From: thetibetanmonkey@gmail.com   
      
   On Monday, December 15, 2014 3:49:14 PM UTC-5, Alan Baker wrote:   
   > On 2014-12-15 20:45:58 +0000, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher   
   said:   
   >   
   > > On Monday, December 15, 2014 1:28:42 PM UTC-5, Alan Baker wrote:   
   > >> On 2014-12-15 16:36:17 +0000, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher   
   said:   
   > >>   
   > >>> On Sunday, December 14, 2014 6:57:04 PM UTC-5, Alan Baker wrote:   
   > >>>> On 2014-12-14 23:51:26 +0000, thekmanrocks@gmail.com said:   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>>> Alan Baker wrote: "A lot of things were "fine" until we found a better>   
   > >>>>>> way, you know.   That's a pretty common truth"   
   > >>>>>   
   > >>>>>   
   > >>>>> Even in the cases of progress for the sake of progress itself?  We'll>   
   > >>>>>> just have to respectfully disagree there.   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>> No. I didn't say that.   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>> But the argument, "Things were fine before X" is a pretty weak one at   
   best.   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>>>   
   > >>>>> Two things cars could do without:  DRLS(one less drain on the battery),   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>> Ummm... DRLs don't drain the battery... ...because they are used when>   
   > >>>> the car is running and the alternator produces more than enough power>   
   > >>>> to run them and keep the battery fully charged.   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>>> and power door locks(I don't like anything that automatically locks   
   itself).   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>> I kind of agree with this one. I don't particularly care for doors   
   > >>>> that> automatically lock myself.   
   > >>>   
   > >>> Unlike automatic locks and air bags, we should concentrate on   
   > >>> PREVENTION. How many airbags we have nowadays? They probably save your   
   > >>> life but the crippling injuries and the trauma will stay with you.   
   > >>>   
   > >>> It would be easy for NHTSA to go the same way of Europe and Canada, but   
   > >>> they couldn't care less. Never even heard of a campaign against   
   > >>> distracted driving or something. Oh yes, they do pick on the drunks,   
   > >>> but they are not the only ones threatening our communities. Speeders   
   > >>> are just as dangerous if not more.   
   > >>   
   > >>   
   > >> If you define speeding as "exceeding the posted limit" that's nonsense.   
   > >   
   > > I'm all for "no limits" on certain roads where drivers have a special   
   > > license, the rules are clear and passing on the left is mandatory.   
   > >   
   > > However speeding through communities must be controlled for these simple   
   facts:   
   > >   
   > > Every 2 hours a pedestrian dies in a traffic crash   
   > >   
   > > Rate of survival at 20mph: 90% survive   
   > >   
   > >   "        "        45mph: 35% survive   
   > >   
   > > source: AARP Bulletin Dec 2014   
   >   
   > I'm not saying that there aren't valid reasons for speed limits.   
   >   
   > I'm saying that the idea that speeders--defined simply as those who are   
   > violating a posted limit--are more dangerous than drunk drivers is   
   > nonsense.   
      
   Yes, they could be for a simple reason: They outnumber DUI drivers many times.   
   Again, this is only on roads where pedestrians are present or could be   
   present. Usually this limit is 30mph around here, but often ignored.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)