A Usenet persona calling itself Brent P
Yup. Exactly.
Nothing wrong with controlling illegal behavior. It's what preserves civilization. Anarchy is never an option, even on the highways.
A desire to enjoy the fruits of civilization, peace and liberty and a right to be free from the predations of scofflaws and criminals.
Tickets for leftlane hogging start today! 4801Scott Weiser And the vigilante West, with its mobs, posses, lynchings, etc was such an exemplary bastion of "civilization", eh? Define - Anarchy. Funny, some very "good Germans" said similar things when other "unpatriotic Germans" questioned...
Nope, mental superiority, as compared to pinhead scofflaws who think that they get to do whatever the hell they want, regardless of the legality of doing so or the impact their bad conduct has on other citizens.
Nope. I just drive lawfully. Any hazard is caused by the scofflaws who drive unsafely.
If the scofflaws would slow down, get in line and wait their turn the hazardous condition would not exist. They are breaking the law, they are responsible for the hazard, and are also legally liable for any harm that occurs as a result of their dangerous, illegal conduct. Ask any judge.
Tickets for leftlane hogging start today! 4800Control freak. Cept a law that doesn't reflect the will of the people (speed limit) You aren't talking about freedom, you are describing a police state of ticky tacky laws where you turn in your...
Usually I don't need to, but I can try to control those who are in my proximity when they attempt to break the law and endanger others.
But I can make those in my proximity subject to the law's rules on the road, sometimes.
More's the pity.
No, it's the illegal behavior of scofflaws that causes the problem.
I'm driving lawfully and therefore I am ipso facto driving properly.
Not at all. In fact, it's essential to my enforcement efforts. It would be unlawful of me to force others to travel at a speed substantially less than the legal limit. It is, however, lawful for me to obstruct a scofflaw's ability to travel at any speed faster than the legal limit for the same reason that it's legal for me to shoot an intruder in my home if he enters it unlawfully and I think he's going to use any degree of physical force against any occupant of the premises.
Hardly. I do object to being blocked by traffic traveling substantially slower than the maximum legal (or reasonable and prudent speed below the maximum legal limit consistent with highway and weather conditions) because doing so is unlawful. The same is not true of scofflaw speeders trying to illegally pbutt me.
-- Regards, Scott Weiser
"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM
© 2005 Scott Weiser
