Does “Speed” Really “Kill”?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Yesterday I took one of my motorcycles out and rode it three times faster than the posted speed limit. According to the Clovers of this earth (read more about them here) I shouldn’t be sitting here at my keyboard typing this. I should be dead – since “speed kills.” speed kills picture

Yet, I did not die  – or even scratch the paint. I have done this – “speed” – numerous times over several decades, without once dying. Or causing anyone else to die, either.

Logically – and despite what we’re constantly told – “speed” apparently does not “kill.” At least, it did not kill me.

Well, why not?

The Clovers of this earth will inevitably retort with their usual control freak authoritarian jibber-jabber about the increased risk that attends “speeding.” But, take note. They have conceded the point, much as they will recoil once they realize it.

I “speed” – and live. Therefore, “speed” doesn’t kill.speed kills 2

It might – but that’s an altogether different argument.

Clover is now in the position of the woman in Winston Churchill’s story who has agreed to have sex with a guy who has offered her $1 million dollars to do the deed . . . but takes umbrage at his reduced offer of $10.

They’re haggling over price – not the principle of the thing.

In Clover’s case, it’s “speed” we’re arguing about. It’s clear that it does not always or necessarily “kill.” If it did kill, literally millions of people would get killed today.

Because millions of people will “speed.” As they do every day. As cops do, routinely.

Of course, millions will not die.

The vast majority will get to their destination without incident. I speed every time I drive – or ride. You probably do, too. Almost everyone does – even Clovers. We’re still alive, most of us.

Therefore, “speed” does not “kill.”

At least, not always – or even often.speed kills 3

Much less necessarily.

Which means we can throw Clover’s axiom – “speed kills!” – in the woods. It’s of a piece with other false universal statements (e.g., the Jews control the media; all blacks are violent).

Clover will fall back on “increased risk.” You might lose control and wreck – and cause harm.

But this is an intangible, something that cannot be definitively quantified. I ride my motorcycle at three times the posted speed limit – and nothing happens. Later that day, a driver doing 5 MPH below the posted speed limit loses control of his vehicle – for any of several possible reasons – crashes and is killed.

Did “speed” kill him?

Or was it because he wasn’t paying attention, then overcorrected after his right wheel dipped off the road?

If it is “speed” that’s the universal, all-explanatory problem, then – logically – the “safest” speed is no speed at all. All movement should cease. Or at least – for safety’s sake – a national maximum speed limit of 25 MPH ought to be imposed. Especially on highways. That would “save lives” – cue the familiar Onager refrain from the Clover chorus.

But, a 25 MPH maximum would be inconvenient.

So, we’re allowed to travel at a “speed” deemed to be “safe”  . . . by the Clovers – the bureaucrats who impose these arbitrary velocity maximums, the people who support these arbitrary maximums and, of course, the cops and courts that enforce them.

They are comfortable with 65 or 70 on the highway – and 35 or 40 in town. So those “speeds” are decreed “safe” – and anointed as lawful. On the other hand, they feel 25 MPH on the highway is too slow – even though (using their logic against them) 25 is surely “safer” than 65 or 70.

Remember: “Speed kills.” The slower, the safer. So let’s all go really slow.


But because they’d like to get where they’re going, too – just like us “speeders” – they scoff at the prospect of a 25 MPH national maximum speed limit. They don’t want their commute to work to take an hour rather than half an hour – no matter “the children” or “safety.”

If a 25 MPH National Maximum Speed Limit were imposed, they’d ignore it – and “speed” – just like us. And they’d resent it – just like us – when they got waylaid for this “offense” by an armed costumed, lectured about “safety” by a judge, fleeced of a couple hundred bucks in fines, then hit with a “surcharge” by their insurance company on the basis of their “unsafe” driving record.clover king

But they’re not comfortable with 75 or 80.

That’s “too fast”  . . .   slow down! What’s your hurry?

Because they’re not comfortable driving 75 or 80 – because they feel it’s “too fast” – you aren’t permitted to drive that fast.

It does not matter that you’re comfortable driving at higher-than-Clover speeds. Nor that you haven’t lost control of your vehicle – or in any tangible, objective way given reason to worry that you might. You may be able to point to decades of “safe” driving; you’ve never lost control of your vehicle, never harmed anyone . . .  even though you were “speeding” pretty much the entire time.

It does not matter. It carries no weight.

Clover feels that driving 75 or 80 – or whatever the arbitrary number happens to be – is “too fast.” Therefore, it is too fast – under the law.

It becomes “speeding.”speed 4

Which, technically, it is.

Anytime one drives in excess of a posted maximum, one is by definition “speeding.”

Whether it’s unsafe to “speed” – that’s another question.

And the answer to that question is one that the Clovers of this earth are not interested in hearing.

Throw it in the Woods?

If you like what you’ve been reading here – and are opposed to Cloverism –  please consider supporting We depend on you to keep the wheels turning.
Our donate button is here.

For those not Pay Pal-inclined, you can mail us at the following:

721 Hummingbird Lane SE

Copper Hill, VA 24079


  1. I-19 is unique among US Interstates, because signed distances are given in meters (hundreds or thousands as distance-to-exit indications) or kilometers (as distance-to-destination indications), and not miles.

    According to the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), metric signs were originally placed because of the push toward the metric system in the United States at the time of the original construction of the highway.

    ADOT defends replacing metric signs along I-19

    Metric Interstate Divides Arizonans

    Interstate 19

    The US, Burma, and Liberia are the only countries that haven’t adopted the metric system as their official system of weights and measures.

    I-19 South from I-10 to the San Xaviar Pueblo (Exit 92)
    The ONLY interstate in the United States to be signed completely in metric.

  2. c’mon, you apes, drive faster, you’ve been hired to lay some tracks of underground railroad blog posts so we can reach our destination of freedom…

    Come on you apes – StarShip Militia

    If you aren’t moving fast enough, you’ll end up like Mikey. He’ll eat anything they tell him to, as long as they tell him their Serial lies are good for him.

    Let’s help MikeFromKansasCity locate his balls!

    Nope, they’re not in there…

  3. The crew of regulars here is probably the best possible argument for automatic speed controls on autos and perhaps an interlock to prevent a vehicle from even being powered up by a person without a valid driver’s license.

  4. Ya, Brian. I had not thought about that before. The construction zones are always in certain increments of 20, 25, 35 and 45. Never 32 or 26. Why is that?
    And, As If One mile an hour over is deathly criminal!?

    And of course the school zones are Always 25 m.p.h. (at least in my state they are) and it seems no one questions what makes going 26 m.p.h. a crime?
    It’s makes it almost a joy to drive in a pack of cars doing 40 m.p.h. in a 25 m.p.h. school zone with the digital speed indicator sign flashing everyone’s speed as they go by while all the helpless chumps are locked in their co-ed prison, ‘er I mean, classrooms.

    Also, I seem to recall seeing those ‘Turn Your Headlights On’ signs. I thought it was bizarre at the time. I Never did. I wasn’t from ‘there’ so I guess I wasn’t conditioned properly?

    • Headlights on during the day is purely for those sleepy clovers at the wheel trying to drive with brain, eyelids and speed at half required level.

    • Helot, my theory at the time was that the odd construction speed limit was based upon some idiot setting a speed limit in an even numbered kilometers per hour range, and then translating that number into mph. That was only speculation on my part, and I do not recall whether the limit was exactly 32 mph or 42 mph, give or take 1 mph for each.
      I used to very often break the law in another way as a truck driver by not slowing down for defective bridges. Why? Because I remember a bridge close to home that has had a speed limit sign for heavy trucks of 15 mph for _at_least_ 35 years! For all I know that sign may have been there for 50 or 70 years. If that bridge was so faulty and fragile: Then why hasn’t the state added more braces or supports during all of that time? How many thousands of dollars have been spent on increased fuel costs by trucking companies due to drivers having to slow down that much before immediately climbing the steep and long hill on each side of it? Long ago I used to slow down for those bridges, but now I figure that if those bridges get thumped around more often they might finally get fixed. Besides, if the supposedly weak bridge that handles dozens of trucks per day decides to collapse as I drive over it: then my chances of not dropping down into a river improve if I am driving faster.

      • Oh, and I forgot to include in my previous message that the speed limit signs in Arizona from Nogales to Tucson are in kilometers per hour. This is why I speculated the way that I did concerning the odd Oklahoma speed limit signs in construction areas back then.

  5. I had hoped to very quickly find a link to my experience as an OTR truck driver roughly a decade ago as I drove through a highway construction zone in Oklahoma. The construction speed limit said something like 32 mph! Yes, I am serious! Perhaps an Okie or a Texan who lived in that area ( I-44 ) of Oklahoma will chime in with pictured links.
    Something else I used to see quite often were so-called safety zones out west where signs told everyone to turn on their headlights. I always refused to do so because I figured that this was a ploy to see how many people would mindlessly comply. I was disappointed to see large numbers of oncoming cars with their headlights on during the middle of a cloudless sunny day! I had hoped that the moronic obedience was isolated to small regions within the U.S. This all happened before I became an anarchist. I now have a very low opinion of my specie who loudly pats itself on the back for being a supposedly rational mammal.

    • Heh.. 32MPH.. 😉

      Every time a cop asks me if I knew how fast I was going, I say of course (or “oh.. absolutely..”) – then nothing else.

      After an awkward silence, the cop presses further and asks how fast exactly.

      I normally reply in metres per second. The cop then asks how fast that is in km/h (Oz). Geez fella, if ya can’t work it out from there ya shouldn’t be in that uniform.

      • That’s funy, ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N. But if I were to tell a cop in the unitedstate I was going 1999 feet per second, I’m certain I’d get pulled out and be given a breathalyzer test just for saying that.

        … Then I’d refuse, and then I’d have to go downtown to the cop shop. I’d have my license revoked for six months to a year for refusing and the next time that cop saw me driving during that time I’d get double the fine, plus a beating. Things would all spiral downhill from there.

        I think I’ll stick to the saying, “Do Not Talk To The Police”.

        Imho, that just shows ya how you’re just a smidgen free’er than we are here. You can say that. I cannot. Maybe some guys further out in the countryside can, I don’t know. But it wouldn’t fly, here. Unless you’re the lucky sort, or braver than i, or have loads more money to waste on fines and lawyers and such.

        • The best answer I’ve heard for the “Do you know why I pulled you over?” question is; “Does it have anything to do with money?”. I can’t wait to use that one next time. And it will happen. There are 3 stop signs in my neighborhood that are completely useless (only there to keep the speed down on a long straight). I blow through them every day. I see other people doing it too, which puts a smile on my face.

    • Hi Brian,

      There is a “safety” zone just outside Roanoke, on I-81. For no discernible reason, the speed limit drops from 70 to 60.

      I never do less than 80. My V1 covers my six….

      • Hello Eric,
        Yes, I am very familiar with those signs in Virginia on I-81. I had always in my head mocked those stupid zone signs by saying “Great! Now I get to drive dangerously and put myself in great pain for months at an expensive hospital! All I have to do is wreck this 80,000 pound truck! But I have to be careful not to hit any cars with a “Baby On Board” sign on the rear window as I passed the highway sign telling me that I am leaving that safety zone or corridor.
        Sadly, my most recent truck was castrated at 66 mph.

  6. It occurs to me that a driver’s license is a set of minimal qualifications to use a public road. (Absolute stress on the minimal). In itself not a bad idea, if used correctly. Which is not the same as calling the right to drive a privilege. Getting in my car does not give the bad guys carte blanche to search me for whatever they want to use against me.

    Speed does kill, below 43mph my Cessna will fall out of the air making me dead.

    Just an additional point to ponder, low speed limits kill by: increasing time on the road, increasing exposure to dangerous situations, and especially by wasting life time. The speed difference between 50 and 100 could add up to a months of lost life for the average driver.

    Every other November, there is a revolution in the USA. Maybe this time we can make it a real one?

    • Two thoughts, Ernie.

      Flying below 43mph in your Cessna does not kill. It’s lack of one of those fancy whole-aircraft parachutes that does you in. Or, to put it another way, it’s not the speed, it’s the lack of airlift, no?

      Also, RE: “Every other November, there is a revolution in the USA.”

      Ha! that was funny. Sort of.
      No, there’s just a contest to determine which head on the two headed bird of prey gets first pecking at the carcass.
      I would Not call that any sort of revolution.
      Never will it be, either.

    • @Ernie – “Every other November, there is a revolution in the USA. Maybe this time we can make it a real one?”

      It is more of a consultant led beauty pageant to me.

      • Agreed, agreed, agreed.
        But still, the game is crooked but its the only one in town and not playing is not allowed…
        Or did anyone want to try a shooting revolution against the sociopaths who have and are ready and willing to use nerve agents and nuclear weapons on citizens?
        The only solution I can see is to appear to keep your head down, do what is within your power, and educate.
        Keep teaching the Democrats that democracy is a very bad idea. Democracy is Communism. If everything is subject to a vote, nobody has any rights.

        Keep teaching the Republicans, that in a constitutional republic, you can’t simply take people’s money and make a war machine to control a worldwide empire. Teach them that the Second Amendment, is not just a good idea, it is the law. And you don’t need a permission slip to exercise it. And that law and order to take the dope from the stinky hippies and stupid kids is a bad idea because it will be used against you.

        Keep teaching the libertarians that a debating society is relatively harmless and healthy, it is worthless to actually reclaiming stolen liberty and property from armed barbarians.

        There is a list of pretty good rules available out there that you don’t have to be a zealot to appreciate: 1 Thou shalt not murder, 2. Thou shalt not steal (even by majority vote!), 3. Thou shalt not bear false witness,

        And never assume your neighbors are sheeple- some are wrong and evil, but most are simply propagandized into silence and terrorized into submission. For now.

  7. I’m not sure where to post this, so I’ll post it here, for posterites sake, maybe?

    Edward Snowden: ‘every citizen has a duty to resist’

    Edward Snowden: NSA Spies More on Americans Than Russians

    The Covers of the world gloss over the meaning of the words i just posted.

    I wonder what has gone haywire in the thinking process of Clovers that they can just gloss over those facts or dismiss them, as if history has no meaning, and as if the word, “power” has no meaning.

    Pardon me – you guys – I guess I expected the zombies around me could wake Up and smell the roses.

    Instead, it’s thorns for everyone!

    The stupid bastards rain it all down upon us all.

  8. if I had my way…… a limit would be placed on accidents on ones license. Say……3 accidents in a 10 year period and you lose your license for 1 full year. I would do away with all speed limits. I would also make suing someone illegal for any type of accident. If you want insurance its so in an accident you can sue yourself. This would make people drive in a manner that benefits them and others on the road.

    • Licenses? Free people don’t need licenses, i.e. permission from others to perform some particular activity. All a license does is make something “illegal” if you don’t have said license. All because some man/woman wrote their opinion (law/code/statute/etc.) down on a piece of paper.

      You’re right on with regards to speed limits though 🙂 .

      • Excellent point, c_club

        Free people do not need to get permission from men with guns to go about their business.

        America a free country? Try it out – and see.

        • Eric, so what’s your solution to a horrible driver who gets into one accident after another and drives away without paying? No licenses? Sure sounds good until that person slams into your car gets out and laughs at you!

          • Hi Joe,

            Such people, unfortunately, will always be with us. Just as thieves and murderers will always be with us. So, first, I’d like to reject the implicit premise that laws forbidding “x” will eliminate “x.”

            They don’t.

            The next question is: Is it right – ethically justifiable – to do violence to Smith because of the actions of Jones?

            Smith hasn’t ever had an accident. He’s been driving for decades without incident – pretty compelling evidence he’s a decent driver. Why should he be threatened with violence in order to – for instance – make him obtain a permission slip (license) . . . or buy insurance. . . Or stop at random roadblocks, as per Clover?

            It’s exactly of a piece with insisting that people who’ve never recklessly or criminally handled a firearm be denied their right to own (or carry) one, or compelled to pass “background checks,” register with the police – and so on.

            And if an individual does cause a wreck and damages your property or harms your person? Then of course he’s responsible – and it’s right to insist he be held to account. Just as it would be right to insist a thief be held to account. And so on.

            The Clover’s Cry – there oughtta be a law! – is a turning away from perhaps the most basic cultural inheritance of 2,000 years of Western civilization, i.e., people are responsible for what they do, but shouldn’t be held responsible for what others do. And: No victim, no crime.

          • The “solution” is the same as for any other person who damages others.

            For example, if you have someone who continually runs down the sidewalk, knocking other people to the ground and injuring them, and laughing all the way, what do you do? Maybe they even do this on a bicycle.

            There is no “license” required to be on the sidewalk, or to ride a bicycle, is there? Does that mean there is nothing that can be done in such a situation, because there is no license to take away?

          • joepa…

            moral hazard is a vacuum. sucks the morality/ethics donut inside out, then suckcrushes that krispy kreme immorality down until nothing’s left but the hole: amorality. “what would you do if you knew you couldn’t fail” is meant to be inspirational; too big to fail is the reality.

            “civilization”, from the useful idiot, world-improver/risk-eradicator, perspective is when every aspect of life is pushed under “their” crystal dome, & the suction pumps are cranked up.

            in earth’s natural atmosphere, morality is a mortal, renewable, resource. in vacuo, humanoidity’s preferred institutionalized atmosphere, amorality becomes immortal. “vaccarality”: tempting to think jenner’s cow pox vaccine, even w/o thimerosol, etc, had unintended consequences…there is no im/morality amongst cattle.

            “people lie as a general rule…”. subsidize something, it increases. subsidizing suction under glass inverts bastiat’s parable: the benefits of breaking the glass are either unseen, because the glass is not seen/recognized, for what it is – offensive war, hobbes’ all against all (bellum omnium contra omnes…but I’m liking bell jar-em omnium contra omnes, for that plathian vibe, & see sylvia’s betsy “pollyanna cowgirl” character…) – or because “war is good”, is seen quite “clearly” by those with vested interests, or because glass reflects back so many “warriors” projections (“strength thru superior fear/insecurity projection”).

            speaking of vacuum…

            bullbovine frogs, prepared, legs & all, SOUS-VIDE (under vacuum), by increasingly technocratic sophisticateurs, using PID controllers have long since improved upon & supplanted slow to the boil pots. states are closer & closer to “airtight plastic bags”, PID, personal identification controls, work a lot like “proportional-integral-derivative” control mechs do, & boiling water, with these rigs, is counterproductive overkill…131-140 degrees, & time, is all it takes.

        • Not a fan of the license req. either. Especially this true ID or,whatever they call it. 2 questions?

          How would you keep the untrained off the road, save some sort of verification that you have minimum required skills?

          On these new ID’s, in my state anyway, you can have a designation of being a veteran added to the license. I’m not seeing any negatives, but thought I’d ask for,an opinion from the gallery.

          • Given the level of ineptitude demonstrated by most drivers, I would say that the current system is clearly not certifying that anyone has a minimum level of skills.

            You pass a very minimal test that a monkey could probably be trained for, pay your pound of flesh, and off you go. It is strictly for raising revenue and monitoring/controlling the public. (Have you noticed the amount of non-driving requirements now placed on obtaining a driver’s license? Things like being required to provide proof of participatation in the “Social Security” Ponzi scheme? What the hell does that have to do with driving?)

    • How very statist of you Joe. You not only approve of having a license, you approve of the State taking it away on a whim.

      • Talk is cheap until you are involved in an accident with someone who is a horrid driver! Then what Bill? Maybe you’ll get a second job for the damages he caused you cause he told you to “F” off…..LMAO

        • . JoePA, pulling their license won’t necessarily do any good either. I’ve related my experiences with a neighbor from hell down on the Ozarks. No plates on his vehicle, no insurance, driving around stoned and or drunk (never mind the stealing, stalking my wife, cooking meth and beating his kid). But he got a free pass because he was the local cops’ toady boy; a “CI” (confidential informant). Now if he’d hit you, me or anyone else we’d have darned sure been out the cost of the damages. This type of case is where I can see that government force should be used to hold the perpetrator for “involuntary servitude” until he works off the damage that he caused, and the money must go to the victim, not the state. But that’s not how it works, now does it? They call it a “criminal” justice system because that’s what the justice system itself has apparently become; criminal.

        • Joe, how about this; if this guy smashes my car and then tells me to fuck off, I ignore him and accept my losses… or I use justifiable force to make him pay for the damage, or if he can’t pay, I inflict the same amount of damage to his car, thus deterring his future reckless driving habits. Why do I need you or your master, the state to do that for me?

          • But what if you have an accident and the cause leaves both at fault but one person decides he’s not at fault. He looks over at you demanding money then he “inflicts” damage or worse at you? That does not seem “free” but very primitive. He drives away laughing and nothing is done because nothing can be done. At least with a license there can be some remedy available. Like a surgeon who kills by not following surgical procedures….he’ll not be a surgeon for long.

            • Hi Joe,

              Life is full of “what ifs.” Some outcomes are not what we’d like. Once could toss out an endless litany of “what ifs.”

              Freedom isn’t freedom from from risk.

              But authoritarianism is the institutionalizing of harm. Constant, pervasive violence – in the name of reducing risk.

              I’d rather be free.

        • Joe, have you ever been hit by someone or in a collision caused by someone who just didn’t pay? It happens under the present system. Ever have an insurance company tell you to ‘fu*k off’? Both happen. Government does nothing to these people to force restitution. The systems government has are just methods of plunder.

          See the statist thinks that government prevents these things from happening. It does not. Today’s systems work because people are largely honest and responsible. They work because things generally worked before this additional burden was added. These newer government mandated/created systems really don’t do anything with regards to the dishonest and irresponsible people used as excuses to create them.

          If you think they have, drop uninsured motorist coverage from your policies.

          • People lie as a general rule in vehicle accidents. Not a few accidents but nearly every accident that I’ve responded to. In roughly 700 accidents that I’ve personally investigated I would guess at less than 3% admit to fault. Most make up whale tails of a story to take the blame off of them or even if they are innocent they insulate their story. Maybe you don’t need a license but you will definitely need to keep track of accidents.

            • Hi Joe,

              Poor driving – inept/reckless driving, as opposed to the DMV definition (“speeding,” etc.) – will ultimately take care of itself if the driver is held accountable for the consequences. The system currently in place does almost everything conceivable to prevent the driver from being held accountable. If he wrecks, he doesn’t pay – insurance does. If he doesn’t have insurance, the other person’s insurance pays.

              The system rewards passivity and incompetence; discourages – by punishing – the exercise of initiative and competence.

              If the object is “good driving” – then it should be encouraged, not punished.

              Stop idiot-proofing cars; idiot-proofing them only encourages more idiots to drive who should not be driving – and eggs them on to drive ever more idiotically.


          • licenses don’t matter either. People drive without them.

            licensing, mandatory insurance, and everything else is just an exploitation by government for itself and its close friends. It has done little to nothing with regards to the root problems, it was never designed to. It did however give new ways for government to extract tribute from people, but not for people harmed to be made whole.

          • True Story:

            I used to own a ’76 Trans-Am. Not my current ’76 Trans-Am. It was one of the very rare 50th Anniversary cars, black & gold, with the 455 and 4-speed. How come I no longer own it?

            Because one not-so-fine day, a Clover ran a red light and T-boned me, totaling the car. He had no insurance, no license. The laws requiring him to have both these things did not prevent him from driving without those things.

            I, meanwhile, have been paying – under duress – insurance on my eight vehicles every year, for many years – yet have not caused harm or injury to anyone.

            My money’s gone.

            And so is my 50th Anniversary Trans-Am.

          • I too have been hit by people who had no insurance, they did pay for the damages though. When I didn’t get paid? When I only had liability on a winter beater and the kid’s insurance company refused to pay. Eventually it just wasn’t worth my time for a car I got for free.

            And does the law care? No. It doesn’t do anything to help recover from such people, it will just victimize you again when you have to go through its court system and pay it money to try and recover damages. Then the deadbeat just ignores the judgment, doesn’t pay, and the government won’t do a damn thing. And if they don’t have house or something to put a lien on, forget it. Of course to do that costs you even more money.

            So what is the value of these laws? Responsible people with assets pay if they have insurance or not. Irresponsible people without assets don’t pay for insurance and don’t pay for the damages. The government fines them and they’ll pay the fines to stay out of jail, maybe, if they really have to, but that doesn’t help those who are harmed any.

            Government cannot and does not do anything to asset-less irresponsible people. What is it now, 40% of people don’t have $2000 set aside… think they are all paying car insurance? HA!

            • I wish I had both!

              The 50th Anniversary car was more collectible, but you see that combo – black and gold – at almost every car show. The ’76 was the prototype for the ’77-81 special edition cars, made famous by Smokey and the Bandit. Pontiac made a bazillion of them. The ’76s are rare because:

              First year
              Only year for the round headlight/shovelnose front end
              Last year for the 455

              Here’s a video:


              This car has the 400, of course.

              Still, my car – the Carousel Red car – is pretty cool because it’s an unusual color. I have yet to see another one in the flesh – and I’ve owned my car for more than 20 years.

              The orange is pretty obnoxious – but that’s a big part of it’s charm!

              Here’s one like mine – only in “1” condition (mine’s a “2”):


          • Regs are just to legalize the skim. I had insurance co. (Allstate) try to not pay when I was 18, was hit by kid, driving drunk, who ran a red light and hit me as I turned left. Insurance company said I was at fault because I cut off the other driver. WTF? After a lot of back and forth, found out this kids father called insurance company (we both had same ins co) that night and said his kid was cut off at intersection. apparently called ins co after he bailed his kid out of jail. He ran after he hit me. I followed, he eventually stopped and then I called cops. he was charged w/ DUI and hit and run. Anyway, me talking with ins co was like talking from people on another planet. Convo went like this:
            Me: he ran a red light and he hit me.
            Ins: you can just cut people off, even if the light was green.
            Me: I was the third car thru the light. Did you talk with the witnesses i gave you?
            Ins. You still can’t cut people off. We don’t know about witnesses.
            Me: I gave them to you when I made the claim. Also, did you get a copy of the police report?
            Ins: we don’t deal with police reports
            Me: huh? He was drunk, underage btw, charged with DUI and hit/run.
            Ins: we don’t know anything about that.
            Me: perhaps you ought to have all the facts before claiming its my fault. Beside, in Florida, if the driver is drunk, regardless of what I may or may not have done, he is automatically at fault. You ought to know this, being this is kinda your job and all.
            Ins: we’ll look into it.

            Waited a couple of days, they were still stuck on the fact this kids dad called them first claiming it was somehow my fault. My dad called them up. Told clowns that they better unfuck this now or he’s taking his policies to competitor (he had at the time 3-4 businesses, I don’t know how many company vehicles and a few other odds and ends insured with them) amazingly I,received call from adjuster that day to get the claim going. Money is all these thieves care about. I asked,dad to change policy to someone else anyway, don’t know if he ever did.

        • JoePA,

          All these “what if’s” and hypotheticals don’t matter. It doesn’t matter how myself or anyone else would handle a situation like you describe in a world sans government. The important question is… would you handle it?

          Would you try to reason with the person? Would you aggress towards the person? Would you get an independent party (a private court would be an example) to help remedy the situation?

          And good points Eric. Well said.

      • Remember, folks: Joe’s an ex-cop (well, there’s really no “ex” if you’ve been doing it for an entire adulthood-spanning career; it becomes part of your DNA). That part of his background dominates every other aspect of his thinking, no matter how “libertarian” he’d like to think of himself as being otherwise.

  9. The closer you get to the speed of light the slower time becomes. Once the speed of light is reached time stands still. Fucking weird shit. I suppose this throws a wrench is clover’s mantra.

    By the way, nice video of clover’s mom!

  10. Great post Eric, Clover needs his mantras of “speed kills” and “guns kill”, except they don’t, it’s the idiot responsible for their own actions. Now that there’s been a few mass stabbings at schools I haven’t heard any calls for knife control. A knife, gun, hammer, whatever is an inert object, a tool that can be used or misused depending on the person using it. Guess that’s too much for Clover to wrap his tiny little brain around.

  11. Speed doesn’t kill. Speed+inexperience+poor training might kill. Witness how most Americans would never be able to pass a German written driving test (sample question: What influences the degree of centrifugal force on bends?), because it was decided in the 1950s that moving the population out of the cities was the best way to prevent nuclear war. We needed a cheap mass transit system that the state didn’t have to pay for, and it didn’t hurt that GM was the largest company in the world either. Thanks to the suburbs, Ivan had to build so many nukes that it ended up bankrupting the USSR.

    Of course there were plenty of other benefits too. Low speeds mean you don’t have to build roads as well, since a pothole at 150MPH will appear far too late for the driver to react in time to avoid it. Not training people properly means plenty of cash for the state, insurance companies and auto manufacturers who sell cars that aren’t able to sustain speeds much over 100MPH for any length of time. And I think the majority of our aging population likes the low speed limits too. They are able to preach to everyone else how “safe” they are just because they drive 10 under, while everyone else around them are “crazy” for trying to pass in “unsafe” areas. Nothing gets old people fired up more than a chance to give us young’uns a piece of their minds…

    • I’ll take a piece of their minds….
      Hannibal said it was great when fired, and with their Alzheimers, they’ll never notice it’s missing…


      Let's apply the cure… "Liberally." 😀

    • My grandpa, now deceased, drove at least 10 mph under EVERYWHERE. Bonus, if he had to make a left turn on that trip, no matter how far away, he immediately got into the left lane and stayed there. He, of course, never had an accident. Riding with him while a teenager was quite the experience. Cars passing on the right, honking, stares, etc…. I wonder how many accidents or heart attacks he caused? Great guy, just drove very inconsiderately. His wife on the other hand, at least 10-15 over everywhere.

  12. At a recent neighborhood watch meeting a group of folks complained about speeders through our little town. They pointed to the large rail station, commuters coming from all over late for their trains. Very vocal, very angry that strangers were endangering our lives. Because we have schools and scouts and tee-ball so it’s for the safety of our children. So someone contacted the police chief and the local cops whipped out radar guns every day for two weeks and caught those evil speeders.

    At the next meeting the chief came and spoke about the speeding crackdown. Around 400 tickets were issued over 14 consecutive days. Sundays were the busiest for handing out coupons, there are five churches in the neighborhood. Next busiest were weekday mornings and afternoons when parents are hauling their children to and from the two private schools and three public schools. And then there were softball games and majorettes practice at the community park. And eye witnesses revealed that some of our loud and angry complainers were caught speeding. In other words, almost everyone caught speeding actually lived in our town.

    • And that’s how every busy body demanded speeding crackdown goes. It nails the very busy-bodies complaining about “speeders”.

      The average american wants laws to be enforced only on bad people, not on themselves. They want selective enforcement. That’s why we get sayings of ‘if you are doing nothing wrong’ or ‘if you have nothing to hide’. If we point out laws where the government office holders can label someone then have them hauled off to some prison or worse the average american just trusts his government. We are told they need this power to punish the bad people. No, they’ll never end up so labeled because some crony wants their land or something… no not them… they are good people.

      And that’s largely how enforcement works in this country. A clover driving some Buick sedan or a driving appliance like a Camry or a Cobalt won’t be bothered. Ever. Someone driving a plain German sedan won’t be bothered. But go ahead and drive something that will get attention and shows you don’t have a lot money and guess what will happen?

      Selective enforcement is what we have, and that’s why when selection is removed it’s the very busy-bodies who demand these laws that get nailed. It’s why photo enforcement never wins a popular vote. Selection is how its done in this country. Social enforcement.

  13. CloverAw shucks speed doesn’t kill – it’s the sudden deceleration, crumpling and tumbling of a vehicle that kills. Guns don’t kill people – the tearing a bullet does through the body kills. Shooting straight up in the air is perfectly safe and it’s nigh on impossible to find a credible claim of someone hurt by a falling bullet hence celebrating by firing guns is perfectly safe.

    • You’re right, Clover – firing a gun into the air is harmless. Obnoxious, perhaps. But not the same as pointing the gun at people.

      Just as driving over a bureaucratically decreed speed limit is not the same thing – morally – as pointing a gun at another person.

      • Which I will twist a little, Eric, hopefully without too much umbrage, but:
        Cops are armed for THAT VERY REASON: To point that weapon (of the state) at us, whenever we might need some “suggestion” on how to act.

        While I know Eric is aware, I’m more pointing it out to the idiots who troll here…

        That weapon is to enforce compliance. Nothing more, nothing less.
        No wonder you want the rest of us disarmed…

        • Roger that. Any wonder the gun grabbers and self serving politicians (these idiots somehow think they will be above the carnage) want you disarmed, but are perfectly content, even cheerleading for police to have more and deadlier weaponry?

          How come speeding is dangerous and worthy of fines when a mundane does it, but the very cop who wrote the ticket very likely put surrounding citizens at risk of crash while catching you is deemed just doing his job? This is the way clover thinks. The ends, mundanes heeding masters call, justifies their means.

          I think the German autobahn (average driving speeds, even on the increasingly rare unlimited sections is only about 85mph in my experience. I averaged about 90ish most times) nicely illustrates that speed doesn’t kill. An aside: there is a traffic light I encounter at least twice daily. I watch a procession of cars taking left turns and I will see anywhere from 1 to as many as 5 or 6 people looking at a phone as they pass in front of me. That is a growing part of traffic accidents in the us of a. distracted driving just isn’t American, in Germany, on the autobahn, I passed a guy reading the newspaper while he was driving. I’ve seen people on highways reading paperbacks. I see the warm glow of a cell phone screen lighting up faces at night on highways all over the southeast. The sheep are distracted, as intended. Now the nanny staters need to figure out how they don’t get killed by one of their creations.

    • Wrong Gil- randomly shooting in the air is not safe. Twenty years ago some unknown probably drunk/high numbnuts did that on new years eve in my ‘hood. Caused hundreds of dollars of damage to my vehicle. Could just as easily have killed/maimed someone.

      Same deal with Eric & his bike- his reckless behaviour is ‘safe’ right up until its not. I have no problem with him smearing himself all over the road as long as he has the assets to cover the cost of disposing of his carcass. The risk he imposes on others so that he can have his fun is the problem and is also what makes his vaulted NAP a sick joke.

        • No, Clover – the beauty of it is that “harm” is not a matter of opinion or feeling. It’s concrete fact. Not debatable. I’ve either harmed you – or I have not.

          What you want is an open-ended excuse to do people violence. It’s open ended because almost anyone might cause harm in almost any given context. Anyone could – in theory – be a “drunk” driver. Or a child molester. Any gun owner might handle his gun recklessly or criminally.

          It’s entirely possible.

          But does the fact that it’s possible “someone” might be a drunk driver justify stopping literally everyone on a given road (at gunpoint) in order to force them to demonstrate that they are not “drunk”?

          If you believe it is justified, then – as I have already explained at length numerous times – you cannot possibly take the position that it’s not justified to randomly search homes for signs of spousal or child abuse; to forcibly stop pedestrians at random to “make sure they’re not escaped felons” (and so on).

          Your position confers unlimited-in-principle authority unrestrained by anything except inertia and fleeting social conventions. You accept random stops/searches of motorists. In time, your kind (or enough of them) will accept random “sweeps” of homes, too.

          Why not, Clover?

          What would be your basis for objecting?

          • CloverNo you showed you believe there are some times you feel people are free to act in dubious ways until no physical harm is done but other times you don’t. It’s clear you using your personal definition of what the N.A.P. means. Chances are other Libertarians are doing that too yet coming up with slightly different conclusions.

          • Gil wrote, “It’s clear you using your personal definition of what the N.A.P. means. ”

            I’m Not seeing that.

            Based on your crappy grammar I’m guessing you have to be loaded up on fluoride and doubled up on corn syrup to be able to take that viewpoint.

            Yeah, you see things clear as mud.
            I get that.

        • Gil, it’s very simple if you can’t show an actual loss or injury then there is no harm done. For example Clover writes some of his brain droppings here and calls me a “stupid idiot.” It’s a falsehood, my reasoning and beliefs speak for themselves on this venue and we all consider the source; no harm is done to me. Now let’s say I’m going in for a job interview and stand a really good chance of getting that job based on my experience and qualifications. But Clover happens to know the hiring manager and tells him that I’m a “stupid idiot” simply because he doesn’t like me and that keeps me from getting the job; harm has been done.

          Or let’s say Eric is out riding his bike on a lonely open stretch of road and passes Clover with a clear line of sight at any multiple of the posted speed limit; no harm is done. But let’s say Clover sees Eric approaching fast, it really pisses him off and swerves over into the right lane as Eric passes causing him to run off the road and wreck; demonstrable harm has been done.

          That being said I know it is imprudent to “speed” through a school zone at the time of day when school is starting or letting out. I know it is imprudent to “run” a red light or cross any intersection without looking first. I don’t need the threat of violence against my person to keep me from doing these things. There are those in society that don’t share my level of responsibility and wisdom as I am well aware. But signs, lights, surveillance equipment and even the implied threat of government violence, do not dissuade them. No matter how many rules, laws, regulations and restrictions you put in place, you will always have people that choose to ignore them. And the more onerous and plethoric those restrictions, then many more otherwise “reasonable” people will start to resist until the law essentially becomes meaningless. When one sees the police, those who theoretically should have a moral character that is beyond reproach and be setting an example for the rest of us, routinely ignore the speed limit, how can anyone else be expected to take it seriously? I merely becomes a matter of not getting caught.

          It may seem messy at times, but Liberty is the best way Gil. The framers proved it to my satisfaction. You and your control-freak busy-body statists have done an admirable job of proving exactly the opposite; one wrongful government sanctioned fine, incarceration, confiscation and homicide at a time. It is your twisted mindset, that there needs to be a law for everything and everything needs a law, that has in no small part ruined this great nation. Your camp’s thinking and worse their actions have indeed caused harm and a great deal of it. Why can’t you be happy with the death and destruction you statist control freaks have already wrought?

          • You know what is prudent or not. That is the rub. Clover doesn’t trust your judgement, only his own. Ironically clover has zero experience in most of what he wants to control. This gets us where we are today when clover is granted authority and is then counseled by moneyed interests about what rules need invented and subsequently enforced.

            – Gas cans (obviously EPA clowns never cut their own grass)
            – Gun control (not what normal folks would call gun control, as in hitting what you aim for)
            – Environmental issues, esp. “Global whatever it’s called this year” (apparently these folks cannot tell when it is “warm” and when it is “cold”. Easier to believe prognostications based upon computer simulations rather than observable facts.
            – Domestic terrorism, don’t get me started. Cops kill hundreds per year… But that is ok it seems.
            – International relations, just, wow.
            – Social justice, for those who will vote one way or the other, or certain demographics. Irony that one persons justice in this case is another’s injustice (theft of property usually).
            – Immigration, Yeesh. Too hard to enforce border security it seems, but freakin traffic cams in the middle of nowhere USA are kosher? Who are we trying to keep control of exactly?
            The list could go on….

          • Boothe says- “For example Clover writes some of his brain droppings here and calls me a “stupid idiot.” It’s a falsehood, my reasoning and beliefs speak for themselves on this venue and we all consider the source; no harm is done to me. Now let’s say I’m going in for a job interview and stand a really good chance of getting that job based on my experience and qualifications. But Clover happens to know the hiring manager and tells him that I’m a “stupid idiot” simply because he doesn’t like me and that keeps me from getting the job; harm has been done.”

            Gotta disagree you have suffered no harm whatsoever. Clover has a Right to express his opinion that you are a ‘stupid idiot’ in any venue. YOU have no Right to be hired at any time. Were I to know him IRL & he were to express an opinion regarding a potential hire, I would ask his basis. Show his basis here for his opinion I would have to agree that you are unsuitable and move on to the next resume. You might be great at the Work but your obvious unwillingness to follow any Rule not to your liking would ID you as one I don’t want in my Office. Case closed neither I nor clover would have harmed you.

            Then too knowing that I am such an uptight ‘Statist asshole’ eric might choose to go elsewhere and pay twice the price for half the utility in a motorcycle shelter. Again no one would be harmed, except perhaps Eric by his own choice.

            Bottomline is that someone badmouthing you (even objectively falsely) except to the State cannot be a NAP harm.

          • Hey MikeFromCan’sAss – Ever heard of slander? You have no way of knowing whether or not I follow rules I don’t agree with. In fact I do that all the time. Just because I don’t agree with a thing doesn’t mean that I immediately try to break the rules. Self interest dictates; if following the rules promotes or secures my livelihood than I do so. But that doesn’t mean I will mindlessly parrot the status quo and claim that these rules are good. You, like clover and gil make a lot of unfounded suppositions and “what ifs.” People like you deserve a police state. Unfortunately, I and most of the other thinking regulars here, just to don’t want to take a ride in the same hand basket you statist control freaks are headed to hell in.

      • Mike,

        The “sick joke,” as I see it, is assuming most people are reckless/criminal and that other people – possessed of superior judgment – have the natural right to do them violence based on might and could be.

        Say what you will about me, my standard is objective. I’ve either harmed you – or I have not.

        Your standard endorses punishing people – doing them violence – for things that have caused no harm to anyone.

        This is unjust.

        And, having accepted this unjust standard, you’ve accepted – in principle – expanding it. Why not? Almost any action could conceivably result in harm; in principle, you’ve arrogated unto yourself the limitless authority to restrain/control/punish/people who’ve done nothing to anyone – because you worry that they might.

        Result? The police state society that’s congealing all around us.

        Can’t be too “safe,” eh?

        • CloverAnd Sideshow Bob complained that attempted murder shouldn’t be a crime the same way Nobel Prizes aren’t handed out for attempted science.

          • Gil, attempted murder is attempted harm. Speeding isn’t. The difference you purposely avoided to put forward is that no motorist travels to and from a destination with attempted crashing in mind. If every “speeder” did, the carnage would be huge, which it isn’t. crashes are actually very rare in contrast to the sheer number of miles travelled every day by all.

            Death on the roads is even rarer, and only curtailed by paying attention and avoiding crashes – not by avoiding an arbitrary number on a pole – a proven concept in daily use by millions of motorists.

            Nobel prizes were handed out to millionaire liar-in-chiefs Al Gore and Obummer for attempted science of the global warming kind that isn’t happening.

            Your comments here have neither scientific nor literate merit.

      • Mike, don’t you wish you were there to put him in a cage and steal his money at gunpoint, all justifiable because of your seemingly psychic ability to foresee future harm? Do you realize what an absolute marvel you are with such an ability to predict future events? Amazing!

      • Wrong again there Clover from Wichita. Firing a firearm into the air IS perfectly safe. As long as you are positive the gun is pointing absolutely straight up so the ballistic trajectory is nullified.

        • Shooting into the air seems pointless, regardless of the risk…

          And it is most certainly a terrible waste of ammunition.

          • And it is most certainly a terrible waste of ammunition.

            True – unless Clover or one of his badged enforcers by proxy happens to be hang gliding or hot air ballooning over your yard at the time.

          • RE: “Shooting into the air seems pointless, regardless of the risk…”

            Ya, sure, it’s a waste of ammunition. But at the same time, it’s Loads of fun, and quite the confidence builder.
            I wouldn’t expect any chicka to understand, nor any Clover.
            [Not that they are in any way similar. Well, maybe in a womanly kind of way, or something like that?]

            Anyway, Hitting the dirt in front of a pop can is similar.
            I wouldn’t expect a Clover would Ever understand,… a chicka,… maybe? [Call me a sexists, I don’t care. I’ll still open a door for a woman. Fuck the world.]

            Seems there’s no mention of proximity to others in the whole conversation about a bullet fired up into the air harming others, … but who cares about details? Clovers of the world sure don’t.

            In the background, a thought I had, I wonder why the film, ‘Ferris Bueller’s Day Off’ was so popular?

            The Clovers of the world probably Hated that film and they identified with the Principal. …Yeah, that’s what we’re up against. Shit stepping …

  14. I got no time for you Lawdog….why you barking all round my door….you trying to tell me how to live my life….I’ma trying to make one more show…and I aint hurtin nothin lawdog…..


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here