Busted By YouTube

[Ibanezfoo]

If they are allowed to do it, they can. It might annoy me and other drivers, but they are allowed. Also if you're such a safe driver, shouldn't cause any accidents.

Allowed? Look, I've done a lot of illegal things in my life thus far, and I have yet to see a law fly up and prevent me from doing any of it. I don't understand the mentality that others "allow" people to tell them what they are "allowed" to do.

It's called a petition. Usually speed limit change petitions are trying to lower the speed limit, for the safety of the residents within an area. Those who like to speed tend to not bother petitioning, as they think exactly as you do. That nothing will come from it.

Or we just live free and do what we want anyway...

 

[Ibanezfoo]

I missed it when my state had "Reasonable and prudent" as our highway speeds. Then the goverment threatned to take our highway rebuilding funds away. Ironic considering we actually had less car crashes and highway fatalities during those few years then with the goverment regulated speed limit. Go figure

See there? That is because its NOT about safety, its about revenue.

 

[Ibanezfoo]

Have you been paying attention to Guitmo?

Or all the people locked up on made up drug charges... again more arbitrary government rules. I hate drugs, I don't do them, but where in the Constitution does it say I can't do them if I choose? The government is not allowed to make most of the laws they make... the 9th and 10th Amendments forbid it.

 

[Topweasel]

Last year some kid did 160mph on his bike and recorded it, he was locked up. It was all over the news. You also have to realize that law enforcement don't sift through you tube every day.

I will be glad to report you when you post your next 160+ mph video to your local law enforcement... then we can see what happens.



One day at the track cost more than that fine? Where do you go?!



I see the stab at me for this comment. I never said anything physical should be put ahead of lives. Stupid for even thinking that, stupid for even commenting on that.



Not true. Semi tractor trailers (18 wheelers) are limited to even a much lower state speed.

You would know how long it takes to do corrective action during rush hour or even light congestion at 160mph. Having people travel these speeds in traffic will kill a ton of people. The problem is that not everyone looks for an open road and pays attention like you... lets face it, half the damn population is texting and driving... the last thing any of us want is for them to do 100+ during rush hours.




Nearly all crashes are avoidable. Most happen due to conditions of the driver not yielding to slow down (rain, flat tire, not paying attention, etc). So yeah. The problem is that the fucktards you speak of are the ones who kills the better drivers or the innocent drivers.



I agree with you here. But I see people off the road on perfectly dry and sunny days on 45mph roads.



Our highway system was not designed for 120+mph. Come drive up the I75 here in Michigan at 120+ mph and let me know if you can walk from that... if you are good enough to miss the tire sized potholes and the bumps.... you might be good enough to avoid the short 90 degree bends which are warned at 35mph.

Ockie. I live in Michigan. I drive 96 to work every day. This is post WWI stuff. Our highways where originally built using the Autobahn as basic rule of thumb. Our gradual turns and multiple lanes where created to allow cars to drive upwards of 120+ mph and allow for traffic to pass peole and take up their spot in right hand lane when they are done. Just because Michigan has poor upkeep on the road and switched to asphalt instead of a more cement based system for repairs doesn't change the fact that the general highway was originally created for 120+ mph travel. Some highways built later (like 496 in Lansing) don't quite have the model to support that kind of travel most do. I75 especially because it was a government founded Highway to interconnect multiple states and was one of the leading highways. Our whole Highway system is based on a post war evaluation in to the ability to mobilize local defenses in time of need.

Also for people talking about passing on the Right. In Michigan it is legal to pass on the right assuming that there is a lane or extra room if someone is turning. Though it is frowned apon for the same reason speeding laws exist. People are not expecting to be passed on the right so they don't look. If it wasn't for the same drivers that stay in the left hand lane long after they passed any cars and long before they will need to we could probably have a law about that.

Sadly they never seem to go after the car parked in the left obstructing traffic.

 

[Topweasel]

Allowed? Look, I've done a lot of illegal things in my life thus far, and I have yet to see a law fly up and prevent me from doing any of it. I don't understand the mentality that others "allow" people to tell them what they are "allowed" to do.




Or we just live free and do what we want anyway...

There are two types of people, complainers who want other peoples rights reduced so they feel better and people who have what they want and don't expect it to go away. Whether it be smoking, speeding, ability to turn right at a red light. Not only that but once you prove even one life can be affected for the better most politicians will be swayed that way because its "safe".

Much like emissions laws and this global warming stuff. Its not about whether or not any of this stuff that going on is actually affecting Human created global warming, but once you disprove or not even that ask "what if its not helping" the answer always is "well its still good for the planet so why shouldn't we". Even if that means that customers are not allowed to by the cars they want or the light bulbs that work and so on.

Just because statistically less people die when speed limits are reduced doesn't remove the fact that usually this caused not by the speed they were going but that one of the people involved was not driving the car correctly in the conditions they were in. If I am going 70 miles per hour and a guy switches lanes quick without looking and an accident happens and one of us die, should the speed limit be lowered to 65 to give the guy an extra .25 seconds to see the car he probably still wouldn't see.

 

[Ibanezfoo]

There are two types of people, complainers who want other peoples rights reduced so they feel better and people who have what they want and don't expect it to go away. Whether it be smoking, speeding, ability to turn right at a red light. Not only that but once you prove even one life can be affected for the better most politicians will be swayed that way because its "safe".

Much like emissions laws and this global warming stuff. Its not about whether or not any of this stuff that going on is actually affecting Human created global warming, but once you disprove or not even that ask "what if its not helping" the answer always is "well its still good for the planet so why shouldn't we". Even if that means that customers are not allowed to by the cars they want or the light bulbs that work and so on.

Just because statistically less people die when speed limits are reduced doesn't remove the fact that usually this caused not by the speed they were going but that one of the people involved was not driving the car correctly in the conditions they were in. If I am going 70 miles per hour and a guy switches lanes quick without looking and an accident happens and one of us die, should the speed limit be lowered to 65 to give the guy an extra .25 seconds to see the car he probably still wouldn't see.

Well, at least someone understands where I'm coming from. I tried to get this point across several ways with examples and analogies but I think I'm either doing it wrong or some people just plain don't get it.

 

[P!rate]

Guess what, I live in Germany and speeding is really nothing here. We have Autobahn which is safe for speeding and we build cars with safety in mind.

+1, in belgium, theres rarely GIGANTIC crashes, because everyone drives fast

 

[Kristofff]

Law says there's a maximum. It also states that in adverse road and weather conditions to reduce speed. Nothing about increasing speed, cause you deem it safe..

Beep boop my robot logic has told me your speed of 67 MPH is hazardous to everyone's health. Please reduce your speed to 60 MPH or lower, regardless of what your traffic and road conditions dictate is safe.

If they are allowed to do it, they can. It might annoy me and other drivers, but they are allowed. Also if you're such a safe driver, shouldn't cause any accidents..

So its OK if its allowed by law, even if it may cause accidents for absolutely no positive trade off, when someone wants to be a passive-aggressive bitch? Like I said in my response to you, "Pick a side and stick to it, because you know damn well he was talking about a moral right, and not whats written in law."

It's called a petition. Usually speed limit change petitions are trying to lower the speed limit, for the safety of the residents within an area. Those who like to speed tend to not bother petitioning, as they think exactly as you do. That nothing will come from it.

I personally have never bothered to petition to increase speed limits, as I'm perfectly fine with them. The rest of the time that I wish they were higher is in an area that I won't live in very long. It'd be too time consuming to petition for changes that wouldn't ever happen while I'm there, if they were accepted.

You know just as well as I do that we had no say in anything regarding the speed limits on those signs. The best we can do is vainly try to have them changed. The only thing that actually gets them raised is the fact that everyone speeds.

Try to respond to my points by without repeating yourself and saying the exact opposite of what I say. I know that requires actual debate founded in critical thinking, but I'm sure you can handle it. If you can't, I'll simply continue to repeat myself as well.

Criticism isn't insulting and calling names

Those things are not mutually exclusive in posts.

Or all the people locked up on made up drug charges... again more arbitrary government rules. I hate drugs, I don't do them, but where in the Constitution does it say I can't do them if I choose? The government is not allowed to make most of the laws they make... the 9th and 10th Amendments forbid it.

Do you hate prescription drugs too? Or do you simply hate when people use drugs irresponsibly? You can't hate "drugs" without hating prescription drugs as well, so I suggest you take a close look at the Dogma you are subscribing to.

 

[_G_]

In Soviet Russia, speed busts you!!!

Im sure in Russia they say the same thing about us lol

 

[Majinhoju]

So you think it is safer for you to make irrational people mad and angry, especially while they are driving next to you?

If there is a crash, it will be his RESPONSIBILITY; however, you did nothing to defuse the situation in fact you encouraged it. There will always be idiots and morons, but to pretend that you have no blame after you have deliberately enraged those idiots is shameless. If he was passing you on the right, that means you could have been in the right lane without any harm to your travel time.

truth be told, i was in the left lane, but there was a car right beside so i couldn't switch lanes and i was already going 10 over the speed limit. are you somehow suggesting that i deliberately engraged or encouraged this guy? yes i looked over at him when i caught up to him at the red light after he was tailgating me, i was baffled as to why he was driving like such a mad man.

 

[auspexd]

There are two types of people, complainers who want other peoples rights reduced so they feel better and unrealistic people who want what they want when they want it and expect everybody to adhere to their my way or the highway mentality. snip

Fixed that for you

The reality is that the US is setup so that driving is a necessity not a privilege and with the exception of some notable cities the availability and usefulness of public transport is nil; consequently, the vast majority of people who can drive a car, do so. Keeping that fact in mind, it doesn't matter if our roads were built on the autobahn model, hell we could setup roads that you could physically drive 300mphs and it wouldn't matter, because the skill level of the average driver renders most speed limit arguments pointless.

Would I like to drive as fast as I want within the limits of my skill: Sure, I would but I can't rely on everybody to as aware of their ability as I am. That is one of the main problems with a democratic and litigious society. The majority is fickle and sometimes retarded. Politicians get votes/power by enacting laws which appeal to the lowest common denominator while serving their own interests. Don't like it... well you could run for office or move.

Personally, I walk to work so I would love to see speed limits as well as other arbitrary safety laws abolished. Then laugh for the first couple of years as the nascar types, old farts who only drive through the power of AARP, troublesome teens, people who eat or read while driving and all the other drivers who pay attention to anything else but the road all die horribly. Hell, I remember a time when it was a point of pride that you made it to adulthood without serious injury. I think we should bring a little of those time back: lawn darts, no seatbelts, lead paint chips, no safety cap pill bottles, power-tools without safeties, plastic dry cleaning bags.... memories in the corner of my mind...

 

[Topweasel]

I was talking just about laws being made in general. I never once said I speed. I may have talked about the design of the highways, but I was explaining why speed limits are set. Regardless most laws are created at the behest of groups that want to lower our rights. Some are understandable (power tools with a safety) and some not (lawn darts).

How this applies to speed limits are you to judge. I just enjoy the irony that its the people who are actually responsible for most of the accidents that are promoting the decrease in speed limits.

 

[krotch]

So its OK if its allowed by law, even if it may cause accidents for absolutely no positive trade off, when someone wants to be a passive-aggressive bitch? Like I said in my response to you, "Pick a side and stick to it, because you know damn well he was talking about a moral right, and not whats written in law."

If they are following the posted speed limits, then they aren't the one's causing the accidents. It's those who are breaking the speed limits.

You know just as well as I do that we had no say in anything regarding the speed limits on those signs. The best we can do is vainly try to have them changed. The only thing that actually gets them raised is the fact that everyone speeds.

No, the fact that everyone speeds just puts more funds into the state by handing out tickets. Worst way to attempt to have speed limit increases.


Speed limits are there for the protection of all. Do you think Miss "Let's put on my makeup while I drive" or Mr. "I sit so low, I can't see over the steering wheel" would be safer drivers at higher speeds? There's a hell of a lot more stupid drivers than those who pay attention.

Punish the many for the few to protect all.

 

[Pretiacruento]

Guys, chill out for a minute... somebody's gonna get bruised =/

 

[Topweasel]

Punish the many for the few to protect all.

Tell me you don't believe in this?

 

[Ibanezfoo]

Do you hate prescription drugs too? Or do you simply hate when people use drugs irresponsibly? You can't hate "drugs" without hating prescription drugs as well, so I suggest you take a close look at the Dogma you are subscribing to.

Yup, I don't believe in taking any drugs, even prescription. I have a whole conspiracy theory about it I will admit to taking aspirin from time to time so I am a bit of a hypocrite there. I have no problem when other people take them, legal, illegal, or whatever. Its their free choice to do so (well, except on my private property, obviously). Its not the concern of the government or anyone else, and certainly nobody has the right to tell anyone they are "not allowed" to do them.

 

[Ibanezfoo]

truth be told, i was in the left lane, but there was a car right beside so i couldn't switch lanes and i was already going 10 over the speed limit.

LAWBREAKER! That is too dangerous. Please tear up your license and take the bus. Its for the good of us all!

Don't you care about the children? How can you be so heartless?

 

[Ibanezfoo]

If they are following the posted speed limits, then they aren't the one's causing the accidents. It's those who are breaking the speed limits.

So if 98% of traffic is doing 85 mph and the one "following the posted speed limit" is doing 65 mph in the passing lane, they wouldn't get a ticket for being dangerous? I thought the government knew about speed and danger... surely they wouldn't make a law such as this...

No, the fact that everyone speeds just puts more funds into the state by handing out tickets. Worst way to attempt to have speed limit increases.

There aren't enough cops for your assessment. Hell, if we believe our politicians' scare tactics, since people don't have jobs or money to pay taxes the police and firemen are going away...

Speed limits are there for the protection of all. Do you think Miss "Let's put on my makeup while I drive" or Mr. "I sit so low, I can't see over the steering wheel" would be safer drivers at higher speeds? There's a hell of a lot more stupid drivers than those who pay attention.

They aren't safe drivers at any speed so its kind of a moot point.

Punish the many for the few to protect all.

Holy Jeebus! Did you really just write that? That is some truly evil stuff right there....

 

[Draax]

Or we just live free and do what we want anyway...

With freedom comes responsibility. If a persons actions increase the risk of injury to another then what you are doing is wrong. In no way does one persons freedoms (which in the case of speeding is a violation of the law) supersede the safety of another. Such a viewpoint is selfish and reeks of a rather disconcerting sense of entitlement.

 

[Ibanezfoo]

With freedom comes responsibility. If a persons actions increase the risk of injury to another then what you are doing is wrong. In no way does one persons freedoms (which in the case of speeding is a violation of the law) supersede the safety of another. Such a viewpoint is selfish and reeks of a rather disconcerting sense of entitlement.

Uhm... I thought I said something along those lines already?

Life is risk. If its so scary to be around other people, why don't you guys just lock yourselves in your houses?

And didn't Benjamin Franklin say something along the lines of "he who gives up liberty for safety deserves neither" ?? Something like that....

 

[Draax]

Uhm... I thought I said something along those lines already?

Life is risk. If its so scary to be around other people, why don't you guys just lock yourselves in your houses?

And didn't Benjamin Franklin say something along the lines of "he who gives up liberty for safety deserves neither" ?? Something like that....

He actually said: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Speeding is an essential liberty is it?

Elanor Roosevelt put it better: "Freedom makes a huge requirement of every human being. With freedom comes responsibility. For the person who is unwilling to grow up, the person who does not want to carry is own weight, this is a frightening prospect."

Life is a risk, however the danger to life can be limited by people acting responsibly. Being responsible for ones actions seems to be a forgotten concept.

 

[Ockie]

And didn't Benjamin Franklin say something along the lines of "he who gives up liberty for safety deserves neither" ?? Something like that....

He said this before there were this thing called cars, speed limits, or paved roads.


Since this has nothing to do with the topic, I don't understand why you quote a 1700's President.

Benjamin also kept his own slaves at one point.... so I wonder if you want to argue that?

 

[jjager85]

damn this is like a soapbox in here.

 

[Ibanezfoo]

He actually said: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Speeding is an essential liberty is it?

Elanor Roosevelt put it better: "Freedom makes a huge requirement of every human being. With freedom comes responsibility. For the person who is unwilling to grow up, the person who does not want to carry is own weight, this is a frightening prospect."

Life is a risk, however the danger to life can be limited by people acting responsibly. Being responsible for ones actions seems to be a forgotten concept.

I agree 100%. So whats the argument here?

 

[Ibanezfoo]

He said this before there were this thing called cars, speed limits, or paved roads.


Since this has nothing to do with the topic, I don't understand why you quote a 1700's President.

So valid truths have some kind of an expiration date now?

Benjamin also kept his own slaves at one point.... so I wonder if you want to argue that?

I dunno, could they run faster than 160 mph?

 

[Kristofff]

He said this before there were this thing called cars, speed limits, or paved roads.


Since this has nothing to do with the topic, I don't understand why you quote a 1700's President.

Benjamin also kept his own slaves at one point.... so I wonder if you want to argue that?

I don't understand why you quote a 1700's President.

a 1700's President.

Wait what? Haha. He was never President.

However, "he was chosen to be the first president of the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery (he had actually been involved in the movement since the early 1730's)."

What was your point again?

 

[Ockie]

So valid truths have some kind of an expiration date now?



I dunno, could they run faster than 160 mph?

You really like to troll don't you?

Wait what? Haha. He was never President.

However, "he was chosen to be the first president of the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery (he had actually been involved in the movement since the early 1730's)."

What was your point again?

I'm not going to argue your point here, you can argue schematics all day long. He was a founding father of this nation and a president... now if you want to argue what a president is and when a president title counts, that is your own damn problem.... not mine.



This thread should be looked. If you guys are looking to soapbox, pay the 5 bucks and go to genmay.

 

[krotch]

So if 98% of traffic is doing 85 mph and the one "following the posted speed limit" is doing 65 mph in the passing lane, they wouldn't get a ticket for being dangerous? I thought the government knew about speed and danger... surely they wouldn't make a law such as this...

Depends on state, but majority of the states will allow them, so long as they are doing the speed limit.

There aren't enough cops for your assessment. Hell, if we believe our politicians' scare tactics, since people don't have jobs or money to pay taxes the police and firemen are going away...

That's why ppl are putting up speed cameras. Not so much on freeways though. Only a couple states have done that.

They aren't safe drivers at any speed so its kind of a moot point.

No, they just become more deadly at higher speeds. I'd rather limit them.

Holy Jeebus! Did you really just write that? That is some truly evil stuff right there....

Yes and that's how a lot of stuff works. Hence speed limits, no guns into schoolyards, no liquid products can be taken on planes, etc.

 

[Ibanezfoo]

That's why ppl are putting up speed cameras. Not so much on freeways though. Only a couple states have done that.

Yeah those are effective... so effective in fact where I am they are removing them because they cost more money than they bring in.

No, they just become more deadly at higher speeds. I'd rather limit them.

You are arguing gray areas. You can die at any speed. You are free or not free, not "sort of" free.

Yes and that's how a lot of stuff works. Hence speed limits, no guns into schoolyards, no liquid products can be taken on planes, etc.

Yeah those laws work out great eh? Vehicles kill over 40,000 a year. Guns still manage to wind up in schools shooting up the place even though murder is already illegal. Piling laws upon laws doesn't actually solve anything, it just makes the politicians look like they are doing something and in some cases the laws are used almost as a new tax. If you think speed is so bad, how about teaching responsibility rather than making a law?

 

[Majinhoju]

so what's the consensus about speeding then?
it's true that you can die or cause death at pretty much any speed, but it chances of either of those go up the faster you go. so wouldn't it make sense to drive within the speed limit and minimize the risk?

i guess on the argument about it being law or not, you could teach responsibility all you like, but for some people to get the hint you have to make it a rule. I'd hate to think what the murder rate would be if you were legally able to kill someone.

 

[fleggett]

If I may be so bold as to interject something here (after all, I'm on a roll with the whole Technet sub fiasco), I would go so far as to say "speed limits" (as in speed limit signs on the side of the road) are no longer necessary in many areas. Due to congestion, traffic flows at a pace determined by that congestion. Ideally, "speeders" on the left and "pokies" on the right, with the rest in-between.

There is a difference, at least in my mind, between a speeder and someone who is endangering others with their speed antics. These people are easily identifiable in traffic. They weave in and out constantly, rev their engines, tailgate, SPEED, stop suddenly, and are a genuine menace on the road.

Then there are others who speed, yes, but stay in constant control of their vehicles. They use their turn signals, check their blind spots, scan all their mirrors, and made sound decisions accordingly. While these people, from a distance, might SEEM like the former death-seekers, they're decidedly not. They have excellent eye-hand coordination, visual acuity, can hear a siren from an ambulance or fire engine coming from two blocks away, and have never been in a wreck that they have caused. These are people who just want to get from point A to point B in a quick and reasonable timeframe and have little patience with people who slowly coast in the left-hand lanes and create Mexican roadblocks to prevent all passing.

I consider myself part of the latter group. I've gotten plenty of speeding tickets, but never once have I been cited for reckless driving. I've also been hit four times, all in the back while I've been sitting at a red light (and one of those could've killed me if my driver's seat didn't collapse backward to minimize the impact on my body).

I live in the Orlando/Winter Park area. And it's making me completely bonkers. The cops here are always on the make for people exceeding the posted speed limits and almost never give warnings. I'm also seeing an explosion of speed-bumps on public roads. The first time I saw one, I thought it was a mirage. And once perfectly asphalted streets - the smoothest ride you can imagine - have been converted to seizure-inducing and suspension-killing brick roads.

This doesn't even touch on my rant about the Expressway Authority - IMO, an openly illegal organization which should've been dissolved years ago.

And you can forget the lights around here having any sense of timing. Oh, but that's not right, they do - even on major roads, you will probably hit 7 red lights out of every 10. If you're really lucky, you might cut that down to 6.

Oh, and we're now getting speed cameras at certain intersections. Just lovely.

Can anyone recommend anywhere where this sort of nonsense is actively avoided? Where local governments actually want drivers to get to where they want to go without first turning gray or having a coronary or busting-up their car on bricked-up, speed-bumped streets?

 

[fleggett]

Sorry, I meant, "...red light cameras at certain intersections." (where's the edit button?).

 

[Sprkslfly]

Sorry you don't like freedom and don't have enough self responsibility that you can't go through life without being policed and by some strange logic, because you can't, others must also be policed.

My car is fast, but I manage not to drive it like a moron, crash, or kill anyone. I typically drive in the slow lane because I have enough self responsibility to not put others at risk. When I'm able, I put the pedal down.

I'll be sending you the bill for my hyperbole meter. It just exploded.

At least here in the USA driver education is not adequate to allow for free and open driving that you advocate.

Additionally our roads are frequently not safe for very high speed driving.

If these two issues were addressed I would agree with your point. But they have not been.

Game and Set.

It really depends on where it's done. I've done 145-150 before, but it was on a long flat river bottom road with nothing but recently harvested fields all around for miles. I could literally see in any direction for miles and there were no other cars in sight. Doing that kind of speed on a road with traffic is just suicidal. One person pulls out in front of you and you can kiss your ass and theirs goodbye. Oh and then posting it on youtube should earn you a tattoo or something on your forehead that labels you too stupid to breed.

Match! FTW!

IF (and that's a HUGE if) there's anything *worth* mopping up.
Actually, on second thought. Spare the mop, let the buzzards have it.
Seems it was wasted cells anyways...
- rofl -

 

[Sprkslfly]

And those what if's are exactly what you're less likely to see (and have less have time to react to) as you increase your speed.

Amended! =)

...simple thought really. Mind-numbing that more don't get a simple concept.
Or choose to ignore it "out of spite" "knowing better than our gov't's arbitrary numbers" etc..

Yes and if your state says to stay out of the left lane, unless passing, then you stay out of it. If they don't have laws on it, then you're more than welcome to sit in the left lane and do the speed limit. It'd be inconsiderate to those who are speeding, but whatever.

When you're right...you're right!

 

[ordovician]

Duude, Madison, WI is my hometown! I used to deliver that paper back in the day! Fuck yeah!

 

[Kazzanova]

Retard.

Always reminds me of those chicks in Florida that beat up the on chick.

 

[SpeedyVV]

Speed Rules....

 

[SpeedyVV]

Speed is loud, deadly, pointless, and wastes fosil fuel.

How much more american can you get!

Life below 200Km/h sucks

 

[surfbug]

He was a founding father of this nation and a president... now if you want to argue what a president is and when a president title counts, that is your own damn problem.... not mine.



This thread should be looked. If you guys are looking to soapbox, pay the 5 bucks and go to genmay.

When was Ben Franklin President?
In: US Presidents, Benjamin Franklin [Edit categories]


[Edit] Benjamin Franklin was one of the Founding Fathers and a genius. He helped create the American system of government. However, he never served as president.

====

just sayin'

 

[alg7_munif]

Suprisingly the safest form of transportation in the world functions at a speed of around 800 km/h every day. I wonder how aeroplanes can be so fast and yet so safe?