MN man has liscense revoked for driving too slowly

[doviatt]

Originally Posted by XYZ

I suggest that you lobby your local politicians to reduce the speed limit to an absurdly low number and have them post critter crossings every few hundred feet. Then will you be satisfied?

No need.
The speed limit is ALWAYS posted maximum limit. The law is ALWAYS stated with exception and allowance of safety, safe driving, obeying other traffic laws, etc. Enforcement is another issue. Nowhere are you mandated to put your life in danger or to adhere to the maximum to accommodate anything (people, traffic, speeders, critters, pedestrians).
Choosing not to drive is an option. Choosing not to speed is the law. Choosing your own safety is absolute.

[XYZ]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

I've mentioned it exactly twice, and the last time contained a new observation.

Actually it is 3 times (see quote from post #11 below). The implication is that you know that road intimately and therefore are the most qualified to comment about it. Unfortunately we have no way of verifying whether anything you say is true or not.

My wish isn't for a different speed limit or more signage. My wish is for you egomaniacs to realize the entire universe doesn't revolve around your desire to put the hammer down.

"You egomaniacs." You get into an ongoing personal exchange of insults with Tjts and then you use a broad brush to tar anyone else who might disagree with you or who isn't a part of your fan club.

If we review all your comments in this thread it is obvious that you are trying to find every possible justification for your attitude that you have a right to drive as slowly as you please on a highway, just as the defendant in this case tried to do, unsuccessfully.

Actual quotes from your posts:

Post #11: "Next time I'm on 7 it'll be at 30 mph."

Post #28: "I wouldn't go 30 either, unless I knew tits1 was behind me and it was a no passing zone."

Post #35: "So if the commisioner is a **** with little understanding of the stautes, what she says goes anyway. Got it."

169.15 IMPEDING TRAFFIC; INTERSECTION GRIDLOCK.
Subdivision 1.Impeding traffic; slow speed.
No person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law or except when the vehicle is temporarily unable to maintain a greater speed due to a combination of the weight of the vehicle and the grade of the highway.

"No person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic..."

That phrase may be subjective, but it is broad enough providing reason enough for a police officer to cite you on it - especially if you show him an attitude or are found doing it repeatedly without a valid reason. That's what this whole case was about, but you are "sour grapes" - showing disappointment that the defendant lost his case.

Regarding a reply I made in a different thread, irrelevant to this one:

You wrote that?

You know I did, and you pulled it out of context and dragged it into this thread in a desperate attempt to put me in a bad light. That's a low blow, Frank, but coming from you I'm not surprised. BTW, I'm not ranting and threatening to unsubscribe from the thread which was what I was addressing in that response. However I AM holding you accountable for everything you said in THIS thread - and that's entirely relevant.

[Frank Lee]

Blah blah freaking blah. I said I saw a record amount of roadkill on that road and you just can't accept that the average motorist on that road might be driving dangerously.

[RedDevil]

Killing an animal by driving over it where that can be avoided is a crime over here.
Several years ago there was a discussion on this subject when one driver made an emergency stop for a family of ducks crossing the road, and the driver behind hit him and got wounded. Took the blame for driving too close and not paying attention.
It was made clear that the first driver did the right thing.

In 1986 I visited Finland. Endless straight 80 km/h roads through the forest. I saw a reindeer at respectable distance and slowed down to maybe 55. Suddenly close by a whole herd of them shot out of the forest and crossed right in front of me. I slammed the brakes and just missed them.

There's a string of parked cars along the road you are driving on. A tiny bicycle wheel sticks out just behind one of them...

There can be many reasons why someone decides the posted speed limit is not safe. Those can be real and valid, or just in the mind of the driver. I would think it is horrible to be forced by law to drive faster than you find safe. I should not need a lawyer to justify my assessment of a safe speed in any particular situation. That lower speed will not prevent anyone from reaching their destination.

Driving slow is not dangerous by itself; to the contrary. The danger comes from other road users not paying attention or overtaking when they should not. There can always be a valid reason why somebody is driving slow, driving into them is clearly wrong even if you have not spotted the reason why the other car drives slow. It would still be wrong if there is no real reason to drive slow.

I don't claim there is merit in being a nuisance to other road users. But when it comes to punishing that behaviour, be cautious. Why single out this wrong and leave others untouched?
I see drivers get mad at other drivers for the silliest of reasons and often try to get back at them in some way. How many accidents could be avoided if that behaviour would get more focus?

Imho the real problem is the ignorance and temper of many motorists.
My driving habits include choosing position on the road and adapting my speed in such a way as to prevent becoming a victim of those, usually at the cost of fuel economy.
That makes me feel sad.

[elhigh]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

Killing an animal by driving over it where that can be avoided is a crime over here.

I didn't read your entire post but I will.

We ARE all aware this is off topic now, right?

My wife ran over a 'possum that had already been hit but was suffering, she hit it to end his suffering. Then she came back and told me what she'd done, told me to get a shovel and bury the poor thing.

Went to get the shovel.

Went out to the road. Huh. No 'possum.

scritch
scratch
gasp
scritch

Looking around I found the poor little fellow dragging his sorry self in the ditch. He was in a very bad way, but still moving. I brought my automatic from the house, aimed carefully and shot him in the head. *blam*

scritch
gasp

Somewhat rattled I shot him again. *blam*

scratch

I got much closer than I wanted to, aimed at what remained of his head, surely it's just the body winding down, this is just for the sake of being thorough, please? *blam*

sigh

And all was still.

Jesus. I slid the gun into my pocket, a very conveniently small .25 Browning auto, not very accurate but a reliable little weapon that is, at the end of the day, still a gun.

I picked the shovel back up.

A police cruiser came rolling by. I tried very hard not to look guilty, and maybe the cops sorta understood things when they saw me lift up a dead 'possum on the end of my shovel. Whatever the case, they kept going.

TL;DR: it's a crime except when it isn't. The animal was hurt, my wife tried to finish it off (and our crappy little Hyundai wasn't up to the job), turns out 'possums die hard.

[XYZ]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Blah blah freaking blah.

That's the remark that a class clown makes when it's all he has left to defend all his previously made, irresponsible remarks. Anyone who reads your posts can see that you run your mouth relentlessly in this forum to be a cheerleader for a cause you defend. When you are quoted and confronted with what you said as a matter of record, your only response is "Blah blah freaking blah."

I said I saw a record amount of roadkill on that road and you just can't accept that the average motorist on that road might be driving dangerously.

No Frank, you can't prove that, and since it isn't provable it isn't a fact. It's merely a belief based upon what you attest, a self-serving claim which may or may not be true. Since you have an interest in saying and promoting such things so that others will believe you and support your position your credibility is questionable at best.

No, I don't believe what you say, simply because you said it. Given your record of constant, voluminous posting and trying to persuade others by dominating a thread and rousing your loyal fans to support you, your motives are questionable at best. "Blah blah freaking blah."

So Frank, frankly I don't believe you. And without proof, why should anyone other than your followers believe you?

[Christ]

Originally Posted by elhigh

I didn't read your entire post but I will.

We ARE all aware this is off topic now, right?

My wife ran over a 'possum that had already been hit but was suffering, she hit it to end his suffering. Then she came back and told me what she'd done, told me to get a shovel and bury the poor thing.

Went to get the shovel.

Went out to the road. Huh. No 'possum.

scritch
scratch
gasp
scritch

Looking around I found the poor little fellow dragging his sorry self in the ditch. He was in a very bad way, but still moving. I brought my automatic from the house, aimed carefully and shot him in the head. *blam*

scritch
gasp

Somewhat rattled I shot him again. *blam*

scratch

I got much closer than I wanted to, aimed at what remained of his head, surely it's just the body winding down, this is just for the sake of being thorough, please? *blam*

sigh

And all was still.

Jesus. I slid the gun into my pocket, a very conveniently small .25 Browning auto, not very accurate but a reliable little weapon that is, at the end of the day, still a gun.

I picked the shovel back up.

A police cruiser came rolling by. I tried very hard not to look guilty, and maybe the cops sorta understood things when they saw me lift up a dead 'possum on the end of my shovel. Whatever the case, they kept going.

TL;DR: it's a crime except when it isn't. The animal was hurt, my wife tried to finish it off (and our crappy little Hyundai wasn't up to the job), turns out 'possums die hard.

It's unfortunate, but I hit a neighbor's dog just over the NY border [inside NY state], and due to the laws there, couldn't do /anything/ to help the poor animal's transition... had I shot it, I risked being charged with a plethora of gun 'crimes'. I did what the average person would do, and left, the poor thing still writhing in the road in pain at 0200 on the weekend.

Wish I'd had any clue who was responsible for the dog...

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by XYZ

That's the remark that a class clown makes when it's all he has left to defend all his previously made, irresponsible remarks. Anyone who reads your posts can see that you run your mouth relentlessly in this forum to be a cheerleader for a cause you defend. When you are quoted and confronted with what you said as a matter of record, your only response is "Blah blah freaking blah."



No Frank, you can't prove that, and since it isn't provable it isn't a fact. It's merely a belief based upon what you attest, a self-serving claim which may or may not be true. Since you have an interest in saying and promoting such things so that others will believe you and support your position your credibility is questionable at best.

No, I don't believe what you say, simply because you said it. Given your record of constant, voluminous posting and trying to persuade others by dominating a thread and rousing your loyal fans to support you, your motives are questionable at best. "Blah blah freaking blah."

So Frank, frankly I don't believe you. And without proof, why should anyone other than your followers believe you?

Can you summarize your point- if you have one- in one or two sentences for me please? Because out of how many pages of back and forth, I don't see anything new out of you. So if this is just more repetition i.e. saying things that have already been said, forget it.

[justme1969]

All hail the omnipotent Frank??? Naah I like Frank we dont always agree but that is what debate is for.
Just we dont make a issue difference a personal or insulting. well mabe not often LOL.
No reason to be ugly with words in here, and for the record I am against any driver who willfully or agressively thwarts another drivers progress unless, that action is designed to save another persons life later. So by all means drive defensively and slower than others just dont incite rage in others while doing so and if you do live or die with those consequences.
LIVE LONG AND PROSPER.

[Frank Lee]

Yes, that's funny. I don't recall soliciting any followers.