Democrats versus Republicans

[craigimass]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

Who the hell said anything about doing away with insurance companies ..... besides you?

Humor - sarcasm - cynicism

Are these things which you understand?

Or is a joke just a muffled attack on Palins daughter that we want to have sex with?

He He He.....

For goodness sake, PB, I thought we were doing a Crossfire, Point Counterpoint type thing...you know:
Hulu - Saturday Night Live: Point Counterpoint: Lee Marvin & Michelle Triola

"Jane, you ignorant slut"

"Point/Counterpoint, a program feature from 1971 to 1979, illustrated that two opposing positions can remain unreconciled, and served, in three-minute debates between left- and right-wing critics, to agitate viewer emotions with ideological battles"

Please don't tell me you take left-right discourse in an off-topic internet BB as something serious!

[sailaway21]

erps is on to something that no one wants to really talk about. The 55 mph speed limit made for less safe drivers not only on the interstate but on the back roads as well.

There were far more women doing their make-up in the rearview mirror at 55 than there are at 70 mph as well as other unsafe actions. Even if you choose to drive at 55 mph, which is fine by me, you have to be more laert to the fact that you might be passed by someone doing 70 mph. By the way, the safest speed on the interstate is 2 mph faster than the flow of traffic. You could look it up.

The 55 mph limit engendered in a whole generation of drivers the idea that 55 mph was the limit. In most states the rural roads have a limit of 50 mph but drivers whom came of age during the double nickel assumed it was 55 over time. Not only did they assume that, they assumed that rural speed limits were just as phony a safety issue on rural roads as they were on the interstate. A lot of kids got in over their heads by making that assumption while running the back roads.

Traffic lights, versus stop signs, actually increase the number of accidents at an intersection. The only reason they are used is to facilitate traffic flow efficiencies. You could look it up or just talk with a traffic engineer, whom generally favor higher speed limits than might be supposed. When you approach a stop sign you have an element of doubt in your mind about the cross traffic. When you approach a green lighted traffic signal, you assume the cross traffic is stopped or will stop. Assumptions are what get you killed.

There is no national speed limit. Speed limits are set by the states and local communities, subject to coercion by the federal government with their highway tax dollars. But the federal government is not empowered to set any speed limits, save perhaps the District of Columbia.

No one is advocating the abolition or extinction of insurance companies but they are in business for one purpose, and it isn't to either fix my car, fix my body, or help me to be a safer driver. They exist to make money. Period. As such, since the money they desire to make currently resides in my pocket, I regard our relationship as somewhat adversarial. I am under no illusions that they have my best interests at heart. They would advocate having us drive at ten miles an hour if it made them more profit.

And speed, at least on the interstates, is not the problem. The entire history of interstate travel is one of steadily increasing speeds, increased miles driven, with a declining fatality rate per miles driven.

And I will side against the insurance companies every time, they're one of the few entities that rank lower in my estimation than attorneys, because while they do not deserve frivolous lawsuits their practices ensure that lawsuits will not go away. It is hardly uncommon in a serious accident that you have to take your own insurance company to court to pay off on the policy they issued you. In fact, if you've a comprehensive coverage claim over your radio being stolen and it's an aftermarket radio that you put in, you'd better have had photos of that radio installed in the car in the hands of your insurance company before hand or they're not going to cover it.

And, for the record, there is absolutely no reason that an SUV on good tires cannot be driven safely at eighty miles per hour. We've driven trucks at that speed since the roads were built on far inferior bias ply tires and done so safely.

Traffic engineers and rational people know that driving is inherently unsafe. Their standard is not whether a life is lost, it is how many lives are lost for a given amount of travel. If you travel down the sophomoric road of just one life being saved is a justification, then you're required by extension to outlaw jogging because everyone knows that jogging causes heart attacks. And that's where insurance companies and traffic engineers meet; they're both in the cost-benefit analysis business.

Drive whatever speed you like, just keep it in the right hand lane!

[PBzeer]

To do a Point/Counterpoint, you have to have some counterpoint to offer. As the above post shows, actual points are of little interest to you. You're without humor, lacking the subtlety for sarcasm and your cynicism falls short of the mark. I can easily imagine though, that you find Letterman hilarious.

[bubb2]

Originally Posted by craigimass

Actually, by forming a collective, those Amish have gone communist on us.
Stamp 'em out before it spreads, right?

Collective, which is the same idea behind every mutual Insurance Co. I don't think of State Farm as being Communist.

[sailaway21]

Ralph Nader is a horse's ass who has done less than nothing to make cars safer. The Corvair was a fine car and safe.

You want to know how absolutely stupid Ralph Nader is? He was asked back in the 1980's what he would define as a safe car. His response was that it would be capable of being driven into a brick wall at sixty miles per hour without serious human injury. Any high school physics student can do the math on that one. At somewhere around 50g's the human brain's own weight begins to crush itself. A head-on collision at sixty miles per hour will generate in excess of 100 g's deceleration. You cannot practically make a car hood long enough for the occupant to survive a head-on collision at sixty miles per hour with a brick wall.

The dope smoking study cited by our dope-influenced correspondent from Massachusetts is nonsense as well. Car & Driver magazine did a controlled study years ago comparing the effects of driving while under the influence of alcohol and driving under the influence of marijuana. In both cases driving performance was significantly degraded. The most startling discovery was that, while the drivers under the influence of alcohol were chagrined at their performance and lack of control over the vehicle, the same drivers under the influence of dope cared little about what they hit.

Like shootin' ducks on the pond... (g)

[sailaway21]

another duck to shoot...

It wouldn't be communist absent state coercion.

[craigimass]

In England, my man....

"reaction times to motorway hazards were not significantly affected.
The most obvious effect of the cannabis was that the volunteers drove more slowly, trying to compensate for intoxication by being more cautious.
Trials previously completed under similar test conditions at the TRL have shown that alcohol and tiredness have a more adverse effect on driving ability. "

When they gave them very high doses of THC, they did fail to negotiate some figure 8 courses....

But I think we are saying the same thing.
These studies don't mean much. A loud radio, a cell phone,ipod, a yelling kid, too little sleep, etc. can all be the least safe way of driving.

As the studies conclude "Alcohol and tiredness" are more dangerous in terms of driving than light to moderate dope smoking.

I'm certainly not telling folks to drink or smoke and drive! Just like I am not telling them to remove their helmets, seat belts and airbags to become safer.

Although according to SWAY, buying an old Corvair might be the safest thing you can do...other than drive in it while drinking.

[craigimass]

Originally Posted by sailaway21

You want to know how absolutely stupid Ralph Nader is? He was asked back in the 1980's what he would define as a safe car. His response was that it would be capable of being driven into a brick wall at sixty miles per hour without serious human injury.

Actually, that seems pretty smart.

If you were asked "define the perfect sex".....oh, forget I asked....

Or, we said "what is the perfect state of the world?"


It doesn't matter whether you appreciate the millions of lives and limbs that Nader has saved our families. It doesn't matter at all. He will go into history and you won't, as it should be.

[craigimass]

Originally Posted by bubb2

Collective, which is the same idea behind every mutual Insurance Co. I don't think of State Farm as being Communist.

Exactly!
Which shows how much BS all the drivel from some righties is!

They tell us "I don't want to pay for my neighbors health care", while at the same time they join cooperatives (mutual companies) that do just that!

They only seem to have a problem when it is pointed out to them, because it defeats their entire foundation.....that each of us is an island.

States like Ky, Pa, VA, Ma, etc. - are Commonwealths. Hmmm....what does that mean?
" a state governed for the common good as opposed to an authoritarian state governed for the benefit of a given class of owners"

yep, another collective but this time it is state coercion.

[Freesail99]

And, for the record, there is absolutely no reason that an SUV on good tires cannot be driven safely at eighty miles per hour. We've driven trucks at that speed since the roads were built on far inferior bias ply tires and done so safely.

Ahhh, you have never driven a jeep wrangler at 45 mph in a posted 40 mph turn. Talk about changing your shorts.