Scott 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 a few "laws" circa 1940 ...
I do every single day.
Every single day I break some law.
Naw, I'm particular about the "laws" I break, and chose ones that, even when broken, don't impart harm to others.
After all, that is the Golden Law, eh? Do unto others. So I move to the Right when not pbutting, regardless of the speed of the other people in the Left Pbutting Lane. Why? Common courtesy ... or honor among scofflaws.
It ain't lawful to block the Left pbutting lane unless you are actually pbutting.
That'd be you, KRETP scofflaw.
And if pigs could fly ... bacon would be a lot more expensive.
Which never alleviates you from obeying the laws directed toward you.
Tell the judge you ran over the pedestrian because they were a scofflaw illegal jaywalker, and you determined that you weren't obligated to therefore yield to them.
Are they "attempting to break the law" or actually breaking it? How can you tell their state of mind?
Tickets for leftlane hogging start today! 4802A Usenet persona calling itself "- Prof. Jonez©" Nope. Vigilantism is the practice of pbutting and executing sentence on a purported lawbreaker outside the legal system. Obstructing...
And you still will have the same inferiority complex you had when you entered your vehicle.
And your illegal scofflaw behavior that exacerbates the problem -- you know the legal theory Scott, "contributory negligence".
But you're not. Anymore than it is lawful to proceed to plow down a scofflaw jaywalking pedestrian.
??? So you care to "force" other people into compliance?
Why? One can legally travel 20mph under the speed limit in many places, so if your "not breaking the law" by going 20mph under, or you determined that the environmental conditions - rain, snow, ice - don't warrant any speed as being safe above whatever arbitrary speed you choose, then why shouldn't you force others to share your determinations?
No, obstruction is illegal, regardless of the speed or limit posted, which of course is why the legislature *deliberately* failed to mention, even once, "the posted speed limit" when they debated or scribed the KRETP law.
Isn't that a "necessary degree"? Perhaps not in one's home, given the Make My Day law, yet you cannot use that same killing standard out in public.
Or is it OK in your vigilante world to mow down scofflaw jaywalking pedestrians?
So you can and will block others traveling faster than *you* determine is prudent given less than ideal environmental road conditions, eh?
But you've painted yourself into a logical conundrum Scotty. If they are *behind you* and you are blocking the left lane and never traveling above the speed limit as you claim, then you are required to KRETP, as those behind you are not traveling any faster than you are, and therefore aren't scofflaws. You can't possibly be claiming some PreCog insight into what someone *might* do in the left lane should you actually comply with the KRETP law ...