Those pesky Liberties and such always get in the way of a good, safe and equal society. They must be stopped!
By Miguel.GFZ
Semi-retired like Vito Corleone before the heart attack. Consiglieri to J.Kb and AWA. I lived in a Gun Control Paradise: It sucked and got people killed. I do believe that Freedom scares the political elites.
look at the vehicles driven by liberals. now drive the “speed limit” on ANY road and see how many of those vehicles tailgate you and/or go flying by you at 20 to 40 mph OVER that speed limit. rules for thee but not for me…. wheres a good “purge” when we need it???
Let’s start with “freedom is not an acceptable answer.” Where does PFlax figure he got the right to impose that opinion on everyone? I say it is acceptable to me, and if he doesn’t like that answer he’s entitled to … his own hurt feelings. But pretty much nothing else.
That’s the game. Make a position statement then unilaterally define the rules so the most obvious counter-arguments /examples can’t be used.
Ex: White people can’t experience racism/you have to have power to be racist/etc.
Saw another example about the US energy system. Individual wanted all coal plants in the US shut down because gwoba waa waa but then dismissed statements about the hundreds of plants being built in China/India etc. as irrelevant because they ‘promised to do better’.
Anyone know who this intellectual giant is?
Yes, I ended with a preposition.
There’s no replacement for displacement. Err… What what was the question 🙂
It is the same freedom that allows him to ride his pedal bike in traffic.
And then blame others when he lands himself in the emergency room, and gives lifelong PTSD to the poor person he darted out in front of.
Getting around idiots and accidents-waiting-to-happen is one reason. I.e. safety.
The obvious answer is: because having adequate power for safety automatically yields a car with a high top speed. Similarly, having a good suspension system for safety yields a car that is safe at high speeds. Last but not least, the ability to exceed the speed limit in an emergency is a safety feature.
Examples of that last point include not just the ability to dodge traffic that suddenly appeared, but also the ability to get away from criminals.
I’m reminded of FAR 91.3(b): “(b) In an in-flight emergency requiring immediate action, the pilot in command may deviate from any rule of this part to the extent required to meet that emergency.” That always struck me as a rule so sensible that it’s almost unimaginable a bureaucrat wrote it.
It was written before the bureaucrats really took over. It is one of the oldest regulations, going back to the BAC (Bureau of Air Commerce) and CAA (Civil Aeronautics Authority) days in the 1930s. If you look at the most rock-bottom, “well duh” common sense parts of the FARs, they are the oldest.
Something else: isn’t there at least one state (Texas? Wyoming?) where some highways have no speed limit?
Once upon a go, Montana had no speed limit on its highways. Safe and reasonable was the creed. The fed mandated 55 killed that. Once speed limits were allowed to rise, so much noise was made about the “no limit” and so many knuckle heads came to take advantage of it, that limits had to be introduced.
Yes, I remember the 55 mandate, but that disappeared some years ago, and at that point a number of western states adopted more sensible limits. It is from that reversal to sanity that I remember a “no limits” (or indeed more precisely, “safe and reasonable”) state.
Montana did have, for a while, several roads where the speed limit was “Safe and Reasonable.”
Do not ask me how I know, but apparently 86MPH is not considered “Safe and Reasonable” by the local police force.
Let’s pretend for a second that this individual is not some leftist “respect my authority” freak. Perhaps it is a legitimate question.
Why, since there is no public roadway in the US with a limit above 85MPH, are so many cars capable of going at 100+MPH? I will give you there are often times when you need to exceed the posted limit for a period of time, and F-you, that’s why, etc… But, from and economic standpoint, and from a practical use standpoint, why are so many vehicles easily capable of exceeding 85MPH?
.
It is your choice, if you want to buy a Hyabusa capable of going 190+MPH, good on you, enjoy it. Same with Corvettes, some MBs and BMWs, etc… 0-60 is not the real test of a performance car, 60-100 is, and all that. Want it, get it.
My question is why do all the car builders have a fleet where pretty much every car/SUV can exceed 85? I would think that between engine displacement, transmission, and differential ratio, the engineers could find a way to shave weight and cost off the manufacturing. Then again, I will admit a certain amount of ignorance on that front.
Answer: Fuel efficiency. Higher top speeds mean lower fuel consumption and lower emissions.
.
If you graph fuel efficiency, it’s a bell-shaped curve. The highest point in the curve — the most fuel-efficient speed — is nowhere near the top speed a vehicle is capable of going. Most cars, trucks, and SUVs are designed so that the most fuel-efficient speed is right around 65 mph (almost as if the manufacturers WANT their cars driven on road trips! *shocked face*); they’re less efficient below that, and through drag, wind resistance, and road-tire friction, they quickly lose efficiency pushing above it. But it’s a tapering-off effect, not a “wall”.
.
If you built a car with an actual top speed of 85 mph — meaning you have to floor the accelerator to reach and maintain it — its most fuel-efficient speed would be about 40 mph, which makes freeway driving unnecessarily expensive with unnecessarily high emissions no matter how fuel-efficient it is otherwise.
.
On top of that, with such a weak engine, any extra person or cargo in your vehicle greatly reduces efficiency and mobility; nobody wants a car that must burn 20% more fuel for each passenger and lacks the power to move at all — especially uphill — once the cab is full!
.
And that’s separate from the “must be able to go faster in case of emergency” answers, which are perfectly valid as well.
.
———
As an aside: RE: “Freedom is not an acceptable answer.” — Bullsh!t. That’s like saying, “Explain your creationist theory to me, but religious texts are not acceptable sources.” Or “Explain evolution and natural selection, but anything from Darwin is not an acceptable source.” Or “Explain relativity without citing or mentioning Einstein.”
.
No. That’s not how this works. At the end of the day, freedom is the answer. If this creature is saying “Freedom is not an acceptable answer,” what he really means is “Freedom is not acceptable.” Such disparate First Principles means we’re not likely to explain anything to his satisfaction, let alone find agreement.
“freedom is not an acceptable answer”
Okey-dokey. How about, “BFYTW”? Or, “ESAD?”. Or “Thank you for telling us where you will be standing during spicy times. Step down, please! Next!”
People….and I use that word loosely…with this mentality are quite simply beyond reach. They will NEVER “get it”.