Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!sdcsvax!sdchema!donn
From: donn@sdchema.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.flame,net.auto
Subject: Re: Re: Penis Substitutes
Message-ID: <596@sdchema.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 14-Jun-83 14:54:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: sdchema.596
Posted: Tue Jun 14 14:54:07 1983
Date-Received: Wed, 15-Jun-83 17:46:43 EDT
Lines: 98

Reference: floyd.1568

Dum de dum...  What would we do without net.flame?

Andy says:

	[Donn] talked about what happenned to his little brother and
	implied that we all should think about our little brothers.
	Had his little brother died while riding a bicycle or drowned
	in a pool or choked on a peanut shell, he could make
	impassioned pleas about those activities as well.

I could, and maybe would, except since cars kill thousands of times
as many people and with a larger probability than bicycles and swimming
pools (people spend an awful large amount of time in cars), I figure
my time is better spent ranting about automobile safety.

	Seeley used the example of the president of some company
	wasting himself in his Ferrari right after his company went
	public.  NO mention was made to whether the guy was drunk or
	whether the guy had ever driven the car before.  My guess is
	that he was and he hadn't.

The article didn't say and I wouldn't presume (unlike Andy) to say.
Does anyone from Silicon Valley (my old home town) have any details?
I don't think this affects my argument anyway.

	When I drive down the sparsely populated highway at 75 or 80
	mph I'm not endangering anyone.  When I drive 45 in a 35 zone
	on the way home from work late at night I'm not endangering
	anyone.  I've never been in an accident and NJ still charges me
	$1200+/year to insure my car with $500 deductible.  Tell me
	which laws we should change.

I don't necessarily want to argue that Andy alone is unsafe at 75 or 80
on some deserted highway or even 45 in a 35 zone.  The problem is that
it's always "the other guy" that causes the accident.  I HAVE been in
an accident (and my insurance is still $600 per year) -- some jerk was
driving 45 in a 35 zone behind me and didn't react in time to my left
turn signal; he mashed the left side of my car in and went spinning out
of control across the intersection and snapped off a traffic light
before coming to rest in someone's garden.  He was so shaken up, he had
to send his friend down the street to get a six-pack from the liquor
store that they could suck on while waiting for the cops to come.  He
didn't believe that his reflexes were that bad.  As for 70 or 80 on
"deserted" highways, I remember back in March where my brother and I
were on a "deserted" highway in the San Joaquin Valley and for my sake
he was driving 55 instead of 70 or 80; a motorcycle appeared in the
distance in the other lane and my brother didn't worry a bit until it
got within a hundred feet or so and it turned out to be a one-eyed car
driving down the center line at 80 mph.  We got off onto the shoulder
just barely in time to avoid turning into peach flambe.  Little
incidents like this have always indicated to me that (1) it's "the
other guy" who determines accident rates and (2) don't trust your
reflexes -- within reason, the more time you have to figure a dangerous
situation out, the more likely you are to live through it.

	Donn compares car control to gun control.  Donn, criminals use
	guns as violent weapons to intentionally commit crimes and
	intentionally kill people.  I've never heard of a case of a
	criminal pointing a car at someone and asking for his money.

I think Andy missed the point of this entirely.  What I said was,
otherwise normal, law-abiding citizens frequently use guns as violent
weapons to unintentionally commit crimes and unintentionally kill people.
It seems to me that people do exactly the same things with cars.  It's
no use telling me that YOU would never do something like that -- it's
not YOU I'm worried about.

	I agree with Donn that people should be responsible for their
	actions when driving.  A person who has had anything to drink
	or who is sleepy shouldn't be driving AT ALL, not at 85, not at
	55.  I don't drink, I've never driven while under the influence
	of alcohol.  I have driven (twice?) while sleepy, and boy,
	that's scary.  As Ralph Nader would say, unsafe at any speed.

If you're asleep or drunk at the wheel, you're going to kill someone.
(The terrible thing is, it may not be just yourself.)  I can still
think of a few reasons why, given this, 55 is better.  If you are
sleepy, your reactions are slowed, not stopped; although you have no
excuse for driving, if nothing can prevent you, then at least drive at
a speed where your increased reaction time has less effect.  Of course
if you are drunk then you are likely to ignore the speed limit, in
which case a cop has every excuse to pull you over -- if the limit is
55, the cop can get you EARLIER.  Lastly, if I'm tooling down the road
and you're coming at me, if I have more time to think about what to do
about you then I'm more likely to live through the encounter.

	People who drive irresponsibly should be treated harshly.  I
	don't think that driving 75-80mph on a clear, well kept road in
	a car that can do it is irresponsible.

I'm more worried about the people who drive irresponsibly treating ME
harshly.  I can take care of myself, it's "the other guy" I want to be
regulated.  If this means I have to live with the same regulations, it's
still better than not living, regardless of the regulations.

Donn Seeley  UCSD Chemistry Dept. RRCF  ucbvax!sdcsvax!sdchema!donn