The ’60s
Twilight Zone TV series specialized in the thought experiment – the what if?
And the what the hell, too.
It’s becoming
like this on the road – and in our cars. Bizarre and contradictory
exhortations; injunctions to not do this – while that (as bad or even worse) is
treated with inexplicable leniency. Let’s take a trip into the Zone – and have
a look at some of these things:
Speed limits –
A better
example of the abuse of language would be hard to find. Because speed limits
are nothing of the sort. They are, in fact, the minimum speed for any given
road. To drive below the speed limit is to be a piece of plaque clogging up the
arterial. Even cops become impatient with people who drive the speed limit. And
to drive below the speed limit is considered by the courts to be inherently
suspicious – and cause for pulling the offender over.
If language
mattered – to say nothing of equitable laws – a speed limit would be precisely
that. A number reflecting the absolute maximum speed of safe travel on a given
road, defined by objective parameters such as grip thresholds and sight lines
and stopping distances. Instead we have the circus clown absurdity of speed
limits universally ignored because they do not even approximate the absolute
maximum speed of safe travel – and everyone knows it.
In other words,
speed limits as we know them are useless – except insofar as mulcting
motorists, of course. They do not have any informational value; they tell us
nothing about safe rates of travel, even in the most general sense. Indeed,
they do the opposite. Since everyone knows speed limits are absurd, no one pays
any real attention to them – defeating the stated purpose of them.
But we are
punished for exceeding these arbitrary limits, which are established precisely
in order to assure that every driver is guilty of transgressing them at least
once a day. In order to make punishment for everyone inevitable.
Speed limits
are the equivalent of punishing people for eating more than once a day – or
walking at a pace faster than a shuffle.
Selective
impairment –
A person can be
a terrible driver – inattentive, reckless – and it’s not much of a problem, as
far as the government is concerned. Provided they haven’t been drinking.
But a driver
who is found to have even trace amounts of alcohol in his system – even if his
driving is not terrible – can expect nothing less than crucifixion.
This disparity
informs us that dealing with impairment is not the true aim of the government.
Rather, it is to selectively abuse people who drink, even when their drinking
has no discernible negative impact on their driving performance. If this were
not the case, then drivers whose actual driving can’t be faulted, who’ve not
harmed or given reason to believe they will harm anyone – but do have an
arbitrary trace percentage of alcohol in their system – would be more kindly
treated by the system than the texter who ran a red light he was too busy
texting to notice and – though he had no alcohol in his system – nonetheless
managed to kill someone as a result of his inattentive and reckless driving.
Of course, it’s
the reverse. The victim of a DWI “checkpoint” – who has harmed no one and may
be more conscientious and careful and skillful driver than the current Sober
Average – is treated far more severely than the reckless texter, the senile
citizen and the worse-than-average driver, who actually does wreck and actually
does hurt other people.
We are dealing
with, then, a religious jihad – not a public safety issue.
Luxury-sport
electric cars –
So far, no one
has succeeded in designing and manufacturing an electric car that makes
economic sense. Which is persuasive testimony that electric cars don’t make
sense. If an EV isn’t a cheaper – and better – way to get from A to B than a
standard car, then why bother with it at all?
For the same
reason that ethanol is bothered with – there’s money in it. Obtained by taking
it from victims who are made to subsidize it.
It’s
astonishing that so few of these victims protest being fleeced for the benefit
of people considerably more able to afford toys than most of them are. How else
to describe an $80,000 luxury-sport car such as the Tesla S? Or even the
forthcoming Tesla Model 3 – which will have a base price in the neighborhood of
$35,000 – a sum which, on the face of it, is by definition uneconomic.
People buy
electric cars for all kinds of reasons – mostly, the same reasons people buy
jacked-up 4x4s and Porsches. The difference being that buyers of jacked-up 4x4s
and Porsches don’t generally expect their purchases to be subsidized by people
who – for the most part – cannot afford such toys themselves.
Whatever
happened to the sans culottes?
. . .
Got a question
about cars – or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in!
If you like what
you’ve found here, please consider supporting EPautos.
We depend on
you to keep the wheels turning!
Our donate
button is here.
If you prefer
not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:
EPautos
721 Hummingbird
Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA
24079
