It only gets worse

http://autos.aol.com/article/_a/star-wars-speed-trap/20060126172809990001 

 

To me, it started with a governor on your car's engine.  This is a device that will stop the flow of gas to your engine if your speed exceeds a certain limit.  That limit is usually around 95 mph.  Once your car has slowed to the appropriate speed, the gas flow resumes.  I know that we don't have a whole lot of need to go over 100 mph for any reason, but hey...you never know.  I'd like to be in charge of my own life, thank you.   Next thing you know you are forced to comply to the whims of the government.  Just TRY to tell me you never speed...if you are telling the truth, you are a very small minority.

 

 

 

 

 

Star Wars Speed Trap

GPS being used to catch speeders

By ERIC PETERS

Like tearing off that sticker on mattresses that warns us not to "under penalty of law," most of us don't pay much attention to speed limits. Five to 10 over is the rule, not the exception -- as any survey of average traffic speeds will confirm. We vote with our right foot every time we get behind the wheel, countermanding the diktats of the local bureaucrats who erect limits that are frequently well below what large majorities (better than 85 percent, if you want an actual figure based on traffic surveys) consider reasonable rates of travel.

But what if driving faster than the posted limit became an impossibility?

For years, this has been “The Dream” of safety-badger types, who equate any deviance from often arbitrarily-set posted speed limits with mowing down small children in a gigantic SUV with really loud mufflers, one hand on the wheel, the other clutching a half-empty fifth of Jack Daniels. They pushed for mechanical governors (which never flew) and even managed, briefly, to get a law passed that required all new cars to be fitted with speedometers that read no faster than 85 mph.

Now, however, the technology exists for a great leap forward -- or backward, depending on your point of view.

The Canadians are testing out a system that combines onboard Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) technology with a digital speed limit map. It works very much like the in-car GPS navigation systems which have become so common on late model cars -- but with a twist. Instead of helping you find a destination, the system, prevents you from driving any faster than the posted speed limit of the road you happen to be on.

As in a conventional GPS-equipped car or truck, the system knows which road you're on, as well as the direction you're traveling. This information is continuously updating as you move. But in addition to this, the system also acquires information about the posted speed limit on each road, as you drive. Once your vehicle reaches that limit, the car's computer makes it increasingly difficult to go any faster.

Ten vehicles equipped with this technology are currently being tested in the Ottowa area; if the trail is "successful," a wider series of tests is planned. And it's a sure bet the entire thing will eventually be the object of a very strong-armed push aimed at making it mandatory equipment in every new car. "We are trying to assess the operational acceptance issues," says Peter Burns of Transport Canada's road safety directorate.

But is all of this really necessary -- or even a good idea?

For one thing, if current speed limits are so sensible, why do so many of us disobey them routinely? Are large majorities of us simply indifferent to our own safety and that of others -- even though we seem capable of behaving responsibly in other aspects of our lives?

Or are speed limits often set unrealistically low?

And if they are, wouldn't it make more sense to adjust them so that they reflect a more reasonable consensus -- based upon how we actually drive -- rather than constantly pushing for new ways to compel compliance with limits that most of us clearly think are too low?

Bear in mind that for 20-plus years, we were relentlessly nagged by the self-styled "safety lobby" (and its profiteers in the insurance industry) that to exceed the sainted 55 mph limit was "dangerous speeding" that put ourselves and others at risk. Yet when Congress finally repealed the 55 mph limit in '95 -- and most states raised their highway limits to 65, 70, even 75 mph in some cases -- highway fatality rates did not increase as predicted. In fact, just two years after the majority of states increased their maximum highway speed limits, the total national highway fatality rate reached an all-time record low of 1.64 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

This proved that driving 65 or 70-something mph on a highway was not "unsafe." The big difference post-'95 was that you no longer had to worry about getting a ticket for doing it.

The same issue exists on many secondary roads, where under-posted limits are routinely ignored by most drivers -- but vigorously enforced by radar traps. Like the tickets issued to people under the double nickel, the use of radar to nab motorists exceeding these under-posted limits is justified on the basis of "safety" -- even though most of us know that driving five or 10 mph faster doesn't in and of itself constitute unsafe driving any more than doing 65 or 70-something mph did under the old 55 mph NMSL.

And sometimes, it's necessary to accelerate rapidly in order to avoid an accident -- even if it means momentarily exceeding the posted limit.

But Canada's little experiment could bring a screeching halt to all that -- literally. Dumbed-down limits -- and dumbed-down driving -- would become much more than the law of the land.

They would become an inescapable way of life.

Some might welcome a world in which driving faster than whatever the speed limit happens to be is impossibility. But it might be more common-sensical to post realistic speed limits -- and deal with the handful of drivers who won't or can't drive reasonably -- than to treat every driver on the road like the irresponsible one.

 

By the way... the speed limit is 80 on most of New Mexico's intersate highways outside the city and towns.

Full speed ahead...we can sleep when we're dead.

 

2006-01-26 17:28:34

Sometimes I have to wonder

So I'm looking at my computer screen, and AOL puts up a story about getting out of speeding tickets...or at least avoiding them.  I'm all for that, but what is curious to me is that AOL is basically telling people how to get away with breaking the law.  I don't mind breaking the law, but I didn't think that AOL could actually make it so obvious.  Are we finally at the point where it doesn't matter about this stupid trivial shit (I.E. traffic citations) or is it that the authorities might not notice this kind of report?  Here is the report as of today April 28, 2006...if this link doesn't work, it is because they have pulled it off the internet.

 

http://autos.aol.com/article/general/v2/_a/dont-get-caught/20060421145909990001

 

 

If that is the case, then here you go:

 

Death and taxes may be inevitable, but getting a traffic ticket isn't -- even if you don't always obey the speed limit. Here are some tips to keep you running under the radar:

 

Don't speed excessively: If you do, your car will stand out -- and getting noticed is just one step away from getting caught. Excessive speed is also just that -- excessive. It's one thing to drive 70-something with the flow of traffic -- quite another to be running 20 mph faster than the other cars around you. Most cops consider the first a "technical foul" at worst. They might write you up -- but they also know (even if they won't say it out loud) that you're not necessarily doing anything genuinely unsafe. But expect no mercy if you're blowing past other cars at 90-plus.

 

Run with the pack: There is safety in numbers (just ask a herd of wildebeests facing down a pack of hungry lions). By finding a couple of cars doing about the same speed and sticking with them, you automatically increase the odds in your favor by a multiple of however many cars happen to be around you. If you hit a radar trap, the cop can only single out one car. It might be you, of course. But your chances of being the one he goes after are much lower than they would be if you were bulleting along on your lonesome.

 

Find a "blocker" car: In the classic movie, 'Smokey and the Bandit' it was Burt Reynolds' job to sidetrack lurking cops with his fast-moving Trans-Am, so that his partner's semi full of bootleg beer could blast on through unnoticed. You can use the same principle on long highway trips. There's almost always another car moving at a good clip. What you want to do is ease in behind that car -- and follow him as long as you can. If there are cops lurking ahead, the blocker car will hit them first. Leave at least five or six car lengths between you, if possible (this will keep the other driver from noticing you're back there, or at the very least, reduce the chances he'll start busting moves to get away from you).

 

Don't be a 'Frogger': Cars that weave and make constant lane changes are the cars that tend to get noticed -- both by cops and truckers with CB radios (who will sometimes put in a friendly call to Johnny Law on your behalf, if you're acting like a moron). Good driving is smooth driving. Anticipate the need to make a lane change and only do so when necessary to maintain your pace. Constant jockeying for position (and related misbehaviors such as tailgating) increase your chances of both a ticket -- and an accident.

 

Maintain "situational awareness": Fighter pilots use this term to describe their practice of constantly scanning the area around them -- in order to anticipate and react to changing conditions as quickly as possible. The principle is just as important on four wheels -- whether you're trying to avoid a ticket or just trying to avoid a wreck. Clues that a cop might be up ahead include traffic suddenly slowing down for no apparent reason, or bunching up and refusing to pass a nondescript-looking white sedan. Take the time to notice those little cutouts by the side of the road where cops tend to sit running radar. If you get good at it, you'll be able to slow gradually as you come upon them without having to stab your brakes -- and just ease on by without raising any hackles.

 

Know the enemy: Despite the lucky fact that most police departments in this country overwhelmingly use a few very specific (and easy to spot) types of cars for traffic enforcement, many drivers haven't taken the time to burn the profile of these vehicles into memory. Always be wary when a plain-looking Chevy Impala or Ford Crown Victoria rolls in behind you -- or if you see one up ahead. Approach slowly until you get close enough to make the ID. If it's a cop, you'll probably be able to see the blue lights on the rear speaker shelf -- or the telltale spotlight on the driver's side door. Other clues include numerous antennae -- and the presence of a single guy with a buzz cut behind the wheel.

 

Choose your weapon: You can get away with a lot more in a quiet-looking sedan or wagon (or even a minivan, for that matter) than you ever will in something flashy. Not only are you less likely to be noticed or picked out in the first place (critical to avoiding tickets). But if you end up being pulled over anyhow, the chances of either talking your way out of it or getting the cop to knock the charge down are also much more in your favor. It's easy to play the flustered Family Guy who simply wasn't paying attention to his speed today -- in a station wagon. That's not going to fly in a Corvette. It's just the way the world works. But you can use it to your advantage.

 

2006-04-21 14:59:49

 

 

Sometimes I don't have to be the one to say these things

ANARCHY IS DEMOCRACY The political arena leaves one no alternatives, one must be either a dunce or a rogue.--Emma Goldman

If you believe everything you read, see, and hear, you'd think we're in the freest, most democratic world that has ever been. In some senses, this is true: compared to the cultures of the past, people today are freer than their forebears.

However, this has been the result not of the wisdom of rulers and governments, but from the tireless work of everyday people like you and me who fought to establish previously unrecognized rights. Civil society (which today is eroding worldwide in the face of capitalist corporate wealth and power) is the end product of the efforts of people who've come before, sacrificing time and in many cases, lives, to make the world a more livable place.

It is in this respect that anarchists again stand out as the only group of people who honestly believe in democracy. Again, we hear a lot about democracy, freedom, liberty, and justice out of the mouths of political leaders, but they have no understanding of what these things mean--they are merely appropriating the positive associations you have with these images for their own personal gain.

Anarchists favor direct action. That is, everyday people getting involved in directly improving their situation in their respective communities. We don't favor people pinning their hopes on representatives to manage things for them.

That's bourgeois "democracy" in action, in fact. Sedate, apathetic masses blindly ratifying decisions already made FOR them by all-knowing leaders. Only fools would consider this democracy, and accept it as a justifiable and desirable system.

Anarchists believe in direct democracy, in people not waiting for leaders to decide for them what to support or not support, but in people doing things themselves.

The reasoning behind this belief is thus: WE know what's best for us, in our given communities; and WE don't need someone else telling us what to do--moreover, we don't want that!!

That's democracy, REAL democracy: popular self-rule based on the active and informed consent of the governed. Only in anarchy is this even possible. See, anarchists alone believe that no one should be trusted with power, and thatpositions of power shoud consequently not be institutionalized, but made situational, and rotated about, so a ruling elite doesn't spring up.

We alone favor active, responsible people taking care of themselves instead of relying on government or business to bail us out, and thereby forfeit our independence and autonomy. Wherever capitalism and statism appear, liberty, equality, freedom, and democracy go right out the window.

Today in the bourgeois "democracies" we see this in action. The people are "free" to do whatever is permitted them by the government. In other words, you can do whatever THEY say you can do, which is no freedom at all, nor democracy, either.

Here's how these villains get away with it: they adopt Rousseau's idea of the "Social Contract", a spurious and self-serving piece of political mythology if ever there was one. This selfsame "contract" says that we all agree to give up some of our liberty and freedom for the "security" provided by the state. And the fine print is this: our silence in this matter is taken as our consent!!

Now think for a minute: government exists to protect property; that's its sole purpose. Those with much property have much freedom in propertarian society; those with less have less freedom, and those with none have no freedom at all. We're expected to believe that the poor AGREED to be poor??! But leaders pretend that the silence of the poor is in fact their consent to this state of affairs, which is plainly ludicrous. The Social Contract is an act of usurpation, a way for leaders to claim unearned legitimacy. **

Now, they even go further in pretending that the electoral system as it stands is your voice. In other words, the very people who usurped your freedom now decide how you can respond to this! Again, no freedom at all, here, and even less democracy.

Anarchists propose a vital alternative: the bad guys choose to believe that your silence gives them a blank slate to do as they wish--so the most important thing for you to do is to be as vocal as you can, on the issues that interest you, and to NOT rely on leaders to deliver you, but to deliver yourself!

Anarchists are the only unequivocable supporters of direct democracy out there, folks. That's one of our greatest strengths, which is why we've locked horns with government for over a century.

Government wants you passive and obedient--that's a necessary mindset to get along in governmental society. Society can function that way, but forget liberty, freedom, justice, and equality. Forget solidarity and cooperation--they die in such a stagnant environment.

Anarchy is the only way to achieve lasting, true democracy. It's up to you what you get. Our society has the veneer of democracy without the vital substance--people are "free" to do what they're told!! Everyone pretends it's democracy, but in fact it isn't. It's a sham.

Anarchists alone call attention to this and seek to bring democracy into daily practice for each of us, so we can each live our lives as we see fit, so long as we respect one another's liberty. That's a just world, and one we hope to build from the ashes of this one.

 

** -- This author is telling you that the social contract implies that the poor chose to be poor by being silent.  As I've pointed out...the poor outnumber the rest of us.  So it may not be so ludicrous to think that the poor chose poverty.  It is only ludicrous to believe that they understood the power that they have to completely change history if they were to put together a little organization.  During a riot, there may not seem like a lot of organization, but believe me...everybody that is rioting has pretty much organized their beliefs and are taking it out on whichever property they choose.

I don't wanna be a pirate...

PIRACY AND ANARCHISM Damn you! You are a squeaking puppy, and so are all those who will submit to be governed by laws which rich men have made for their own security. For the cowardly whelps have not the courage otherwise to defend what they get by their knavery. But damn ye, altogether! Damn them for a pack of crafty rascals, and you, who serve them, for a parcel of hen-hearted numbskulls! They villify us, the scoundrels do, when there is only this difference: they rob the poor under the cover of law, forsooth, and we plunder the rich under the protection of our own courage; had ye not better make one of us, than sneak after the arses of those villains for employment? --Black Sam Bellamy, pirate captainAnarchists and pirates share a common name, given them by the governments of the world: "enemies of humanity." This lovely sobriquet was attached to pirates (in the 18th century) and anarchists (in the 20th century) because these two groups of people, uniquely, disavowed allegiance to any particular government or nation, and were unafraid to show this contempt for authority in word and deed.

Why Pirates?It is essential to illustrate the true historical nature of piracy in an effort to dispel the pervasive myth that people need government to "protect us from ourselves!"

Authoritarians of every stripe love to drive the point home that, without them and their precious government and laws, we'd collapse into chaos and civilization would crumble into ruin. So long as this myth remains unchallenged, governments can continue to rule unopposed, in the face of no credible alternatives. This myth, however, will go unchallenged no longer. The pirates of the 16-1700's practiced an early (and entirely unplanned) anarchism in their war on the high seas traders. There were no "Founding Fathers," no acts of Parliament. There were just people sick and tired of authority.

The point the humble pirate illustrates to the modern reader is this: if pirates can do it, what is our excuse?

(the following is excerpted from Raiders and Rebels: The Golden Age of Piracy, by Frank Sherry, pp. 122-125)

In the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, there was only one true democracy on earth: the pirate brotherhood forged in Madagascar.

Incongruous as it might appear, the cutthroats, who brutalized captives and who scoffed at the rules of society, were passionately democratic. They had a high regard for individual rights--and a burning hatred for the tyranny that had oppressed them in their days of "honest service."

Unlike privateer crews, who were still only hired hands despite the fact that they received fair shares of their ship's plunder, pirates regarded themselves as self-employed, collective owners of their own ships. They believed that since the crew of a pirate ship had acquired their vessel by their common effort, all should participate equally in decisions aboard her. For this reason, pirates evolved a system that called for virtually all matters regarding life aboard their ship--whether to fight, where and when to anchor, division of spoils, even courses to be followed--to be subjected to a referendum, with each man, regardless of his rank, race, religion, or previous employment, entitled to an equal vote in the decision, as well as an equal right to voice his opinion. Only during battle did the pirates abandon this referendum system.

So pervasive was this insistence on individual rights--and so fearful were pirates of placing too much authority in the hands of any one man--that they even elected their captains and other high-ranking officers, retaining the right to depose them by vote whenever they wished. Occasionally, if the vote of a ship's crew was too close to allow a clear-cut choice for captain, the crew would split into two different crews, and each go its own way....

The pirate system of democracy, bordering on anarchy, also required the elimination of all marks of distinction aboard ship. Officers wore no special uniforms and had no special privileges. Pirates regarded such perquisites, common aboard "honest" ships, as hateful reminders of the upper-class despotism most of them had had to endure in their previous employment. They would permit none of it aboard their own ships.

For example, even though the captain was usually permitted a cabin of his own as a mark of his crew's esteem, he could not claim exclusive use of it. Crewman could enter anytime they wished, and they couldmake use of any of the captain's furnishings as well, including dishes and cutlery.

As Defoe says of a pirate captain's "privileges": "They only permit him to be captain, on condition that they may be captain over him."

...In a world that permitted personal liberty only to the well-born and the wealthy--and tyrannized cruelty over the poor--the pirate brotherhood offered the common seaman a passage to liberty and self-respect, provided he possessed the courage to defy the law that would punish him severely if it caught him. Most pirates, though simple men, realized full well that the key to the free life they wanted was their system of democratic decision making.

To ensure that democracy would prevail among them, almost all pirate crews subscribed to specific rules of behavior, which they embodied in "ship's articles," covenenants that were, in effect, rough constitutions that spelled out the rights, duties, and powers of a ship's officers and crew. Every officer and crew member aboard a ship had to swear to abide by these articles.

Although the articles might differ in various particulars from ship to ship, their general aim was always to safeguard individual liberties, especially the right of each crew member to a trial by his peers and an equal voice in the ship's affairs.