If I travel from the West Coast (my home) to the East Coast (where many of my customers work) each week for a month, I'm toast.
Also somehow violating time! If you could teach others to get a month of travel each week you make a hefty bit of coin.
Are you saying that there are no people in San Francisco that live downtown and own a car? I agree that most people that park downtown do not live there, but San Francisco has residents, surely. Otherwise, what's the purpose of their RPZ program?
Yes, for the 15 second it takes the guy to drive by at 75MPH.
Fifteen seconds is enough to make a difference in some cases. Is it worth endangering innocents to prevent someone from receiving a text. For starters, not all drivers read their texts while driving. Let's recall why some people are making arguments that what this man is doing is A-Okay: "Consider this: A driver who does not receive texts will not check their texts."
The accuser has the burden of proof.
This amounts to the city trying to extort money out of people. In short, the city is just mad they don't get a piece of the pie.
Coercion is a crime, and the city official in making such threats is not in performance of his duty, but is in comission of a crime.
The accuser indeed does have the burden of proof. What proof do you have that the city official committed a crime?
Or they need better public transportation so people don't have to drive their cars everywhere.
It needs to be good enough public transportation to allow not owning a car for an owned car must still be parked somewhere.
For a few minutes anyway. The signal jammer moves with the guy's car.
A few minutes can make a difference, especially if the attempting caller is only conscious for ten seconds.
Consider this: A driver who does not receive texts will not check their texts.
That's true. Sadly a driver that attempts to call 911 from a ditch will wonder what's up.
What are you even talking about? U.S. law has no effect on non-US citizens.
The visitors to our country would disagree with you. I'm pretty sure that if you were shot and maimed by a legal tourist from abroad you would hope the US law applied to them. Or if you were t-boned by a legal tourist from abroad running a red light.
What's to escalate? When the schedule flat out doesn't work, and your calls to customer service get handed over to a customer svc agent's voice mail, unless they want to talk to you, and they don't... that was what happened with us, I have no idea what happened with them... escalate doesn't help.
For starters, they could have filed their paperwork without using the new software. It stands to reason there was a system in place before this upgrade. I'm sure they had a plan B, right? If not, then I hope they learned a lesson.
When people say "going faster than 80", then refer to 150 a bit later down the text, they don't mean 81. They mean a value that is significantly higher than 80.
People should write what they mean. "Going beyond 80mph is illegal." clearly means greater than 80 not greatly greater. Also, even if we rule out the ~81mph speed limits we are still left with a good number higher than that and some which are unlimited.
Countries that use kilometres are irrelevant. People don't talk about "going faster than 80mph" there.
Why does it matter what language they say it in or what units they use? They travel faster than 80 mph legally.
Moreover 130km/h (which is the speed limit in France, and one of the highest speed limits) is 81mph. That's hardly higher.
Hardly higher is still higher. We're talking about a limit here. Doing 80 mph in a 81 mph limit is legal.
Apparently most of the freeways in the US have a limit of 70mph, with some exceptions that go up to 85. That's hardly much more than 80.
Again, there are roads in the US were doing 80 mph is legal.
My only point was that "Going beyond 80mph is illegal." is only true on a subset of roads, not globally true.
You forgot to specify where.
Roads.
There are roads with 80 mph (or more) speed limits in Argentina, Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, France (except in the rain), Germany (no limit), Greece, Hungary, Italy (except in adverse weather), Kosovo, Lithuania (not year-round), Macedonia, Morocco, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Ukraine (except motorcycles so you are right about that), United Arab Emirates and the United States.
Note the inclusion of the United States.
You forgot to specify where.
Roads.
Incorrect. It is not illegal to drive over 80 mph on roads. It is illegal to drive over 80 mph where the speed limit is below 80 mph. Not all roads have speed limit under 80 mph.
That I agree with. I'm a bicyclist, I use a rear view mirror mounted on my hazard glasses, and I'm pretty good about maintaining situational awareness. You get that way after pedalling for 45+ years. But there was still one time when a silent Prius sneaked up on me in a parking lot. Really startled me, like finding a rattlesnake in a mailbox.
Cars and motorbikes should make a little noise. Not very much, but a little. (Good bicyclists know how to say "behind you", "on your left", etc).
For even more safety, bicycles should also make noise.
Going beyond 80mph is illegal.
You forgot to specify where. There are plenty of jurisdictions with more reasonable speed limits. There are also race tracks. There are also areas without traffic laws.
Real Programmers don't eat quiche. They eat Twinkies and Szechwan food.
