[net.auto] brainwave

bentonh@tekig.UUCP (Benton Holzwarth) (02/22/84)

>> If you are not guilty, you will pay the fine also, brainwave.
>> 
>> I think that is the point that is being made.
>> 
>> tektronix!tekig!david
>
>Is this the case?  How many people in net-land have been prosecuted
>for speeding at 65mph say, when they really were doing only 55 ?
>
>I really don't think many of us worry about being stopped for speeding
>when we are not speeding.
>				Ken Cochran      hou5d!kwmc
>

    Recently I was driving my mother and brother
across the wide open spaces of Oregon (you know,
about 50 miles either direction to any civilization,
divided highway...) Traffic was so light there was
nothing to gauge my speed against, and weather
was good.

    The cop's radar said I was going 69mph, and I believe
it 'cause Oregon troopers check the calibration on their
radar anytime you ask!

    3mph was due to the fact that I had just hit the bottom
of a hill, and 5mph was due to the HORIZON's speedo reading
low. (I told the judge that yes I was guilty of trying
to hold my speed at 60 - 62mph.)

    Had I had my Escort along, I'd have trimmed my speed
back to 55 (60, remember the speedo's off) and skated on
past the cop. I wouldn't have driven faster with the Escort,
as 60 is about as fast the Horizon can safely be driven.
In this circumstance the Escort would only have helped me
to be more alert.

    Had I been alone and in my car, I would have been going
more like 65 - 70, and I would have been safer, (my BMW can
be driven more safely at 70 then that Horizon at 55) and
I'd have been far less bored and more alert at the higher
rate.

    How does this all tie back to the other statements?
I was guilty of not knowing my true speed, not of driving
excessively intentionally. I'm still out $57.


    Benton

 ...tektronix!tekig!bentonh