The W
Views: 100752832
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
23.11.14 0253
The W - Current Events & Politics - Bout time
This thread has 11 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1(2181 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (19 total)
brick
Bockwurst








Since: 17.1.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 570 days
Last activity: 566 days
#1 Posted on
Hope CT takes a look at this and thinks its a good Idea, I mean how hard is it to pass and pull back in, around here you can't drive a mile down the highway without getting stuck behind a minivan/suv(to my mind they are the same thing) clogging up the passing lane.:

Springfield, IL March 27 -- Slowpokes in the left lane might have to pay for holding up traffic, under a bill passed in the Illinois House yesterday.

The bill would let motorists use the left lane only for passing. They would not be allowed to stay in the lane and block faster drivers.

Former police chief John Millner is sponsoring the bill. The Carol Stream Republican says people who violate the law would be ticketed.

Supporters say people who hog the left lane are annoying and deserve to be fined. The measure passed 99-to-13. It will now go to the Senate.




if "Washington is a Hollywood for ugly people," then, considering the remarks coming out of Tinseltown about Iraq, "Hollywood is a Washington for the simpleminded."
John McCain
Promote this thread!
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3064 days
Last activity: 278 days
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
As long as people who go more than five miles over the speed limit in the left lane are aggressively ticketed, this is reasonable.

If not, it's simply silly. If someone's going 65 in a 65-zone and they're in the left lane, why should the LEGAL driver have to get out of the way of someone who ILLEGALLY wants to blast by at 75 or 80? Making a law that makes it easier for people to BREAK the law doesn't make much sense.

(If it's an emergency vehicle, a cop, or a private citizen having an emergency, that's another matter. The first two are obvious reasons to yield, and if someone's blasting the horn and blinking his lights in a normal car I'll get out of the way -- but that should be a rarity, and the person had better turn off at the exit for the nearest hospital. The speed limit sign lists the _limit_, not the _minimum_.)



"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt
Jobberman
Kishke








Since: 2.1.02
From: West Palm Beach, FL

Since last post: 112 days
Last activity: 74 days
#3 Posted on
I hate assholes who ride in the left hand lane and won't move to let others pass. All they have to do is move over for 1 second to let those that want to go faster, and take a chance at a ticket, go by.

There is no reason for them to be sitting in that lane if they are going the same speed as the people in the slow lane. All it does is clog up traffic.

I might be a little biased as I drive 50 miles each way to work and have to deal with it everday.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1346 days
Last activity: 112 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#4 Posted on
I rarely do that, to be honest. I drive like 75 to and fro work on the freeway- and in my humble opinion 10 miles over the limit is more than enough. It is a major inconvienience to find a spot to the side everytime someone wants to go 90. Why should I slow down and fit into the second lane just so someone can drive like a maniac?

Besides, more often than not, the people that ARE going faster than me are the type that will pull up as close as they can to you and tailgate until you move. This just pisses me off, and I just slow down.

(edited by Pool-Boy on 28.3.03 0806)




Still on the Shelf #1
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1300 days
Last activity: 1097 days
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
For the record, I drive 48 miles to and fro DC everyday. People really need to get out of the way, mainly for the fact that the MD State Troopers allow it to be a free for all.

Here's the kicker: I drive Route 50 in and out everyday. Gov. Glendneing in his "infinite wisdom" installed a 24-hour HOV-2 lane for the most congested eight miles of the road; a lane that NOBODY uses because everybody is driving to the suburbs where there are few people going your way anyway. So we have a lane of traffic tat's virtually open while 50 backs up for 5 miles.

Sorry, needed to get that out.



There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.
- Theodore Roosevelt, Ocotber 12, 1915
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3064 days
Last activity: 278 days
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00

    Originally posted by Grimis
    For the record, I drive 48 miles to and fro DC everyday. People really need to get out of the way, mainly for the fact that the MD State Troopers allow it to be a free for all.


So is the real problem:

1) the people driving at a legal speed in the passing lanes,

2) the people who want to drive at ILLEGAL speeds in the passing lanes, or

3) the failure of the MD state troopers to enforce the existing traffic laws?

Don't get me wrong -- if someone's going 45-in-a-55 in the left lane, they shouldn't be there. Three grandmas going 35 side-by-side could reduce major highways to major jams and chaos in short order. However, what about people who _are_ going the maximum allowable speed for that road?

The arguments for laws like this seem to boil down to "If people want to speed, others should get out of their way and let them speed." Why? As written and enforced, aren't these laws essentially nothing more than an encouragement to break OTHER laws?




"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt
HrdCoreJoe
Potato korv








Since: 29.4.02
From: Jax, FL

Since last post: 1089 days
Last activity: 1088 days
AIM:  
#7 Posted on
I couldn't agree more with VSP.



Andy Richter does indeed control the universe.
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1300 days
Last activity: 1097 days
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by vsp
    So is the real problem:

    1) the people driving at a legal speed in the passing lanes,

    2) the people who want to drive at ILLEGAL speeds in the passing lanes, or

    3) the failure of the MD state troopers to enforce the existing traffic laws?


The problem in my scenario is the non-optimal use of the HOV lane. Regardless, the problem as far as traffic goes is the people driving the legal speed in the passing lane because, frankly, nobody does the legal speed. This includes cops, of which the ones I've talked to say they really don't get picky about speed laws until you're 15 over the limit. This I believe because I've never gotten a ticket for anything less than 20 over.



There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.
- Theodore Roosevelt, Ocotber 12, 1915
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3064 days
Last activity: 278 days
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00

    Originally posted by Grimis
    Regardless, the problem as far as traffic goes is the people driving the legal speed in the passing lane because, frankly, nobody does the legal speed. This includes cops, of which the ones I've talked to say they really don't get picky about speed laws until you're 15 over the limit. This I believe because I've never gotten a ticket for anything less than 20 over.


Okay, let's try this again. Is the real problem:

1) the people who drive as close to the legal speed as possible in the fast lane (hoping that yahoos going 90 won't plow into them),

2) the people who drive more than 20 miles over the speed limit, and/or

3) the cops who refuse to enforce the existing laws as they are written?


Hint: As an aid, I've taken the liberty of bolding the correct answers so they'll be easier to read.





"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt
Jobberman
Kishke








Since: 2.1.02
From: West Palm Beach, FL

Since last post: 112 days
Last activity: 74 days
#10 Posted on
I don't know how it is in other places, but here in Florida, there are signs all along the freeways that state "Slower Traffic Keep Right". The signs don't say "Slower Traffic Keep Right(Unless You Are Already Going the Speed Limit)"

If you are doing sixty, and I am coming up behind you at 80, you are "slower traffic" so "keep right".
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1300 days
Last activity: 1097 days
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by vsp
    Okay, let's try this again. Is the real problem:

    1) the people who drive as close to the legal speed as possible in the fast lane (hoping that yahoos going 90 won't plow into them),

    2) the people who drive more than 20 miles over the speed limit, and/or

    3) the cops who refuse to enforce the existing laws as they are written?[


Actually the problem is # 1 because regardless of your views on people doing 90, people driving the speed limit in the fast lane are, in fact, putting themselves and those around them in danger.




    Originally posted by vsp
    Hint: As an aid, I've taken the liberty of bolding the correct answers so they'll be easier to read.

Leave it to a lib to try to think for me...



There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.
- Theodore Roosevelt, Ocotber 12, 1915
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3064 days
Last activity: 278 days
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
    Originally posted by Jobberman
    I don't know how it is in other places, but here in Florida, there are signs all along the freeways that state "Slower Traffic Keep Right". The signs don't say "Slower Traffic Keep Right(Unless You Are Already Going the Speed Limit)"

    If you are doing sixty, and I am coming up behind you at 80, you are "slower traffic" so "keep right".



There are also signs all along the freeways that say "Speed Limit 65" or "Speed Limit 55", depending on the laws in Florida. The signs don't say "Speed Limit 55 (Unless You Feel Like Going 80)." The only reason that you're coming up behind someone who's doing 60 is that YOU'RE NOT OBEYING THE LAW. So spare me the self-righteousness, okay?

There is no reason why someone who's driving at or slightly above the speed limit SHOULD BE "slower traffic."

Now...


    Originally posted by Grimis
    Actually the problem is # 1 because regardless of your views on people doing 90, people driving the speed limit in the fast lane are, in fact, putting themselves and those around them in danger.


Okay, last time.

The people driving the speed limit ARE NOT PUTTING ANYONE IN DANGER. They are driving at the speed that has been determined to be the fastest speed that safe driving conditions will allow for. Whether you disagree with that determination doesn't matter; it's the law. (pause for a quick chant of "RULE OF LAW! RULE OF LAW!" here)

The people who are driving TOO FAST and ILLEGALLY on that road are putting people in danger.

If the people who are driving too fast are removed from the equation (either voluntarily or through enforcement of existing laws), guess what? THE PROBLEM VANISHES. No one's weaving in and out of traffic. No one's passing people on the right in a fit of pique. No one's driving in an unsafe manner. No one's having an aneurysm in the fast lane because the driver in front of him doesn't think he's on the freaking Autobahn. And anyone who DOES stands out like a sore thumb and should be easy pickings for the cops.



    Leave it to a lib to try to think for me...


When you start thinking, I'll stop helping.

(edited by vsp on 28.3.03 1229)


"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1300 days
Last activity: 1097 days
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
    Originally posted by vsp
    When you start thinking, I'll stop helping.

Does liberal self-righteousness and feeling of divine right know any bounds?

(edited by Grimis on 28.3.03 1606)


There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.
- Theodore Roosevelt, Ocotber 12, 1915
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 18 min.
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#14 Posted on
ahem.



©CRZ™
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3064 days
Last activity: 278 days
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00

    Originally posted by CRZ
    ahem.


I believe we've just hit a bound.

(and, yes, I'm done now)



"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt
Bizzle Izzle
Bockwurst








Since: 26.6.02
From: New Jersey, USA

Since last post: 113 days
Last activity: 113 days
#16 Posted on

    Originally posted by vsp in another thread
    Nine states currently have laws for both. (Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, the Carolinas, Virginia, Idaho and Utah, quoting from the article.)

    Let me restate this: EIGHTEEN PERCENT of America's states, here in the "land of the free," feel the need to prohibit a consensual, married person from performing certain pleasure-inducing, non-harmful, non-health-endangering acts for or upon their consensual spouse, in the privacy of their bedroom with the shades drawn, the lights out, the doors locked and the webcam turned off. (Another eight percent say that some people can perform these acts together, but others can't, even if both parties in both cases are perfectly willing and the same level of privacy applies.)

    It's the year 2003, and people are STILL petrified that somewhere, somehow, someone's getting his or her rocks off.



    Originally posted by vsp in this thread
    Whether you disagree with that determination doesn't matter; it's the law. (pause for a quick chant of "RULE OF LAW! RULE OF LAW!" here)



I'm confused, I guess I need someone from the left to tell me which laws to obey, and which laws are outdated and wrong and that I shouldn't obey.



'But if one is struck by me only a little, that is far different, the stroke is a sharp thing and suddenly lays him lifeless, and that man's wife goes with cheeks torn in lamentation, and his children are fatherless, while he, staining the soil with his red blood, rots away, and there are more birds than women swarming about him.' Diomedes, The Iliad of Homer

Maiden RULES!!!
ManiacalClown
Landjager








Since: 2.1.02
From: Houston, TX

Since last post: 576 days
Last activity: 576 days
AIM:  
#17 Posted on | Instant Rating: 10.00
Fun Fact: Arkansas has a similar law, and it is not enforced.



Pearl Jam - Live in Little Rock: 75 Days & Counting

In This Very Ring - We Also [heart] Puff Mario
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3064 days
Last activity: 278 days
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00

    Originally posted by Bizzle Izzle

    I'm confused, I guess I need someone from the left to tell me which laws to obey, and which laws are outdated and wrong and that I shouldn't obey.



I'll address this briefly, and then I'm done, before the bans start flying:

One law is about public safety, on public roads, and violators of the law put innocents (and themselves) at risk.

One law is about private morals, on private property, and violators of the law cause no physical or economic harm to anyone.

You can have sex with men, women, sheep or Socker Boppers in your place of residence and I'll never complain, but if you drive recklessly near me and put my life and my passengers' lives at risk, I do have a valid stake in the issue.

The sodomy thread is down the hall and to the left, and comments about it should probably go there instead.




"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt
drjayphd
Scrapple
Moderator








Since: 22.4.02
From: Long Island

Since last post: 17 days
Last activity: 10 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#19 Posted on
AAAAANYway... back to the topic at hand:

If they passed a law like that here, at least where I drive, it wouldn't make much of a difference. When I'm on the road, there aren't that many people clogging the left lane. I'd probably be the one getting nailed under that law, though. -_-



Today's Out-Of-Context Quote, Courtesy of Bullitt:

"NOTHING'S funnier than midget porn."
Pages: 1Thread ahead: Going after some bad terrorists
Next thread: Students Ordered To Take Down American Flag
Previous thread: A timely quote from Dr. Martin Luther...
(2181 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Wikipedia says that the Supreme Court decided Bush v. Gore on 12 December 2000. Figure that I started right around then. Then again, I'm both an unapologetic social liberal and a terrible cynic about nearly all manners political.
The W - Current Events & Politics - Bout timeRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.143 seconds.