Paying Bills &
Driving
Hmmm... as an experiment,
let's take a little write-up here (don't be tempted to skip ahead; read this
page in the order it's written):
There are three
different types of people on this planet: those who pay their bills ahead of
time, those who pay their bills on the due date, and those who regularly pay
their bills late. However, people are legally obligated and should at least pay
their bills on the due date; therefore, a penalty should be applied as a
deterrent so people don't pay past the due date.
However, if
this rule is not always enforced, people may be tempted to pay their bills
late, as they get the added benefit (however small) of having the money in
their pocket for a longer time. The problem here is that a great injustice is
being done for all the people who make the small personal sacrifice to stay
within the bounds of the law. It could even be called downright unfair. Understandably,
some of the law-abiding citizens would get annoyed at people who pay their
bills late and get away with it on a regular basis.
When the people
who pay their bills on the due date try to convince those who pay their bills
late to stop their careless practice, the people who pay their bills late get
angry or start acting defensive towards the people who stay within the bounds
of the law. They would say that they know more than everybody, and everybody
else a sucker for obeying the law. They also claim that it's unconstitutional
for others to tell them how to run their lives.
Wouldn't you
hate all the people who willfully choose to pay their bills late (that is, they
have the cash to pay but choose not to) and get away with it without being
penalized? Well... hmmm... okay now, let's make the following changes:
pay their bills
ahead of time = drive below the speed limit
pay their bills on the due date = drive at the speed limit
pay their bills late = speed
having the money in their pocket for a longer time = saving a few minutes on
their trips
try to convince = block the passing lane for
acting defensive towards = dangerously tailgating
know more = are better drivers
Now read it
again:
There are three
different types of people on this planet: those who drive below the speed
limit, those who drive at the speed limit, and those who regularly speed.
However, people are legally obligated and should at least drive at the speed
limit; therefore, a penalty should be applied as a deterrent so people
don't speed.
However, if
this rule is not always enforced, people may be tempted to speed, as
they get the added benefit (however small) of saving a few minutes on their
trips. The problem here is that a great injustice is being done for all the
people who make the small personal sacrifice to stay within the bounds of the
law. It could even be called downright unfair. Understandably, some of the
law-abiding citizens would get annoyed at people who speed and get away
with it on a regular basis, without penalty.
When the people
who drive at the speed limit block the passing lane for those who
speed to stop their careless practice, the people who speed get
angry or start dangerously tailgating the people who stay within
the bounds of the law. They would say that they are better drivers than
everybody, and everybody else is a sucker for obeying the law. They also claim
that it's unconstitutional for others to tell them how to run their lives.
Well, ain't
it funny how most people agree that it's wrong to pay a bill late, but
these same people say that speeding is okay? At least people's lives aren't at
stake when paying a bill a week past due!
And ain't it
also funny how speeders tailgate when other people are going too slow for
them? All the while, the tailgater grumbles about how the person in front is a
bad driver because he isn't looking in his rear view mirror and doesn't pull
over to the right. What the tailgater fails to realize that what he is doing is
more dangerous! (Oh yeah, I forgot, tailgaters can always stop on a dime... not!)
I'm not implying that I typically block the passing lane on the freeway, but
I'd say it's better to be accidentally breaking the law by blocking traffic
instead of intentionally breaking the law by tailgating. And I'm not saying
that speeding leads to all accidents either; it's a combination of sloppy
driving which causes accidents and speed which increases the likelihood of them
being fatal.
But people
complain about the speed limits being too slow. I'd have absolutely no problem
about really jacking up speed limits if there was no chance of stuff like this
to worry about on the freeway:
Drivers who don't secure their cargo on their vehicles.
The resulting
people who have to brake or swerve to avoid flying sofas, sheets of plywood,
and other unlikely projectiles that catch wind at freeway speeds.
Freeway on- and
off-ramps that are too short.
Slow moving motor homes getting on the freeway.
The inevitable impatient
and cocky drivers who weave their way past those motor homes.
And so on...
Hmmm. It sounds
like a nation of individuals who can't demonstrate any sort of responsibility,
courtesy, or patience, so why should they be granted the reward of higher speed
limits? Germany's autobahn has no speed limits because Germany has a reputation
for having typically courteous and observant drivers. And if people are injured
there, there isn't the endless stream of lawsuits let on by lawyers with an
insatiable appetite for money.
Case in point,
here is a quote taken from a web site I once visited:
"Did you
hear that Montana got rid of its oppressive Big Brother mandated daytime speed
limit? Anarchy on the highway can be a good thing, especially if you are the
biggest or fastest. Bummer for everyone else."
What a great
example of self-centeredness! Oh, I guess that means if you're run off the road
and killed by some slackjaw driving a Bronco with 38-inch mud tires at 170 km/h
(105 mph), that "can be a good thing". Well, gee... shouldn't this
method of natural selection be used to weed out the people who drive sensible
cars in a sensible manner from the human gene pool, while reckless yahoos who accomplish
nothing to benefit humanity during their meaningless lives get to pass
their defective chromosomes on to their children? In case you didn't notice, I
was being sarcastic in that last sentence.
Note that since
the above quote was written, Montana reinstated a daytime speed limit because
of all the people from out of state who thought that it's great fun to blow
past traffic down the highway going 260 km/h (160 mph). The phrase
"reasonable and prudent speed" doesn't hold up well in court when
people shatter their spine or lose a limb, either.
Here's another great web site example of an ignorant boob behind the
wheel, bragging about a "how I got away from the cops" story:
"I had
just finished running a time-speed rally with the local school car club and in
order to win the rally you have to drive at or under the speed limit most of
the time unless you get lost then you have to haul to make up time. Anyway, I
had my friend in the passenger seat and we had just crossed the last
check-point so the rally was over. A friend in a '94 Vette takes off in front
of me, so I figured if there's a cop up the road, the cop will nab him, so I
decide to have a little fun. I run up to 115mph on a 65mph highway and just as
I crest a hill my Valentine One goes ballistic. I got him [hit?] with instant on radar from a cop coming
the other way on a divided highway. I freak out and realize if I go for it,
he'll have to slow down, [U-] turn on the crossover [road] and
then accelerate back up to speed going my direction, so I figure I'll have a
good lead on him. I decide to go for it and floor the accelerator. At one point
downhill, my speedo indicated 145mph. I realize that even if the cop can't
catch me, he may radio ahead, so I decide to [U-] turn on the next
crossover road. I see one about 150 yards up ahead and I start braking and
downshifting. Well, when you're decelerating from 140mph you don't slow down as
fast as you normally would. I start to turn left and the back end washes out
and I plow off the road into some muddy slush. The car dies because it was
still in gear, but I start it back up and literally mud-bog my way out there
with my tires kicking mud all over the car. I continue down the crossover road
and gun it to turn back heading the other way on the highway and I spin out
because of the mud on the tires. I get going the right direction before traffic
runs me over and I just pull off to the side of the road and wait. It was night
time, and the cop blows past heading the other way about a minute later with
his lights flashing. It was rush from hell and I will never do it again, but
it's fun to talk about since it worked out well. BTW, I have a '97 Prelude with
intake, eibach springs, and strut bar."
And
inexperienced high school brats like this are allowed to have radar detectors?
Let's look at the facts: 115 miles per hour (185 km/h) in a 65 (105) zone? While
cresting a hill with the possibility of slow moving traffic on the other side?
Speeds up to 143 miles per hour (230 km/h)? At night? I hate to put on a basic
physics lesson here, but here goes:
Energy (as in
how much it takes to stop an object) is calculated using this formula:
energy
= 1/2 ´ mass ´ velocity2
Not worrying
about units, let's assume a mass (weight) of 3,000 of and a velocity (speed) of
65:
energy
= 1/2 ´ 3,000 ´ 652
energy = 6,337,500
This time, let's
assume a velocity of 140:
energy
= 1/2 ´ 3000 ´ 1402
energy = 29,400,000
Well, it looks
as though it takes about 4.5 times more braking power to stop the car,
when the speed is merely doubled! For those who don't know how math works, that
magic little "2" floating in the air is what makes the difference.
Maybe the moron above should have studied his physics in school a little bit
more before pulling his foolish stunt! What a retard!
Oh yeah, I
forgot: I guess the laws of physics don't apply when you've got "97
Prelude with intake, eibach springs, and strut bar"! Give me a break. And
I suppose buying $150 Nike shoes (of which $75 probably goes to
some professional athlete) provides you with a 4.5-time increase in control
over a pair of $40 Brooks shoes, too?
I don't think
so.
This page hosted by 
Get your own Free Homepage