting me off and tailgating.
Had I been in the LEFT LANE (the FAST lane) for ANY extended period of time, I would have been even more of a road hazard, and also just plain disrespectful and inconsiderate to the people who were trying to get somewhere and were in complete control of their cars, despite being over the speed limit.
Eventually, I came upon my exit, which is in the LEFT LAND AND FAST LANE. At this point, I had to cut across two lanes of faster traffic, and I nearly missed my exit waiting for an opportunity to do so without cutting someone off. And if you think turning on my left blinker would make people slow down to let me in, you are mistaken. I invite you to come to this state and try it.
Also, what is this crap you keep saying about "in your country?" Was there any part of my post that was discussing the driving laws in WALES? I am talking about BALTIMORE, MARYLAND, USA! I mean, I am sure MANY things are different there, some for the better, some not. But I sure wouldn't voluntarily jump into a thread about a discussion of the laws and rules in WALES and say things like, "Well in my country blah blah blah therefore your point is invalid!"
Fjones
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2008
- Messages
- 3,326
Today I drove along the same stretch of highway that we have been discussing.
So, to avoid being a road hazard today, I sped, just like the other cars on the road. I got into the left lane (the fast lane) immediately, so that I would already be in my exit lane a few miles down the road.
And what happens? A car comes running up behind me VERY fast, tailgating me with maybe 10 feet to spare.
Oh, sorry OFFICER, 15 MPH over the limit isn't fast enough for you? I'll move over then!
I do, and the officer (in an unmarked car with no sirens or lights going) proceeds to speed up to the next car and tailgate him too.
I really have no further comment on that. I think the story speaks for itself.
So, to avoid being a road hazard today, I sped, just like the other cars on the road. I got into the left lane (the fast lane) immediately, so that I would already be in my exit lane a few miles down the road.
And what happens? A car comes running up behind me VERY fast, tailgating me with maybe 10 feet to spare.
Oh, sorry OFFICER, 15 MPH over the limit isn't fast enough for you? I'll move over then!
I do, and the officer (in an unmarked car with no sirens or lights going) proceeds to speed up to the next car and tailgate him too.
I really have no further comment on that. I think the story speaks for itself.
Last edited:
Transcendence
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2006
- Messages
- 2,505
^That's typical. When I see police cruisers driving on the highway they're typically traveling in excess of 70 mph, often 80 without their lights on. The speed limit is 55 mph and 45 mph in some stretches.
We all know the most cops believe themselves to be above the law, so it really isn't surprising.
We all know the most cops believe themselves to be above the law, so it really isn't surprising.
Fjones
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2008
- Messages
- 3,326
Agreed. The problem is (apologies for the hackneyed cliche), people won't always follow what you say, but they will almost always follow what you do.
Cops could try leading by example, but the problem is, they are human beings just like the rest of us, and aren't necessarily going to rigidly follow every law.
Cops could try leading by example, but the problem is, they are human beings just like the rest of us, and aren't necessarily going to rigidly follow every law.
Heuristic
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2009
- Messages
- 3,263
You asked for an example in which an individual would need to apply maximum pressure to the brakes to achieve a full stop. I gave one. Obviously there will be others. NO ONE claimed that we should make policy based on "this one scenario."
Bottom line of the discussion:
A certain portion of people will drive irresponsibly and recklessly. I know what the accident rate is at current speed limits. Might it be possible to completely revamp driver education and speed limits so as to achieve no greater costs from higher speeds? Sure. Is it possible to simply raise the speed limit, without changing anything else, and expect costs not to increase? Of course not.
So, in the meantime, try to stay reasonably close to the speed limit (within 10mph).
Heuristic
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2009
- Messages
- 3,263
Well, three things. First, I don't think his argument was invalid. His point was that speed limits reduce fatalities, and that our desire to simply get somewhere a few minutes--or hours--quicker seems rather petty weighed next to the cost of a human life. Second, if you want to make the argument more empirical, cost/benefit analyses generally value each human life at around 2.5 million dollars. For a family of 4, that comes to 10 million dollars. 10,000 speed tickets at $225 a ticket comes to 2.25 million. So, if those 10,000 speeding tickets save that family, then society net is better off. Three, there are exceptions in the law for extenuating circumstances with respect to speeding.
Look, I think something needs to be cleared up here. Fjones, me and a few others on here have been academically trained in the arts of logic and deductive/inductive reasoning. Although we wish that everyone got this training so that arguments could be about topics and not inevidably stray into "we're arguing on different levels" debates within debates, it's a given that most people in the world do not seek this particular type of academic route. And I totally respect that choice - clearly such higher ed can cause frustrations that most people don't even know (it's a trade-off). So what seems normal to us might come off as hausty or "holier-than-thou" to others, but it's not done intentionally to make others irritated or belittled. For example, "argument" in its social definition is different than "argument" within the confines of logical models (through which valid/sound arguments are made). In the academic treating, argument does not carry any negative connotation, and simply is a term used for establishing a conclusion based on premises and symmantics within a model. So I fear people are taking our words as more personal than we intend them to be (though we might cross the line a bit when we don't have our Xanax
Also, academic training seems to condition one to be able to hande discussions/arguments without taking things too personaly. Why? Becuase you learn that a valid or invalid argument is not part of you - it's not like an arm or a leg. It exists regardless of whether you, the Earth, little green men, etc. do. So I guess, at least for me, it is easier to argue a point without any emotional involvement, because I know the argument is ontologically its own class of object and has no essential connection to me or any other living thing. And I understand the same to be about the person with whom I am exchanging arguments.
Well... with all due respect, this comes across as a little haughty in itself, not least in its presumption that whomever you're speaking to must not have higher education or, if he doesn't, then must not be familiar with logic and argument. No?
Also, higher education or not, it's quite normal to argue points with which one may have vivid personal connections with passion. Hell, if you've ever witnessed a faculty meeting at a university, it's quite normal for those with immense amounts of higher education to argue points with which they have little personal connection with enormous amounts of passion.