Toyota i-foot, i-unit [mechanized mobility suits, mountable, walking i-foot, one passenger vehicle]

1. We probably have more in common than you think. I have a Poli Sci degree and am also a practicing Catholic (I read your profile). I too drive what many would think of as a "POS," a $500 1989 Chrysler 5th Avenue with surface rust that I sanded off, primered and painted over. I'm not rich, but I don't see paying what is asked for in new cars, and do not care for some of the expensive-to-fix "features." My wife drives a 1991 Ford Aerostar with 185K on it that I bought for $900. Most of my past cars have been Dodge Darts.

2. I never said ANYTHING about slamming on the brakes. Tailgating is wrong. I slow down by simply giving the car less gas. If I am going the speed limit, I stay in the right lane, if I am on a two lane city street, or if the driver refuses to pass me, and is TAILGATING, I WILL slow down, not abruptly but enough so that if he does not drive rationally he will hit me, so he better BACK OFF.

3. Fender benders are a big deal. I have heard horror stories about NJ insurance rates. If the driver is at fault, that's the price he pays (I only carry collision). If the other driver is at fault, you should be compensated. Nonetheless, it is better to get hit by a little old lady going 15 than by a drunk frat party going 90. Cars are expensive, life and health much more so.

4. I am sorry that you will lie to a policeman to cover up for your tailgating. What if the person driving slams on the brakes because a deer runs into the road? If you would hit him, you are tailgating, THAT IS ALWAYS WRONG. BTW, If you rear-end my '89 Chrysler, I don't see the court buying your version over mine. For the record, I have two good friends (both middle aged) who have permanent back problems because they were rear-ended by a speeder while stopped at a stop sign! One of them was elderly in fact, but this was the second accident of this type for him, so he should have had his license pulled the first time.

5. I am pretty well read on libertarianism, and nowhere does it say that the purpose of the road is to drive fast. The purpose of the road would be set by whomever owned the road. If it is a publically funded enterprise, it would be used as fit within reasonable laws by those who use and pay for them (through gas taxes and tolls). Actually, the most "libertarian" roads might well be in private subdivisions. Some of the most socialist are in Germany. Guess which ones people drive faster on?

People should drive safely, because if they do not, it encourages those who want the nanny state to make more laws for us. I really hated the 55 mph speed limit, and having lived most of my life in CT, I know that our two states were the slowest to give it up. I dislike seat belt laws, even though I generally use mine since having kids, because it's none of the state's business, and I don't like any pretense for random traffic stops by police.

That does not mean I want to be tailgated. I know that driving in Jersey (at least northern Jersey) can be hell. The signs are often inaccurate or missing, NJ state troopers have the highest murder rate of all U.S. police, and the traffic near Newark and the Meadowlands is often unbearable. Tailgating and weaving is more than aggressive driving, which is necessary in NYC and northern Jersey.

I am willing to consider the possibility of NJ having more than its fair share of irrational old people. But I will not accept tailgating or weaving as proper ways of driving. I also will not let the government decide for me when I am too old to drive until I demonstrate it.

Oh ya and I forgot, you are right about the libertarian perspective on the right for someone to drive when they want, but then that would nullify having someone having to prove it at 17, which I would be fine with. But if there is young proving, there must be an older proving to stay logical.

Regarding this post, I am presuming that the old person at some point in his life already passed the driver's test. There's nothing wrong with saying that a 16 year old and 65 year old both have to have passed a driver's test to be on the road. Even Libertarians don't have all rights kick in until adulthood (it is reasonable to prohibit a 10 year-old from driving even if he could pass the test). I would be more inclined to say that a person of ANY age who causes a serious accident through sheer negligence (e.g. not weather related, etc.) would be the first candidate for a retest. I think a retest would be more useful than those idiotic drivers' classes that are supposed to make everybody feel good that do nothing but get us used to the idea of "re-education."

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.