[PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] OT License plates and covers.

[Russ Johnson]

* Jeme A Brelin <jeme at brelin.net> [2003-12-11 18:23]:
> > I'll grant you that point. It's a no-brainer in my book.
> 
> Cool.  So we're together.

Interestingly enough. I agree with this too. 

> > > Mostly, my problem is requiring the same thing of people staying out
> > > of the path of automobiles in town.
> >
> > How else do people get around in town if they can't drive and have a
> > long way to go and a short time to get there (with apologies to Mr.
> > Reed...)?
> 
> Cities aren't really that big... and the ones that are usually aren't any
> faster to get around on surface streets in automobiles than they are by
> bicycle or on foot.

I would take that bet. Get from my place (170th and SW Farmington) to
Broadway and Stark, on a bike, as fast as I can in a car. 

Or, staying within the city, get from the Airport to downtown on a bike,
faster than a car. 

> > I say
> > 1. Place the blame where it's due.
> 
> Right... with the person acting in an unsafe manner... like throwing a ton
> of steel down a public thoroughfare at tens of miles per hour.

And I'd say this is where your ideas are a little to draconian. A car
that's operated within the law is not a weapon, and is not dangerous to
anyone else operating within the law. The fact that it's big does not
mean it's dangerous. 

> > 2. If the pedestrian can't figure out that a driver needs more than 1/2
> > sec and 3 feet to stop, I say they get what's comin' to 'em.
> 
> If a driver can't figure out that he needs to be able to respond within
> 1/2 a second and 3 feet, then he be held responsible for his unsafe
> driving.

Most drivers DO know that it takes more that 3 feet and a 1/2 second.
That's why we start braking before we get 3 feet from the intersection.

> You just automatically believe the driver is right to do this and the
> pedestrians have to accomodate.

I believe the pedestrians need to follow the rules laid out for them,
just as much as cars need to follow their rules. It's a simple concept. 

> > I also take exception to you constantly referring to vehicles as
> > "weaspons". If you want to call cars "weapons" then I'll have to call
> > *everything* a weapon, including my little white stuffed beanie teddy
> > bear...
> 
> If your beanie baby is barbed or flung around at the maybe hundreds of
> miles per hour that it would have to go to kill somebody, then yeah...
> it's a weapon.  If you have it lunging on the end of a stick, then it's a
> weapon.
> 
> A parked car isn't a weapon, but a car flying down city streets is.

Cars don't usually get airborn unless the driver IS breaking those rules
I mentioned earlier. 

After 9-11, when the feds started cracking down on weapons, I came up
with this idea. Everyone is born with deadly weapons. You have two
hands, two feet and the attached appendages. Along with that you have a
head. All of these things can be used as weapons. So, we should stop
allowing hands, feet and heads on airplanes because they can be used as
weapons. 

> > As in "Do you understand what I'm saying", yes.
> > As in "Do you agree?", uh... no.
> 
> Well, then we're half way there.

I think the biggest disconnect we're having is when you say that it's
impossible to operate a car around people safely. You haven't said
anything to change my mind on that one. 

-- 
Russ Johnson
Dimension 7/Stargate Online
http://www.dimstar.net

Top post? http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html

Random thought #6 (Collect all 22)
"All the knowledge I possess everyone else can acquire, but my heart is still my own." - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe