Cloveritis. . .

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

I think the Flouride in the water has done its thing… . 

Almost every time I go out, I come up on a car that’s doing either just barely the limit – and often several MPH below it. The typical offender also likes to slow down and then speed up for no apparent reason; the concept of maintaining smooth pace escapes them. They’ll wander across the double yellow – and not just in the curves. Then jerk the wheel to get the car back in line.

The main road through my county in rural Virginia is US 221. This is a broad, two-lane secondary highway with gentle curves and many long, straight sections that sometimes run for as much as a mile or more. It is posted 55 mph. Most of the traffic is doing 60-something. 

Then you roll up on a car – not infrequently a chrome-covered SUV-o-saurus with a 300-plus hp V-8 – gimping along at 50-54 mph.

Slowing for the curves.

I wouldn’t mind these people so much if they’d just pull off and let the faster-moving traffic get by. But they keep on going – slowly – indifferent to the line of cars stacking up behind them.

It seems to me the problem is getting worse. Maybe it’s because there are more really old people on the road. America is graying; reflexes and vision are declining. Or maybe it’s because the up and coming generations have been reared in an environment of subservience, if not outright worship of “the law” as a moral absolute, never to be questioned.

My generation (Generation X) it was different.

We grew up suspicious of “the law” – and ignored or evaded it when it seemed stupid. The old 55 mph maximum highway speed limit, for example. That was my reality in high school and college during the 1980s. “Drive 55” was obviously a scam. We could remember, as kids in the early ’70s, when the limit was 70-75 mph. At the stroke of a politician’s pen, it became illegal “speeding” to drive at the exact same speeds that used to be legal. The claim made at the time was that the lower speed limit was enacted to “save gas” – yet we saw that people were not given tickets for resource depletion. They were given tickets for speeding – and labeled as “unsafe drivers” by the DMV and their insurance companies. 

It was BS – and it caused us to suspect that much else besides was probably BS, too. 

So, we developed our own compasses. We evaluated a situation on its merits and decided accordingly. If it was legal (and so, presumably, safe) to drive 70 mph in 1970, surely it was still just as safe to drive the same speed on the same road – in a much more modern car – in 1985. If no other cars were coming, why not turn right on red? Why is it admirable to sit there like a cow waiting for the light to change when it’s clearly safe to proceed? Americans used to question “the law” – but nowadays, they reflexively obey. Most of them, anyhow.  

The younger people of today were reared in an environment of less-than-individualism. They seem to reflexively defer to authority  -and “the law.” 

As far as traffic laws go, they have no memory of a time when highway limits were routinely 70-75, so they think it’s a Great Leap Forward to be able to go 65 or 70 today. They can’t remember the “Drive 55” era – and the era before it, when speeds were much higher and it worked just fine – so they don’t see the absurdity of the situation today.

Plus, they grew up in a video game word, with cars that are deceptively easy to “drive.” Many have never experienced a car with drum brakes at all four corners and no ABS. If you had 100 under-30s do a road test in a 1970 F-100 pick-up with a three-on-the-tree manual and no power steering or brakes probably two thirds of them would be unable to even get the car moving.

A good number would likely be in the ditch, wheels-up, within five minutes.

But mainly, it’s the suffocating steam of “safety” that has enveloped our society like a malignant fog. The endless background drone that says to ever drive even a single MPH faster than that number on that sign … well, you might as well spray a kindergarten with automatic weapons fire.  

People have absorbed this. They live it. How else to explain the situation? Almost everyone is driving around in a car that is fully capable of safely (assuming a competent driver) running much faster than the speed limits typical on American roads. And not just running faster. They stop well, too. Most modern cars take half the distance to come to a complete stop relative to a car from the 1960s – when speed limits were generally higher than they are today.

They have ABS and traction control and a whole array of technologies that keep them on the road even when the driver can’t.

All for what, exactly? So the “driver” can plod along at speeds that would have seemed glacial back in 1966?

At least back in ’66, the bluehair (or whomever) up ahead would have pulled off onto the shoulder to let you by.

But today, the driver of that chromed-out SUV on its 20-inch ree’-uhms up ahead is oblivious to the traffic behind it. The conversation the driver’s having on her sail fawn is much more engaging than paying attention to the road.

Or the rearview mirror.

Throw it in the Woods?


  1. Clover, I have a story for you. My baby girl frequently experienced seizures and would quit breathing. On one occasion we were in the car and we decided (correctly) that it would be faster for us to take her straight to the local childrens hospital and the specialists that could help her. I drove at a fast and safe rate of speed to try and get her there in time to save her life. Some of your safe driving left lane hogging buddies blocked our way for much of the trip. I honked. I flashed my lights. I watched as her mother desperately tried to keep her breathing.

    The car coming up on you in the left lane may have a DAMN GOOD reason to be in a hurry. Please get over and let them by. Slower traffic keeping right can be a real life saver at any speed.

    Our daughter outgrew those spells of seizures and was thankfully ok that day. Sometimes being safe means allowing others to do things we wouldn’t.

    • None of that matters to Clovers. Much as they prattle on about “safety” and the “public good” (as they define it) you’ll notice the bottom line is about them controlling others. A Clover isn’t content, for example, to drive at his pace – and let others drive at theirs. He wants to force others to drive at his pace. He won’t just slide over to the right and let others get by – he’ll bitch and moan about “speeders” and agitate for enforcement campaigns. Of course, he’ll be church mouse silent when it comes to other laws – such as laws prohibiting obstructing traffic or refusing to yield to faster moving traffic.

      The bottom line is that “Cloverism” is a polite way of saying asshole-ism. It is defined by arbitrary, pedantic, least-common-denominator control-freak passive-aggressiveness of the sort you find displayed by HOA hausfraus and other low-rent busybodies. Unfortunately, it is spreading. They’re breeding and engineering a social-economic-political system that rewards Cloverites and kills the will to live of everyone who isn’t a Clover.

  2. clover. heres what you should do. go into your closet and look at your clothes. they are probably like everyone elses. look at your wife. she is probably bored with you and your sex life…but she doesnt tell you, she only tells her girlfriends after a few drinks which she cherishes more than anything in the world. then call up one of your friends and have you a few drinks with him…and see if that stirs up anything which resembles a life or spontaneous conversation, which it probably wont. then take about five minutes and think about how this world would be different without you on it.

  3. Another heretic!

    It’s good to know there are still people awake out there; willing and determined to use their own judgment, irrespective of “the law.” Clovers are like their namesake. They sit stolidly in the field, waiting for whatever fate befalls them. If it rains, they get wet. If a reaper comes to cut them down, they get cut down ad made into hay. It would never occur to a Clover to do something on its own initiative. A Clover always wants to be told; salivates to be instructed and led. And it resents those who don’t wish to be – perhaps out of some barely flickering vestigial humanity that still exists somewhere deep inside that quietly reminds them of their surrender into a thing rather than a man.

    PS: I really liked your point about driving initiative as a marker of individualism and deference to authority!

    • Yes Eric you believe in using your own judgment. Like the people that decide to drive drunk and the people that text while they drive and the people that pass where they can not see you coming from the other direction. You believe people should be able to do anything except for driving slower than you. Where is the equality in that thinking. I forgot, it is not about what others think, it is all about Eric. F— the rest of the people in the world.

      • Dood, are you really still carrying on with that crap! Try to retain it this time. All we are saying is slow traffic keep right! It’s posted on signs everywhere bro. It’s not about F– the rest of the world. It is about common courtesy. I’m puzzled as to how you keep ending up at the same dead end!

      • That’s right, my much-masticated Clover – I do believe in using my judgment. I’m not a Clover, which means I am capable of thinking for myself and don’t need to wait like a servile, watery-eyed old dog for my master (the government) to show me what I should do. The fundamental reason you’re a Clover is not that you respect the law. It’s that you worship any law – because it’s the law. It’s because you think anything the government does is, by definition, right and moral and not to be questioned – but only obeyed. It is apparently inconceivable to you that the government and its minions could ever be in the wrong – whether it’s ridiculous speed limits or a 250 pound cop Tazering a middle aged woman (or old person). If the government does it, why, it must be right. The government has “good reasons.” And whatever it does, it always does it “for our own good.”
        Don’t think; don’t question. Submit! Obey!

        You have the pea-brained mindset of a Soviet proletarian. I can just imagine you gazing reverently at a picture of Tovarich Stalin.

        And you are quite right that there’s no place in my thinking for “equality” – because people are not equal.

        Especially when it comes to Clovers!

      • One more thing, oh well-seasoned and deeply marinated Cloveroni: “Where is the equality in that thinking”?

        I won’t comment on the clumsy construction of that statement. I will (try) to explain to you that which ought to be obvious (except for the fact that you’re a Clover). It is simply this:

        People are not equal.

        With regard to driving, individuals vary as far as their skills and training; their built-in natural advantages (such as eyesight, sense of spatial relationships, reflexes, etc.)

        Some people are much better drivers than others – and can operate a car at much higher speeds, as or more safely than a poorly skilled driver can at much lower speeds.

        Why should all drivers be forced to drive at the level of the least competent? (Which is the premise of today’s system.) Just because you feel uncomfortable making a right on red (or driving at faster pace) shouldn’t mean that people who can comfortably execute that maneuver should be subjected to harassment by the law for doing so.

        What you advocate is blind obedience to every dumbed-down law they gin up, irrespective of whether a driver is actually driving well (and safely) or not. People are routinely ticketed for “speeding,” which to your Cloveronian mind is the same thing as “unsafe driving” – even though that is as silly (and childish) a daisy chain as making the “argument” that a commercial airplane is “less safe” at 500 knots than at 350 knots. After all, speed kills…. or so the Cloveronian logic goes.

        So, rather than cops targeting people who are actually driving dangerously or ineptly (such as refusing to yield to faster moving traffic and thereby creating an obstruction to the free-flow of traffic) we have a system that mindlessly goes after people over “technical fouls” such as driving faster than an arbitrary number – which may have absolutely nothing to do with whether the vehicle was being operated with skill and competence. All that matters (to Clovers like you) is that the driver was speeeeeeeeeeding.

        • hey man…clovers…and people in general do not understand…well simply “how to understand.” it lies in the fact of their education, and that they put so many other “more important” things ahead of themselves. they get stuck in a rut of routine…and their minds react, rather than actually think. they mistake the reaction their mind performs for actual thinking. ask enough people if they believe themselves to be smart, and most will reply with insufficient data such as “master’s degrees, gpas, raises at work, etc…” but never really any proof in actual thought action.

          it is how clover’s mind works. he attributes abiding the law to making a smart decision. he is incapable of questioning…whether it is authority, his own decisions, what to eat, social norms, what his wife tells him to do, how fast to drive, whether to pull off to the side for faster moving traffic, etc…

          the mind works better with practice, like anything else.

          i seriously talked about this same thing a while ago when trying to break down the minds of mass man. i call it the practice perspective. check it out if you get a chance…i think you’ll see we think a lot alike!

  4. thanks eric!!!
    hey clover? i don’t complain at all man. i dont care what the city does. put flashing lights, purple lights, orange lights, strobe lights, its cool. i dont break laws clover. i just dont obey things some other man tells me to follow. who is he to tell me what to do if he bleeds and breathes air just like me. i dont want to fix anything clover. im not a society man, a mass man. i honestly wish society would burn to the ground along with those like you clover. lets leave the strong minded alive to exist with the rest of the amazing creatures on earth…
    dom…you mean people should drive cars like they do when they walk…you mean like looking down at their cell phones and texting and then running into telephone poles? they already do drive like they walk…its really that people dont walk anymore. they sit on their couches and watch tv.

  5. Awesome. I have been searching for you my whole life eric. a true individual who actually think through things totally before spouting his mouth off with regurgitated televised opinions. how many times i have seen people sitting at lights that say no turn on red at 3 in the morning with no one around. i drive around them and turn. lights that run red at ten at night for no reason. what? im not stopping. do i look like someone brainwashed that when colors appear before me i react like a brain-dead zombie. no.
    and i don’t know how many times i drive behind people that do exactly what you say…going the exact speed limit…or a bit under…and not moving…no matter how long i honk for…as though they are the guardians of the law…or when on a four laner…and the two cars go side by side ahead of me…never going faster than the other.
    but its so much more than traffic laws…although those are a true yardstick for intelligence, risk-taking behavior, authority allegiance, and individuality.
    the mass are zombies. my parents included…they only follow or talk about anymore what is on the television or whats in the news…and they accept it blindly…its almost as though law, television, order, have all become some sort of religion….its eeaaaryyy man.

    youre a true diamond in the sky brother.

    fuck the world. dont ask me for shit.

    • What? You don’t sit at red lights in the middle of the night for no reason? You’re going to hell! j/k So much malarkey built into our system now and so many worship it. This may be an over simplification, but I think people should carry themselves in a car the way they would on foot. Welcome to the site!

      • yes fenimore neon, you sound like Eric and dom all right. You do not provide any solutions and just like complaining. Anyone with a brain would go to the city to get the lights changed to flasshing red or flashing yellow at night when there is almost no traffic. That is already done in a lot of small towns but you guys would rather sit back and complain and take joy in braging about breaking laws rather than to fix anything.

        • The solution? Passing Clovers at every opportunity! Roaring by you at Top Speed! Using our judgment instead of practicing the cow-like obedience to any and all laws (because it’s the law!) like a Cloveroni.

  6. Posted by Ekrampitzjr in the forum.

    Va. law everyone, especially clovers, needs to know about

    Tried to post this under “Cloveritis” on the main page, but the system seems to have eaten it. Here goes:

    “Clover” and similar ninnies might want to be aware of the law from the Virginia Code that appears below, with accompanying clarification from the Virginia State Police. I suspect this law passed in the first place because clovers in the left lane hampered troopers and other emergency responders in unmarked or civilian vehicles. It seems likely that some other states have a similar law.

    I run into idiots such as Clover all the time, especially on Virginia route 10 in the eastern part of the state. Usually they are doing 10 mph or more UNDER the limit in the PASSING lane and hanging beside a vehicle moving at the same speed in the right lane. I simply want to be able to do the speed limit (or so), but people like this block the way illegally and often will not move over regardless of my signals. Nothing safe about this, and any experienced highway engineer will tell you that speed differentials (and not outright speed per se) cause the most accidents.

    On a two-lane section of route 10 other clovers annoyed me by doing 35 in a 55 zone for miles and miles. They were in ’40s and ’50s cars leaving a car and tractor show, and while it was nice to see these restored collectibles on the road, it wasn’t so nice to be stuck behind them for miles in no-passing zones as traffic backed up. They should have pulled over periodically to allow traffic to pass if they couldn’t have done 55; farm implements and slow trucks routinely do this.

    Here’s the law in this state:

    Virginia Code § 46.2-842.1. Drivers to give way to certain overtaking vehicles on divided highways.

    It shall be unlawful to fail to give way to overtaking traffic when driving a motor vehicle to the left and abreast of another motor vehicle on a divided highway. On audible or light signal, the driver of the overtaken vehicle shall move to the right to allow the overtaking vehicle to pass as soon as the overtaken vehicle can safely do so. A violation of this section shall not be construed as negligence per se in any civil action.

    (1989, c. 708, § 46.1-211.1.)

    “State Police say this applies even when faster traffic is speeding” [excerpt from posted article]:…2092006/166829

    “Sgt. F.L. Tyler, a public information officer with the state police office in Culpeper, said the following section of state code applies to left-lane hangers:

    ” ‘It shall be unlawful to fail to give way to overtaking traffic when driving a motor vehicle to the left and abreast of another motor vehicle on a divided highway.’

    “It continues: ‘On audible or light signal, the driver of the overtaken vehicle shall move to the right to allow the overtaking vehicle to pass as soon as the overtaken vehicle can safely do so.’

    “In other words, said Tyler, if you’re in the left lane of a divided highway and going down the road, even with a vehicle to your right, the law requires that you give way and let a vehicle behind you pass.

    “Specifically, he said, if you’re in that situation and a vehicle behind you signals its intention to pass, by either honking a horn or flashing its lights, you are required to move to the right as soon as it’s safe, and allow the signaling vehicle to pass.

    “Failure to do so is a violation of the law, he said.

    “Tyler said that applies even if the vehicle trying to pass is speeding, following too closely or operating in any other reckless manner.

    ” ‘Leave it up to police officers to deal with any violations they might be committing. We’ll handle that,’ he said. ‘But the law still requires you to move to the right and let them pass.’

    “He noted that the law and common sense both are served by getting out of the way of a driver who’s anxious and intent on passing.

    ” ‘To ride along in that left lane and keep an agitated driver blocked in behind you isn’t in anyone’s best interest,’ Tyler said.

    “He noted that failing to allow a blocked-in vehicle to pass could cause danger another way.

    ” ‘A frustrated driver who can’t get by on the left is likely to try to squeeze through to the right,’ said Tyler, whether there’s enough room or not. ‘Because of that, a third vehicle could be put at risk.’

    “In addition to the legal requirements and the dangers posed by problem passing situations, the state police spokesman said safe driving techniques make clear it’s a bad idea for vehicles to travel alongside each other any longer than necessary.

    ” ‘Instead, if you’re the car in that left lane, you want to get back to the right and give yourself a safety zone,’ he said–an open lane to escape any dangers on the highway.

    ” ‘If someone pulls out of a side road into your path, and you’re side by side with another vehicle, where are you going?’ he asked. An empty lane beside you provides an escape.”

      • No, this article is spoken by a true eric or dom. What other people would get furious when someone has the gall to drive the speed limit and safely. The article is spoken by a true hater.

        • You still haven’t told us what your Mighty driving credentials bees, Clover mah boy. I am guessing they’re as impressive as your knowledge of motorcycles, gas mileage, DWI… well, everything!

          Interesting that when you can’t argue logically or factually you accuse your opponent of “hate.”

          You’re the perfect New American!

        • Again, oh-so-tender Clover, you equate “driving the speed limit” with “driving safely.” If that were always the case, then please explain to us why it was “driving safely” to drive 70 mph on an Interstate highway in 1973 – when 70 MPH was the speed limit – but the next year, 1974, when Congress lowered the speed limit to 55 mph it suddenly became “unsafe” to drive exactly the same speed on exactly the same road. Do you really believe that it became “unsafe” – overnight, literally, at the stroke of a lawmaker’s pen – to drive 70 because a bunch of politicians decided to lower the lawful maximum? That all the people who got tickets for doing what had been legal the previous year deserved those tickets?

          And: Is it now “safe” to drive 70 again – just because politicians changed the limit back to 70?

          Am I getting through?

          The same dynamic plays out all across the country, on countless secondary roads. Speed limits are dropped by 5 MPH, 10 MPH – sometimes more – for no reason that has anything do with safe rates of travel for that road. There are small towns/rural counties (and big cities) all over the country that deliberately set up speed traps – stretches of road where the posted limit either drops suddenly for no clear reason or is just set at an absurdly low level – for the express purpose of trapping as many “speeders” as possible. Some localities derive as much as 25 percent (or more) of their budget from traffic fines. Does that tell you anything about the incentive behind traffic law enforcement?

          The fact that almost every car on the road is driving a least a few MPH faster than the posted limit ought to tell you something about the validity of those limits, too. Either the majority of drivers are willfully reckless or the limits are set farcically low. Which makes more sense?

          I know. I know. To you – a Clover – any speed limit is the right limit, because it’s the limit set by the law. And the law is always right.

          Submit! Obey! The Children! What About The Children?


      • At work today we were talking about poor drivers and then about Indian drivers since we have workers from there and all over the US. I talked about the videos and death rate in India and they said it was not just there but all third world countries and the poor driving. It is now clear to me that Eric wants the US to be a third world country.

        • Ah, delectable, beer battered and tenderized Clover…. America is indeed already a Turd World country, courtesy of the importation of countless millions of Turd World Clovers from Central and South America, Injia, Africa, etc – magnified by the rampant breeding of homegrown Clovers, encouraged by our dystopic society.( I’m betting you’ve bred, for example.)

          But when America was not a Clover Field, highway limits were 70 or faster. People yielded to faster moving traffic instead of belligerently parking in the left lane – as is all too common today. They didn’t blindly worship “the law.” They exercised judgment and showed initiative. Things no Clover can comprehend.

          Poor old Cover would load up his Depends real quick if he had to deal with a three-day session at Bob Bondurant’s.

          Here is a Cloverian anthem; I am guessing you know the words:

    • My credentials are that I am a safe driver that gets where I want to get in a a safe manner and in a low amount of time. I do not have people writing down my license number because of my poor driving because I drive very well. Eric gets mad when people drive the speed limit because he then has to lie that everyone drives over the speed limit. That is the largest problem that Eric and dom have is that they have a COW that people actually follow the law and safe driving practices. Yellow lines on the centerline are placed in areas where it is not safe to pass. You either follow those recommendations or you go and prove to the people that placed them there that the visibility is actually good and it is very safe to pass there. This is just a simple examaple of laws that are there to make it safer for everyone to be on the road with each other. It is also proven that the idiots that drive above the 85 percentile speed cause a lot more accidents and very serious ones. That is why the states allow higher insuance companies to those that get caught speeding and break other moving violations. It is a plain fact that people that say it is ok to break all traffic laws and do it then have a far greater chance of being in accidents and killing and injuring others. That is why we have laws to limit such people. If Eric can come up with statistics that idiot drivers are safe then I would like to see those MADE UP AND FALSE reports.

      • That is to say, you have no credentials! Asserting “I’m a safe driver!” as a credential, without anything behind it except you saying so, is like saying “I am smart!” without anything to back that up, either.

        Unless you have proved yourself to be at least a better than average driver by having demonstrated some objective measure of skill such as obtaining an SCCA license, or successful completion of a high-performance driving school – etc. – then you have no basis for making any claims about your ability as a driver.

        Just your Cloverish opinion of yourself, which is as worthless as a Confederate dollar. You’re just some guy squatting in the left lane doing 2 MPH below the speed limit who refuses to yield, who thinks he is the Supreme Law Giver and Enforcer of Proper Speed Limits.

        That’s what pisses people off, my dear, delectable Clover!

        And: I don’t get mad that you drive slowly. What makes me mad is that you won’t acknowledge that not everyone wants to drive at your pace – and that you won’t get out of the way of those who wish to drive faster. And that you defend your passive-aggressive ways.

        You also have an incredibly naive – frankly, a stupid – view of “the law.” You seem to operate under the delusion that traffic laws and their enforcement are ipso facto about “safety,” always right,not just technically but morally, too – never in error, never cynically erected and enforced for purposes such as revenue collection – etc.

        I pointed out to you the example of the 20 year period when the 55 mph limit was in effect; that prior to 1974 (when it was enacted) it was legal on most highways to drive 70 MPH. Then suddenly, it wasn’t. For 20 years, millions of people got tickets for “speeding” – and were tagged by their insurance companies as “unsafe” drivers – for driving at speeds that, prior to 1974, were legal (and presumably, therefore, “safe”).
        Then, in 1995, Congress repealed the 55 limit. And now it’s legal to drive close to 70 on most highways again. This is a textbook, obvious, self-evident example of a case where the law (“drive 55”) was BS, as were the tickets issued during the time it was in force. It is telling that you can’t respond to this point – because you know you can’t and that it you try, you will look even more vacuous than you already do.

        It’s as though you think that people in authority – politicians, bureaucrats and so on – are rid of all human weaknesses and flaws, such as the desire to use their positions and power for purposes other than the Perfect Public Interest. You have an almost child-like reverence for “the law” – whatever it happens to be.

        Is there any law that you question? That you would not obey, or try not to obey?

        • Eric you are an idiot. The 55 mph speed limit was put into place to save fuel not specifically to save lives although it did. Back in the 70s there were gas lines of which you do not know about. When we have them again I will wait for your comments about how we still have to drive fast while others have no fuel because your mpg is so low driving fast. There are reports that show when the speed limits were increased ,where people were actually following the limit, the death rate increased a significan amount. Also people that drive faster than others do have an increase in cost to insurance companies. That is why the states allow for the higher premiums for that group. You need to go do some research and stay away from the made up statistics that you and others have made up.

          • Right. Again, you refuse to address – or are incapable of addressing – the point. Yes, “Drive 55” was enacted ostensibly to “save fuel.” But were people ticketed for “wasting resources” or “using excess gas”? No. They were ticketed for speeding. These tickets were taken by insurance companies and the state DMVs as evidence of “unsafe driving.”


            Before 1974 (when the 55 limit was enacted) it was legal to drive 70-75 on many American highways. After 1974 – and through 1994 – driving those same speeds on the same roads (in more modern – and safer cars) subjected one to a big ticket for “speeding.”

            Then in 1995, the law was repealed and most states reverted back to higher limits.

            So, try to focus real hard now Clover: Did it suddenly become “safe” to drive at 70 mpg again after 1994?

            Or was it merely that the law changed?

            If it was the latter – which it obviously was – then by definition, all the millions of tickets issued from 1974 to the time the 55 mph limit was repealed for “speeding” (and the millions of dollars extracted from those motorists) was a rip-off and a con.

            This is as obvious a case in point as there is. It is impossible to deny the facts – and the conclusions those facts lead to.

            But of course you refuse to concede this – because you’re a Clover!

        • Again Eric you show that you are an idiot. When the speed limit was 55 mph people were ticketed for speeding and causing more deaths and accidents. It is true that driving faster, particularly cars of those days, caused more deaths and accidents. There were no air bags back then and many cars only had lap belts which were not much better than no belts. Also driving faster than other cars causes more severe accidents and that is proven with any statistic you want to look at that is not made up. That means that insurance premiums for that group needs to go up to cover the cost of that group. By the way, those people that get caught drunk driving and get a lot of moving vilotions, many insuance companies do not want those individuals even with a higher rates because of their possible huge costs to the company or other policyholders in a mutual company. All I can say is that if you think insurance companies are raking it in for that group then start your own company and see how you do insuring only the high risk.

          Name me one traffic rule that is stupid and I will tell you what I think about it. I know of no rule that I guestion right off hand. Most all of them were put into place to decrease the death rate and improve traffic flow but you do not care about such things. Thousands of lives have been saved with those traffic laws that you think are stupid.

          • Clover.. oh tenderized, masticated Clover… can you answer the question?

            Highway speed limits were 70-75 before 1974. In other words, such speeds were deemed reasonable, prudent – and safe – for average drivers assuming average 1960s-1970s era cars.

            After 1974 – through 1994 – for the openly stated reason of “conserving energy,” the limits were dropped to a maximum of 55. The government itself said the reason for lowering the limits had nothing to do with “safety.” Yet people were given tickets for “speeding” – and driving any faster than 55 was officially regarded as “unsafe” – even though doing so prior to 1974 had been deemed “safe.”

            Then Congress reversed the law in 1995. Speed limits rose again to what they had been prior to 1974.

            Does it became “safe” to drive at 70 MPH (or even 60-65 mph) by the stroke of a lawmaker’s pen?

            Do you really believe that?

            Of course you do. People with low IQs and a slave mentality believe everything the government tells them. Because everything the government does is by definition good and wise and just! It’s all for their own good! And they can’t remember what the laws used to be – nor flex their mental muscles to make logical sense of things. No, to a Clover, what matters is obedience. Worshipful, cringing, obedience.

          • Eric the fact is there were a lot of deaths on the highway back when the speed limit was well over the 55 mph limit. If you say it was safe that is fine but when vehicles actually slowed to 55 mph many less deaths happened on the road. What does that say?

    • The article to me sounds like you are talking about a drunk driver. A drunk driver speeds up and slows down and weaves back and forth. I thought you liked having drunk drivers on the road. Maybe all the drivers you have been complaining about are drunk. Maybe there are a lot of drunk drivers in Virginia.

      • Sorry, Clover – you lose (again).

        Fatality rates continued to go down after 1995 – when Congress repealed the 55 MPH maximum highway limit and states raised their highway limits back to 65, 70, 75 MPH (or even 80, as in Texas).

        If your “logic” held, then there should have been a sharp uptick in both accidents and fatalities when the speed limits went up – which is just what that old nag Joan Claybrook and other uber Clovers predicted. (I bet you have a picture of her on your desk – right next to the one of Janet Reno.)

        But that didn’t happen. What do you make of this? Can your low-wattage brain make a few deductions?

        I’m not sure what it is about the Cloverian mind that is so fixated on speed (and not just “speed,” but the “speed” set forth by government bureaucrats as the “safe” speed).

        But then, I’m not a Clover (thank god).

        I’ve got a functioning brain.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here