Brent P
Um... I think I mentioned I'd been there already, done that already, seen that already. My observations bear no resemblance to yours.
No arguing? Data is merely data, it's useless without interpretation and analysis. Your analysis seems to be that it's more wise to avoid the higher statistical risk of being involved in -any- collision... preferring the higher risk of being involved in a -bane- collision.
That's the data, just interpreted with relativity rather than alone or out of context.
Duh. Nowhere does it say speed limits -should- reflect "maximum safe speeds". I'd calculate that somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 mph for 51% of interstate highways.
Don't speed-no tax. You get to choose your level of "taxation". You can choose $0 if you're so inclined. And your other argument here seems to be... it's more safe to have a semi 3 feet behind you... if you're both traveling at higher velocity?
butthole of the day 3541Ok..... let's go back to the basics. Working off of the concept that as speed increases, the amount of damage and...
My point is... that you -don't- hold your ground?
You infer you're unable to drive the speed limit because your free will to obey the limit is restrained... by drivers to your rear compromising your safety. So, in fact, you're not holding your ground, you're yielding to the will of others. By your own admission...
You also seem impervious to irony. -----
- gpsman
