15.
 
Re: No subject
Dec 27, 2003, 18:15
15.
Re: No subject Dec 27, 2003, 18:15
Dec 27, 2003, 18:15
 
Actually, #8, Traffic regulations are designed to provide the maximum amount of saftey while moving from Point A to Point B. The fun part is that "flow" takes a backseat to "safety". That's why the speed limit is 35 instead of 60 in rural areas, and 65 instead of 100 on highways. Because, flow or not, you tend to encounter less depcapitation, death, and impalement when you go 35 miles per hour than 60. It's also easier to control your vehicle in adverse conditions at those speeds.

Your flow theory is nice, and I hear it a lot, but if everyone is going the same speed (ie: the speed limit), you don't need to worry about obstructions anyway. So your fast lane versus 40 mph idea doesn't really hold up. I know, I know, you really need to go to Place XXXXX, but just hear me out.

Again, I'll repeat to you. Ask a traffic cop if traffic laws are designed to maximize flow, or to maximize the safety of the people traveling on the roads, either on foot or car, and *after he stops laughing at your first explanation*, he'll gladly explain to you what happens when someone driving at 90 miles an hour plows into another car. Or, you can read about what happened in another poster's post on this thread.

Nice strawman with the color/race topic -- you get bonus points for that. Of course, I could point out that those laws were changed not because laws were being broken (ever heard of the civil war? Hint: That didn't happen because Southern farmers decided to give black their rights out of the blue), but because people petitioned their government to change those laws. They didn't break them. All that does is get your ass thrown in jail. Rosa Parks makes a good poster child for civil rights, but Congress gave blacks their rights, not her.

You need to try a bit harder to justify your speeding theory. I suggest you talk to someone who actually knows about the laws you're mentioning before bringing them up again, lest you make a fool out of yourself with your "flow theory".

Date
Subject
Author
1.
Dec 27, 2003Dec 27 2003
2.
Dec 27, 2003Dec 27 2003
4.
Dec 27, 2003Dec 27 2003
5.
Dec 27, 2003Dec 27 2003
9.
Dec 27, 2003Dec 27 2003
11.
Dec 27, 2003Dec 27 2003
3.
Dec 27, 2003Dec 27 2003
6.
Dec 27, 2003Dec 27 2003
7.
Dec 27, 2003Dec 27 2003
13.
Dec 27, 2003Dec 27 2003
14.
Dec 27, 2003Dec 27 2003
16.
Dec 27, 2003Dec 27 2003
17.
Dec 27, 2003Dec 27 2003
18.
Dec 27, 2003Dec 27 2003
     Re: No subject
10.
Dec 27, 2003Dec 27 2003
8.
Dec 27, 2003Dec 27 2003
 15.
Dec 27, 2003Dec 27 2003
 Re: No subject
12.
Dec 27, 2003Dec 27 2003
19.
Dec 27, 2003Dec 27 2003
20.
Dec 27, 2003Dec 27 2003
21.
Dec 28, 2003Dec 28 2003
23.
Dec 28, 2003Dec 28 2003
25.
Dec 28, 2003Dec 28 2003
26.
Dec 28, 2003Dec 28 2003
     Re: No thanks
27.
Dec 28, 2003Dec 28 2003
      Re: No thanks
29.
Dec 28, 2003Dec 28 2003
       *shrug*
30.
Dec 28, 2003Dec 28 2003
        Re: *shrug*
31.
Dec 28, 2003Dec 28 2003
         Re: *shrug*
32.
Dec 28, 2003Dec 28 2003
          Re: *shrug*
33.
Dec 28, 2003Dec 28 2003
         Re: *shrug*
28.
Dec 28, 2003Dec 28 2003
     Re: No thanks
24.
Dec 28, 2003Dec 28 2003
22.
Dec 28, 2003Dec 28 2003