• Life Advice & Visual Arts Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    🌌 Share Your Dreams! 🌌
    📸 15 Years of Photo Contests 📸
  • LAVA Moderator: Shinji Ikari

Speeding vs. law enforcement discussion

Fjones said:
Which part did you not understand? Most other cars were driving a lot faster than I was. I needed to cut across two lanes INTO THE FAST LANE from the SLOW LANE in order to exit. While doing this, the other cars on the road were going considerably faster than I was.

Had I been going THEIR speed instead of the speed limit, my task would have been much easier.

I wish I knew why everything on here needs repeating three times.
Click to expand...

Surely the slow lane is the lane that you take the exit on?? The fast lane is nearer the oncoming cars, so how could an exit be there? So the fast lane is were you take your exits at? That is baffling. I think everything needs to be told 3 times, because it is impossible to get any rational thinking from you. If the highway was completely full, then i guess that it would be very difficult to changes lanes, but use your mirrors and signal. Most, if not all drivers would let you get to the other lanes. It's a very simple driving maneuver, and a little bit of planning, to see if there a car is coming up from your drivers side. If not you change lanes, and the you do this again, untill you are in the lane you need to be in. I really don't get how because some cars are speeding then it is difficult for you to cross lanes. Im sure they teach you how to drive on motorways when you re learning to drive, im 19 and you have been driving much longer than me, but i do not find crossing lanes difficult at all.
 
Fjones said:
To get where you are going faster.

Why don't you drive 35 MPH instead of 55 MPH? Isn't 35 MPH safer?
Click to expand...

You don't get to where you want faster by going 80 instead of 70, the amount of time lost would be minimal in your arrival. Maybe take a couple of minutes off, but a couple of minutes is not an argument for speeding. It would take me 30 minutes to get to college, and on the way home i would speed (due to less traffic) and it would take me 35 minutes. So 5 minutes more, i seriously think that is not a major issue in your time frame.

Maybe Mr C. Balls does drive slowly and still get were he wants in time. 35 mph is not a safe speed to drive on a motorway, 55 mph is alot better, because you are keeping with the traffic and will not need as much time to cross lanes, causing people to put their brakes on. The minute you see someone touch they break on the highway, everyone behinds tends to do the same thing, if some is travveling fast and just comes up at the brakes lights it may be too late.
 
Fjones, your whole point is that it all depends on context. That's correct with regard to whether or not a person's speeding is endangering the lives of him/herself or others, as obviously going 90 mph in a porsche on a completely empty highway for many miles is what the car is for. However, I once lived in a land far away from America where speeding tickets were based on income - i.e. you feel the financial pain no matter who you are - and everyone drove the same speed and stayed equal car lengths behind heach other. It was so peaceful and safe. Then I flew back to the U.S. and nearly lost my lunch watching the way people drive. Of course if you live here then you pretty much have to drive like a cannibal as well, so yeah it's unfortunately all about context.
 
Fjones said:
By all means, explain to me how I can get across two lanes WITHOUT GETTING ACROSS TWO LANES.
Click to expand...
the suggestion that i, among others, made was that you make the maneuver more gradually over a much greater distance.
Fjones said:
Are you people serious? Let me draw a fucking road map.
Click to expand...
again - more attitude. you constantly criticise others for their inability to maintain a civil, adult conversation. it all starts with you...

:\

alasdair
 
^ Exactly. You're going to eventually get over two lanes, but it seems silly to expect to do so in a very small span of time.

I agree about the attitude as well, across the board, really, chill out. People tell you this all the time, they're not just being jerks. They're trying to make it civil. :)
 
harley89 said:
Surely the slow lane is the lane that you take the exit on?? The fast lane is nearer the oncoming cars, so how could an exit be there? So the fast lane is were you take your exits at? That is baffling. I think everything needs to be told 3 times, because it is impossible to get any rational thinking from you. If the highway was completely full, then i guess that it would be very difficult to changes lanes, but use your mirrors and signal. Most, if not all drivers would let you get to the other lanes. It's a very simple driving maneuver, and a little bit of planning, to see if there a car is coming up from your drivers side. If not you change lanes, and the you do this again, untill you are in the lane you need to be in. I really don't get how because some cars are speeding then it is difficult for you to cross lanes. Im sure they teach you how to drive on motorways when you re learning to drive, im 19 and you have been driving much longer than me, but i do not find crossing lanes difficult at all.
Click to expand...

Dude he stated that the exit was off the left lane. You've never seen an exit on the left of the highway?? Usually they're on the right but sometimes you will see them on the left

He didn't have trouble changing lanes, the people who were in the left lane were pissed because someone's doing 65 or whatever the speed limit was while they were trying to go faster. I don't think he stated that he suddenly cut across two lanes. It doesn't matter if you plan ahead when to get into that lane, if you are going 65 in the fast lane at any point you are going to be a road hazard

Maybe it's an east coast thing, about the majority of people going 10 - 15 mph over the speed limit on highways, but I know what fjones is talking about. Going slow on a highway is usually more dangerous than speeding within reason
 
harley89 said:
It is hard to be civil to someone who constantly get in a rage because you share a different opinion.
Click to expand...

I find your posts especially frustrating because I need to repeat everything I say three times, and you don't really adhere to any rules of logical reasoning when you make your points.

Even here you are showing a basic misunderstanding of what I am usually annoyed about.

I don't care if someone has a different opinion, as long as he or she can defend it well and remain within the confines of logical reasoning.

Unfortunately, most people cannot do this, because they are either

A) not smart enough, or
B) They don't care to bother educating themselves about proper argument technique or the rules of logic.

Trying to argue or debate people who don't understand rules of logic is like trying to argue with someone who thinks 2 + 2 = 5. There is just no good way to do it, because the person's points are fundamentally flawed.
 
AmorRoark said:
^ Exactly. You're going to eventually get over two lanes, but it seems silly to expect to do so in a very small span of time.

I agree about the attitude as well, across the board, really, chill out. People tell you this all the time, they're not just being jerks. They're trying to make it civil. :)
Click to expand...

Give me a break. I explained THREE TIMES that the exit is on the left, the slow lane is on the right, and I had to get over. Why is that difficult to comprehend?

I wouldn't say, "I'll draw a fucking road map" if people could understand simple English the first time around.

harley STILL doesn't seem to get it. I don't know how to lay it out any clearer.
 
alasdairm said:
the suggestion that i, among others, made was that you make the maneuver more gradually over a much greater distance.
Click to expand...

Ummm..... When should I have done this -- As I said, Sixty one cars sped past me in an 8 mile stretch. There was no point when it was safe to do this.

Please see Cheah's post for further elaboration, as he said exactly what I would like to, so I will save myself the effort.
 
harley89 said:
You don't get to where you want faster by going 80 instead of 70, the amount of time lost would be minimal in your arrival. Maybe take a couple of minutes off, but a couple of minutes is not an argument for speeding. It would take me 30 minutes to get to college, and on the way home i would speed (due to less traffic) and it would take me 35 minutes. So 5 minutes more, i seriously think that is not a major issue in your time frame.

Maybe Mr C. Balls does drive slowly and still get were he wants in time. 35 mph is not a safe speed to drive on a motorway, 55 mph is alot better, because you are keeping with the traffic and will not need as much time to cross lanes, causing people to put their brakes on. The minute you see someone touch they break on the highway, everyone behinds tends to do the same thing, if some is travveling fast and just comes up at the brakes lights it may be too late.
Click to expand...


This is just comical. I am going to quote for humor here --

"You don't get to where you want faster by going 80 instead of 70....."

The sad thing is, I think you are being serious.

Now, on to the rest of your post ---

Do you REALLY not realize what you just did? The Scenario you gave where you explained why Captain Balls should not go 35, is EXACTLY WHAT I SAID ABOUT WHY I SHOULD NOT BE GOING THE SPEED LIMIT! It is almost WORD FOR WORD!

How can you write all that, yet not understand my point? I mean, come on! The argument I made for why I should be speeding (that you apparently reject) is the EXACT same argument you gave for why Captain balls should not be driving 35 MPH.
 
Nobody here is driving 35 mph on the highway, that's the best way to get in an accident in the world. My car feels about right at 80 mph but I drive at 60-70 just because 99% of everyone else does, and I plan ahead and leave on time. I straight up call my friends retarded when they say things like "oh, downtown is 5 minutes away." Dude, you can't go anywhere in a major city in less than half an hour, no matter how much you punch the turbo and switch lanes. You will get into an accident. I haven't, though, and my insurance is unbelievably cheap.
 
Captain balls, I must say, I am intrigued by the system you described (where tickets are relative to income). It's creative, I'll definitely say that for it, and probably an improvement over the system in place in the U.S.

And yes, I agree with you, no one drives 35 MPH in a 55 MPH zone, for all the reasons we have mentioned.

The point I was making is that if everyone is going 75 to 80, as is the case where I am from, it isn't safe to go the speed limit, for those very same reasons.
 
So, what you're saying Fjones is that speeding is dangerous and the government should pass a law that will make electronic speed limiters mandatory on all cars (and set at 59mph)
 
Zzyzx said:
So, what you're saying Fjones is that speeding is dangerous and the government should pass a law that will make electronic speed limiters mandatory on all cars (and set at 59mph)
Click to expand...

How in the world did you come to that bizarre interpretation of my statements?

I think the government should stay the fuck out of things. As it is they fuck up everything they do.

I think I have been rather clear in my points -- That Speeding in NOT inherently dangerous, since "speeding" is merely a term that is based on an arbitrarily set speed to begin with.

Rather, safe driving depends on many factors and circumstances, and that sometimes 55 MPH is too fast, and sometimes 80 MPH is safe.

I have been very clear on this.

But by setting the speed limits arbitrarily low, the cops then have the authority to arbitrarily decide when and against whom to enforce the rules, even if a person is not doing anything unsafe.

Just because a white sign says "Speed limit 55 MPH" does not make any higher speed inherently unsafe.

I am somewhat astonished that on a website where the general attitude is that the government shouldn't be telling people what to do, so many people are willing to accept whatever the government says about driving and speeding as the absolute truth.

Most people on here think we should be allowed to smoke weed, and that the government is full of this when it goes on about how dangerous it is -- But wait, the moment the government puts up a white sign saying "55 MPH," people suddenly believe exactly what the government says?
 
^ here we go again. complain that you are misconstrued and misunderstood then crudely paraphrase 17 pages of discussion in a deliberately oversimplified and patronising soundbite.

the martyr act just gets tiresome, you know?

alasdair
 
sorry, I wont do it again
censored.gif
 
fjones said:
i am somewhat astonished that on a website where the general attitude is that the government shouldn't be telling people what to do, so many people are willing to accept whatever the government says about driving and speeding as the absolute truth.
Click to expand...

+1.
 
alasdairm said:
^ here we go again. complain that you are misconstrued and misunderstood then crudely paraphrase 17 pages of discussion in a deliberately oversimplified and patronising soundbite.

the martyr act just gets tiresome, you know?

alasdair
Click to expand...

You are tiresome. I simply restated my point, since apparently it was unclear. Don't you have something else to do than critize me in the speeding thread? Get another hobby.

<edit>

Those of you who disagree with me have made yourself clear -- your argument can be basically broken down as follows --

"Speeding is always wrong and dangerous and should never be done. We are going to say this without bothering to resopnd to any of the particulars of the case, and then we are going to attack your credibility as a driver or as a person, since we are unable to properly refute some of the actual points you make in defending your main points."

Well played all.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top