People's Exhibit Number One

[Guest guest]

wrote:

As I said though I hit 24 or 25 and I just grew out of it. I think that

>happens when you're forced to realize that reaction times are non existent

>when you're driving over a hundred close your eyes to sneeze and when you

>open them realize you're barreling down the back end of a semi in an iddy

>biddy sports car

>

>I can tell you nothing better to mature a guy real quick.

>

>

Started thinking about maturity after this post. Seems like

we become so much " safer " as we grow old. Of course that is

a needed thing, but I so miss the part of me that threw caution

to the wind. I work with many old folks, and they have become so

" safe " in all they do that they appear to be missing out on a very

fun part of life. Safety predicts the outcome. You always

know what will happen. Sort of like reading the last chapter

of the book first.

Although it is definetly wise not to go 100 mph up the rear

rear end of another vehicle, can we remember when we felt so

free and really didn't care? On SO many things. We were the

invincible. Just " the moment " mattered, and nothing else.

I really miss being care-free.

Sue

________________________________________________________________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

Hi Wally

I think the issue is why you want to perceive that part of the

spectrum. If it's for astronomy then fine; if its for breaking the

law thats a different matter.

P.

> > There are states where sale of radar detection devices is banned,

> just as there is one state (New Hampshire - " Live free or die " ) that

> does not require the use of seat belts or bike helmets. This

argument

> whether safety devices should be required or not will go on as long

as

> people are people, I think.

>

> In these ecommerce days and interantional ban on radar

> detection sale is probably required. Failing that, hang anyone

found

> with one in their car by their gonads (external or internal)!

>

> Im glad to hear sanity prevails in some parts of America, but IIRC

> there have been claims that banning them is " unconstitutional " .

ALso,

> I was under the impression that seat belt use was largely non

> mandatory in tghe US?

>

>

> [snip]

[Guest guest]

Hi again

You are in the US arent you? I thought it was 55 everywhere there.

I would love to see a court case where somebody sued a radar detector

company for non-payment of insurance on a speed ticket!

My astonishment at American culture goes greater every day.

Your story shows a typical maturing out of recklessness, but of

course, that might be too late for some guys (and others on the road).

Why cars dont have governors limiting them to say 80 max I have no

idea.

A mate of mine has been woken up a couple of times by the rumble

track

on the highways in France and England. It works so well that he

started to rely on it to keep him awake.

He quit that when he woke up half way up the exhaust of a truck!

P.

> > Hi Pete:

> >

> > Many people here think it's BS when I say this but the truth is I

> actually

> > drove slower when I used my radar/laser detector with radar

> scrambler and

> > radar detector blocker.

> >

> > Without it I would routinely run at around 90 - 105 mph. With it

I

> was

> > sticking to around 75 - 85. That was in my youth around 10 years

> ago. Now

> > I just sort of grew out of it. I'm about 70 - 75 on the highways

> now

> > without a radar/detector.

> >

> > Seat belt use is largely mandatory including rigid child safety

> restraint

> > usage when called for.

> > Re: People's Exhibit Number One

> > In these ecommerce days and interantional ban on radar

> > detection sale is probably required. Failing that, hang anyone

> found

> > with one in their car by their gonads (external or internal)!

> >

> > Im glad to hear sanity prevails in some parts of America, but IIRC

> > there have been claims that banning them is " unconstitutional " .

> ALso,

> > I was under the impression that seat belt use was largely non

> > mandatory in tghe US?

> > >

>

>

>

----------------------------------------------------------------------

--

> CatalogLink offers hundreds of catalogs for FREE!

> Click here to find the latest and greatest in the

> world of catalogs - check out our featured Picks of the Week

> and also look to enter our $500 catalog shopping spree!

> http://click./1/6068/2/_/4324/_/962908239/

>

----------------------------------------------------------------------

--

[Guest guest]

> Have I mentioned I like the way you think lately?

You and Stanton Peele. I've been receiving some very complementary

mails form him recently. Thankyou for this appreciation, as Ive been

just a tad scathing abt things American recently.

P.

[Guest guest]

Hi Kayleigh

There is no reason why they shouldnt be able to detect the level, but

I bet that if they were set to allow a legal level ppl would complain

they should be set to detect anything, which would tend to result in

them not being fitted at all!

I would have thought tho theyre too easily fooled; just have a bike

pump with you to blow thru it. Instead, a system that actually

monitors your cognitive functioning, that has been around for yearrs,

should be used. This would pick up booze, drug, and other

incapacitations, and in fact, would let you drive tanked up if you

actually *are* capable* of driving like that!

P.

> > > There are states where sale of radar detection devices is

banned,

> > just as there is one state (New Hampshire - " Live free or die " )

> that

> > does not require the use of seat belts or bike helmets. This

> argument

> > whether safety devices should be required or not will go on as

long

> as

> > people are people, I think.

> >

> > In these ecommerce days and interantional ban on radar

> > detection sale is probably required. Failing that, hang anyone

> found

> > with one in their car by their gonads (external or internal)!

> >

> > Im glad to hear sanity prevails in some parts of America, but

IIRC

> > there have been claims that banning them is " unconstitutional " .

> ALso,

> > I was under the impression that seat belt use was largely non

> > mandatory in tghe US?

> > >

> > > Perhaps the installation of interlock devices is not required,

in

> > part, because it would prevent an embarrassingly high number of

> people

> > from driving. Would it stop me if I had been taking cough syrup,

> for

> > example?

> >

> > I would say in a sense yes and in a sense no - it could easily

> > determine when alcohol present was below the legal limit, so if

it

> > stopped you after cough syrup, then you shouldnt be driving after

> > cough syrup. Cough syrup apart, it undoubtedly would show up

> > that driving over the limit is a commonplace, but then this would

> > produce social change. Already attitudes to drink and driving

have

> > toughened, and they can toughen up even more. Drink's been around

a

> > long time but the car hasnt - what we have grown used to doing we

> can

> > get used again to not doing.

> >

> > P.

[Guest guest]

Actually I was referring to someone else at the time Pete. I do like the

way you think. (cough.... most of the time) You've got the ability say what

I'm thinking in far more imaginative and grammatically correct ways than I.

You got a better education than I did and I'm planning on suing the State of

Indiana over it. I suppose that happens when you learn your alphabet on

a ouija board.

Re: People's Exhibit Number One

> Have I mentioned I like the way you think lately?

You and Stanton Peele. I've been receiving some very complementary

mails form him recently. Thankyou for this appreciation, as Ive been

just a tad scathing abt things American recently.

P.

[Guest guest]

Pete

Good suggestion for the ultimate " drive safe " system -- sounds like a bigger

computer project than Y2K!

.

>From: watts_pete@...

>Reply-To: 12-step-freeegroups

>To: 12-step-freeegroups

>Subject: Re: People's Exhibit Number One

>Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 22:05:30 -0000

>

>Hi Kayleigh

>

>There is no reason why they shouldnt be able to detect the level, but

>I bet that if they were set to allow a legal level ppl would complain

>they should be set to detect anything, which would tend to result in

>them not being fitted at all!

>

>I would have thought tho theyre too easily fooled; just have a bike

>pump with you to blow thru it. Instead, a system that actually

>monitors your cognitive functioning, that has been around for yearrs,

>should be used. This would pick up booze, drug, and other

>incapacitations, and in fact, would let you drive tanked up if you

>actually *are* capable* of driving like that!

>

>P.

>

>

> > > > There are states where sale of radar detection devices is

>banned,

> > > just as there is one state (New Hampshire - " Live free or die " )

> > that

> > > does not require the use of seat belts or bike helmets. This

> > argument

> > > whether safety devices should be required or not will go on as

>long

> > as

> > > people are people, I think.

> > >

> > > In these ecommerce days and interantional ban on radar

> > > detection sale is probably required. Failing that, hang anyone

> > found

> > > with one in their car by their gonads (external or internal)!

> > >

> > > Im glad to hear sanity prevails in some parts of America, but

>IIRC

> > > there have been claims that banning them is " unconstitutional " .

> > ALso,

> > > I was under the impression that seat belt use was largely non

> > > mandatory in tghe US?

> > > >

> > > > Perhaps the installation of interlock devices is not required,

>in

> > > part, because it would prevent an embarrassingly high number of

> > people

> > > from driving. Would it stop me if I had been taking cough syrup,

> > for

> > > example?

> > >

> > > I would say in a sense yes and in a sense no - it could easily

> > > determine when alcohol present was below the legal limit, so if

>it

> > > stopped you after cough syrup, then you shouldnt be driving after

> > > cough syrup. Cough syrup apart, it undoubtedly would show up

> > > that driving over the limit is a commonplace, but then this would

> > > produce social change. Already attitudes to drink and driving

>have

> > > toughened, and they can toughen up even more. Drink's been around

>a

> > > long time but the car hasnt - what we have grown used to doing we

> > can

> > > get used again to not doing.

> > >

> > > P.

>

________________________________________________________________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

Hi douglas

The thing I am thinking of was produced years ago and is basically an

electronic " Simon says " game. Apparently the car companies claimed

it

would put $200 on the price of a car which is total horseshit - it

would cost abt $10 max. besides, what price the lives it might save?

P.

> > > > > There are states where sale of radar detection devices is

> >banned,

> > > > just as there is one state (New Hampshire - " Live free or

die " )

> > > that

> > > > does not require the use of seat belts or bike helmets. This

> > > argument

> > > > whether safety devices should be required or not will go on as

> >long

> > > as

> > > > people are people, I think.

> > > >

> > > > In these ecommerce days and interantional ban on radar

> > > > detection sale is probably required. Failing that, hang

anyone

> > > found

> > > > with one in their car by their gonads (external or internal)!

> > > >

> > > > Im glad to hear sanity prevails in some parts of America, but

> >IIRC

> > > > there have been claims that banning them is

" unconstitutional " .

> > > ALso,

> > > > I was under the impression that seat belt use was largely non

> > > > mandatory in tghe US?

> > > > >

> > > > > Perhaps the installation of interlock devices is not

required,

> >in

> > > > part, because it would prevent an embarrassingly high number

of

> > > people

> > > > from driving. Would it stop me if I had been taking cough

syrup,

> > > for

> > > > example?

> > > >

> > > > I would say in a sense yes and in a sense no - it could easily

> > > > determine when alcohol present was below the legal limit, so

if

> >it

> > > > stopped you after cough syrup, then you shouldnt be driving

after

> > > > cough syrup. Cough syrup apart, it undoubtedly would show up

> > > > that driving over the limit is a commonplace, but then this

would

> > > > produce social change. Already attitudes to drink and driving

> >have

> > > > toughened, and they can toughen up even more. Drink's been

around

> >a

> > > > long time but the car hasnt - what we have grown used to

doing

we

> > > can

> > > > get used again to not doing.

> > > >

> > > > P.

> >

>

>

______________________________________________________________________

__

> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at

http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

Pete,

Maybe we should start a 12stepfree marketing division and get rich selling

this socially beneficial " game " . Still sounds to simple to be true,

Yours

.

ps -- I've lost several posts over the weekend; maybe they'll come

trailing in late like they do, but it is annoying to think that on occasion

" Send " seems to equal " Delete " , effectively,

D.

>From: watts_pete@...

>Reply-To: 12-step-freeegroups

>To: 12-step-freeegroups

>Subject: Re: People's Exhibit Number One

>Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 22:59:54 -0000

>

>Hi douglas

>

>The thing I am thinking of was produced years ago and is basically an

>electronic " Simon says " game. Apparently the car companies claimed

>it

>would put $200 on the price of a car which is total horseshit - it

>would cost abt $10 max. besides, what price the lives it might save?

>

>P.

>

>

> > > > > > There are states where sale of radar detection devices is

> > >banned,

> > > > > just as there is one state (New Hampshire - " Live free or

>die " )

> > > > that

> > > > > does not require the use of seat belts or bike helmets. This

> > > > argument

> > > > > whether safety devices should be required or not will go on as

> > >long

> > > > as

> > > > > people are people, I think.

> > > > >

> > > > > In these ecommerce days and interantional ban on radar

> > > > > detection sale is probably required. Failing that, hang

>anyone

> > > > found

> > > > > with one in their car by their gonads (external or internal)!

> > > > >

> > > > > Im glad to hear sanity prevails in some parts of America, but

> > >IIRC

> > > > > there have been claims that banning them is

> " unconstitutional " .

> > > > ALso,

> > > > > I was under the impression that seat belt use was largely non

> > > > > mandatory in tghe US?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Perhaps the installation of interlock devices is not

>required,

> > >in

> > > > > part, because it would prevent an embarrassingly high number

>of

> > > > people

> > > > > from driving. Would it stop me if I had been taking cough

>syrup,

> > > > for

> > > > > example?

> > > > >

> > > > > I would say in a sense yes and in a sense no - it could easily

> > > > > determine when alcohol present was below the legal limit, so

>if

> > >it

> > > > > stopped you after cough syrup, then you shouldnt be driving

>after

> > > > > cough syrup. Cough syrup apart, it undoubtedly would show up

> > > > > that driving over the limit is a commonplace, but then this

>would

> > > > > produce social change. Already attitudes to drink and driving

> > >have

> > > > > toughened, and they can toughen up even more. Drink's been

>around

> > >a

> > > > > long time but the car hasnt - what we have grown used to

>doing

>we

> > > > can

> > > > > get used again to not doing.

> > > > >

> > > > > P.

> > >

> >

> >

>______________________________________________________________________

>__

> > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at

>http://www.hotmail.com

>

________________________________________________________________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

-----Original Message-----

>Hi Wally

>

>I think the issue is why you want to perceive that part of the

>spectrum. If it's for astronomy then fine; if its for breaking the

>law thats a different matter.

>

>P.

Frequently I have my radar detector on when I have no special intention of

breaking the law. It's just that I am insatiably curious, and I like to know

where the cops are lurking.

As far as law-breaking goes, speed limits amount to a special case. They are

a " law " that almost everyone breaks routinely. They are selectively

enforced. There is a reason for this: namely that rigorous enforcement of

speed limits would result in very inefficient, sometimes dangerous traffic

patterns. [in particular, the clumps of fast-moving traffic that develop on

high-speed highways when everyone is travelling at about the same speed.]

Motorists benefit from the ability to break the 'law' prudently, after

carefully evaluating the risks and benefits of doing so in any given

situation, and radar detectors help them carry out these analyses.

Are you suggesting that any activity that facilitates law-breaking should be

banned, regardless of whether the ban infringes on basic human rights? I

hope not -- that attitude amounts to passive acquiesence in the imposition

of a police state. There are web sites that provide lists of locations where

police use radar on highways in the USA. Do these sites 'abuse' the

privilege of free speech? Should the sites be banned? Should those who

broadcast the information be prosecuted? Perhaps the internet itself should

be banned, since it can be used to help people exceed the speed limit

without getting caught?

--wally

>

>

>> I'm not too sure on which side sanity lies, re banning radar

>detectors.

>> Banning them means that there is a part of the electromagnetic

>spectrum that

>> citizens are forbidden to perceive. This just doesn't seem right to

>me,

>> regardless of whether any real Constitutional justification can be

>found for

>> opposing the ban.

>>

>> --wally

>>

[snip]

[Guest guest]

Wally,

Yes, perhaps the Internet itself should be banned, from the authority-loving

person's point of view. Personally, though, I'm all in favour of freedom of

speech, risky as it is, with so much " triple wacky and beyond " material out

there/in here.

Extract from " The Police " , O'Brien, " The Indoor Park " , 1983.

They are not jealous, the police.

When they stare at your allotment

They're sure there's a body below.

But if you say, " Yes, he's a Roman, "

They ask you, " And how do you know? "

We are all called " Sunshine " ,

Or else liars, or both.

We would be better off without ourselves,

Or condoned off, at least.

The world is guilty of itself,

Except the police, that is.

Regards,

.

>

>Reply-To: 12-step-freeegroups

>To: <12-step-freeegroups>

>Subject: Re: Re: People's Exhibit Number One

>Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 14:12:54 -0400

>

>

>-----Original Message-----

>

>

>

> >Hi Wally

> >

> >I think the issue is why you want to perceive that part of the

> >spectrum. If it's for astronomy then fine; if its for breaking the

> >law thats a different matter.

> >

> >P.

>

>Frequently I have my radar detector on when I have no special intention of

>breaking the law. It's just that I am insatiably curious, and I like to

>know

>where the cops are lurking.

>

>As far as law-breaking goes, speed limits amount to a special case. They

>are

>a " law " that almost everyone breaks routinely. They are selectively

>enforced. There is a reason for this: namely that rigorous enforcement of

>speed limits would result in very inefficient, sometimes dangerous traffic

>patterns. [in particular, the clumps of fast-moving traffic that develop on

>high-speed highways when everyone is travelling at about the same speed.]

>Motorists benefit from the ability to break the 'law' prudently, after

>carefully evaluating the risks and benefits of doing so in any given

>situation, and radar detectors help them carry out these analyses.

>

>Are you suggesting that any activity that facilitates law-breaking should

>be

>banned, regardless of whether the ban infringes on basic human rights? I

>hope not -- that attitude amounts to passive acquiesence in the imposition

>of a police state. There are web sites that provide lists of locations

>where

>police use radar on highways in the USA. Do these sites 'abuse' the

>privilege of free speech? Should the sites be banned? Should those who

>broadcast the information be prosecuted? Perhaps the internet itself should

>be banned, since it can be used to help people exceed the speed limit

>without getting caught?

>

>--wally

>

>

> >

> >

> >> I'm not too sure on which side sanity lies, re banning radar

> >detectors.

> >> Banning them means that there is a part of the electromagnetic

> >spectrum that

> >> citizens are forbidden to perceive. This just doesn't seem right to

> >me,

> >> regardless of whether any real Constitutional justification can be

> >found for

> >> opposing the ban.

> >>

> >> --wally

> >>

>[snip]

>

________________________________________________________________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com