Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:"85%" (Score 1) 579

I said I drive as fast as I want

This is indeed the bottom line, isn't it? It's a free country, mate -- carry on, and hopefully any bad consequences only happen to you and not the people around you that you put at risk by driving as fast as you want. But man up and own that reckless, selfish choice, and quit it with the vague and unsupported appeals to science.

Go back and read the thread, it's documented there for all to see.

Finally, something on which we can agree. But I'll even go one step further and paste my simple request again, for all to see: "please do be so kind as to point us to the vast body of peer-reviewed literature on [the 85% rule]."

You've provided nothing. Because there is nothing. Just as I suspected from the beginning.

And with that, I'm done putting the rattle back on the highchair.

Comment Re:"85%" (Score 1) 579

Or, your speed kills dogma doesn't explain the millions of people who speed everyday and don't crash.

Just like the "cigarettes kill dogma" doesn't explain the millions of people who smoke every day and don't develop lung cancer, right? You're really grasping at straws here.

This is called a claim.

Actually, it's you and the rest of the "I'll drive as fast as I want" crowd that's claiming there's a magical scientific principle that somehow cancels the laws of physics and makes that safe. If you recall, I asked back at the beginning for you to provide evidence of that claim. Your response was a Wikipedia link to the scientific method. 'Nuff said.

Nothing you have posted backs this up [blah blah it's not my fault shut up blah blah]

If you say so. Meanwhile, I've provided actual research and you've provided nothing but your own blowhard opinion. Feel free to change that if you can. I'll not hold my breath.

Comment Re:"85%" (Score 1) 579

And if that were the case, there would be documented accidents.

Not sure why I'm feeding the troll,* but here goes: There are. Thousands of them. Educate yourself.

* That's the most charitable explanation I can muster for your (1) playing dumb that speeding cars hurting/killing pedestrians are a significant problem, and (2) presenting a generic Wikipedia cite as "peer-reviewed literature." But on the other hand, after reading one of your other comments in this thread -- "I ignore speed signs. I drive as fast as I want and seem to have managed to get by without any major accidents in nearly 30 years of driving/riding." -- the more likely explanation is that you're just a selfish asshole desperately trying to twist science and logic to justify your selfish choices.

Comment Re:"85%" (Score 1) 579

No, but the fact they they aren't crashing does though.

Crashing isn't the point in a residential neighborhood. In that kind of a situation, things change rapidly -- one moment you're gunning down the street seeing nothing in front of you, the next moment a pet or a kid has run out in the street. As many have now pointed out in this discussion, this supposed 85% rule has zero applicability in a residential setting. The faster you're going, the longer it takes you to stop and the more damage you do when you can't stop, and that doesn't change simply because everyone else around you is being just as short-sighted and selfish as you are.

This is why science was invented.

Ah, the "because science -- shut up" meme has reached the reckless driving community. Since you went there, please do be so kind as to point us to the vast body of peer-reviewed literature on the subject. Thanks.

Comment Re:"85%" (Score 1) 579

You never said your house qualified as a residential area.

Irrelevant distraction. Your original comment I responded to wasn't, of course, directed to the speed limit going by my house -- it was directed to the speed limit going by the professor's house, described as: "the neighborhood's 25mph limit" "on his residential neighborhood street." Strike two.

Comment Re:"85%" (Score 1) 579

Good grief. Where to begin?

1. You said your state has a law. What you provided was (sort of -- see #2 below) a booklet by the Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning. Even giving you the benefit of the doubt that you live in Michigan and didn't just paste in the first Google hit you found, this isn't a Michigan law.
2. The text you put in quotation marks before the web link isn't in the linked document. You seem to have stitched the two together. Back to my Google hit theory.
3. Right out of the chute on page 3, the booklet (first written back in the 70s, mind you) discusses the increasingly blurred distinction between rural and urban areas and thus the need to establish "modified speed limits in these transitions between rural and urban areas." This would be your first clue that this booklet might not be about setting speed limits in residential neighborhoods.
4. Removing all doubt, on page 7 the booklet discusses the difference between statutory speed limits (i.e., those actually set by the legislature) and modified speed limits (those set by administrative agencies). It explains that modified speed limits are "utilized in areas requiring speed limits between the statutory maximum speed limits on state and county roadways and the 25 mph prima facie speed limits in business and residential areas." Then at the bottom of the page, it says: "The remainder of this booklet describes how modified speed limits are established..."

So, in sum, even ignoring the fact that the quote and citation you provided don't match, you, in the midst of a discussion about speed limits in residential neighborhoods, provided as support of your contention that residential speed limits should be determined by some kind of a prevailing speed rule, a booklet that says in so many words that it doesn't apply to residential speed limits, which are universally set (by Michigan statute) at 25 mph. Your source actually contradicts your position rather than supporting it.

Comment Re:Hmmm (Score 2) 142

If there's a software function that seems to the EPA to be cheating on emissions tests, well, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Or, perhaps, now that the EPA is carrying around a hammer, everything looks like a nail? Perhaps coupled with the embarrassment of having been hoodwinked by VW for several years, leading to overcompensation/overreaction/presumptive labeling of anything they observe that they don't immediately understand? That seems pretty par for the course for a governmental bureaucracy.

Comment Re:Already shutdown (Score 1) 67

That's just plain wrong -- EDTX continues to be the forum for over 40% of all newly-filed patent cases. Yes, Judge Davis recently retired, just like Judge Ward and Judge Folsom before him. But he was one of many, and Judge Gilstrap, Judge Schneider, Judge Clark, and others are still hearing plenty of cases.

Comment Re:Too Bad For North Carolinians! (Score 1) 289

Too bad about all these state legislators who seem to feel the need to protect their constituents from super-fast internet speeds at affordable rates that the private companies never seem to feel the need to deliver.

About 15 years ago, I was one of the first to sign up for Comcast high-speed internet in my neighborhood. I basically had the whole pipe. It was awesome.

Then others in the neighborhood signed up. It sucked.

Then Comcast added more capacity and it sucked less. But it was never the same as the early days.

I'll be curious to see how you're faring in a year or two.

Comment Utter madness (Score 4, Insightful) 191

As usual, this kind of ham-handed policy will simply inconvenience (or even imperil) tens to hundreds of thousands of innocent, law-abiding people while the criminals will simply switch (if they haven't already) to a different means of remote activation.

I'd love to say it's unbelievable, but it's becoming sadly predictable.

Slashdot Top Deals

Do you suffer painful hallucination? -- Don Juan, cited by Carlos Casteneda