It takes a kinda big man to admit when he is kinda wrong -- and I am just such a man. S was mostly right about the trip to OBX. I'm very glad we went; it was super fun. I only say "mostly right," however, because she was wrong about the length of the drive, which was my main objection in the first place. She was insistent it would be under five hours, but she was basing this off a text message from a friend who said they did it in four-and-a-half hours with two stops. Everybody I talked to (and Googlemaps), on the other hand, said it was five-and-a-half to six hours. It ended up being right around five hours and twenty minutes. And that was driving in the middle of the night, with almost optimal traffic, and one five minute stop. Like I said to S at the time, I do believe our friend was mistaken.
And by the way, isn't it a really silly move to dig in so hard on something that is about to happen, unless you're really, really sure about it? If it does, in fact, take longer than five hours to get from DC to Corolla, NC, then at some point during our drive, we are going to eclipse the five hour mark, and then what do you say if you insisted it would be shorter? As it turns out, you don't say anything and then act like the other person is being petty if they bring it up. So, on second thought, maybe it's not that silly after all. It's actually kinda genius.
One of the other reasons I wasn't so keen on going is because I thought Lil' S was too young. I thought he wouldn't appreciate it, and we would just be running after him the entire time to keep him from drowning or falling off a balcony or something. Again I was half-right: He loved it, but keeping him safe was in fact exhausting. Part of the problem is my irrational fear of him falling from a high place. We had a huge rental house, and I got really uncomfortable when he was on the top deck even if he wasn't near the railing (which would have been incredibly difficult for him to get over, anyway). It got so bad that I had to leave him with S and go inside because I couldn't relax we were out there together even if I knew rationally that the likelihood of anything bad happening was extremely low. But another part of the probably is that he's often too bold for his own good, and does put himself in legitimately perilous situations. Case in point: See below.
This was taken approximately five minutes after waking up our first morning there. It's about a ten-foot drop below him. The very first thing he did when he woke up in a new house was go to the highest point and hang over it. That's what we were up against. (S is holding his leg here, by the way. I wasn't letting him risk a broken neck for the sake of a pic, I swear.)
Then when we took him to the ocean -- really no fear about going in the water. The fact that his little legs can't move that fast in the sand saved us a few times from watching him plunge into the sea. And then when we went to the pool -- he jumped right in straightaway. Our friend actually said something like, "Wow! I've never seen a kid his age just jump in like that." He was wearing this floaty thing on his back, but it's not a proper life vest, so he was just face down in the pool for a second until I pulled him up. Actually this did kinda freak him out (thankfully he does have a little bit of innate fear), as he was very apprehensive about going in the pool again after that. He was OK chilling on an inflatable raft, and he would sometimes let you swim around while holding him, but he did not want to put his face in the water again.
The trip was great for the adults too -- a lot of boozing. But it's a different type of boozing than it would have been 15 years ago. There were no wild nights (how can there be, when everybody has to wake up at six with their kids?); instead the first drops of alcohol would be served around noon, and then it was a slow-burn buzz the entire day. And why not? You're at the beach, and the only things on the agenda are salt water and chlorinated water. I discovered a new favorite sunny-day cocktail: gin and tonic with a twist of lime and a splash of grapefruit juice. It's very refreshing.
The drive back Saturday evening was not nearly as enjoyable as the ride in. It was cute to hear Lil' S demand we all sing ("Song! Song! Bah black sheep! Song!"), but toward the end I started to get really tired. (I didn't have any drinks Saturday, but I was sapped from waking up early sitting in the sun all day). Worse, I got a speeding ticket: 73 in a 55 zone. In my defense, it was a three-lane highway in each direction, in pristine conditions, and traffic was very light. I didn't even realize what the speed limit was or how fast I was going. I was not driving unsafely by any means.
Coincidentally, the other day, I was listen to The Adam Carolla Show, as I frequently do, and his guest was the Republican lieutenant governor candidate for California. I was about to skip ahead because Republicans rarely have anything new to say. It's always a big anti-union, anti-regulation, anti-Obama jack-fest. They all regurgitate the same four or five zombie lies, and if you've heard them once, there's no reason to subject yourself to them again. But I thought I'd keep an open mind and listen, and to my surprise the main point of discussion was something I very much agreed with the man on: the tyranny of traffic laws.
Traffic law and its enforcement gotten way out of hand, and it has completely strayed from what it should be -- a deterrent for unsafe driving -- and become a system of extorting revenue from citizens by local governments. Take my situation: You know how much this ticket is going to cost me? $500. That's right, $500. And for what? Driving at a speed millions of people drive at everyday on a flat stretch of smooth highway, in a safe, new car (just had the oil changed and tires rotated a few weeks ago), with no other cars near me. That is crazy.
And it gets even crazier when you break down that $500. $263 is the fine. I talked to a few lawyers -- yes, I had to lawyer up over a speeding ticket -- and they all told me the same thing: They can bargain my charge "down" to improper equipment. (It's actually a more expensive fine, but it doesn't affect my insurance.) How this is even possible, I have no idea. I didn't have improper equipment; I was speeding. There's Exhibit A that the system is crooked. Then I have to pay $250 for a lawyer fee because if I don't get a lawyer, then I have to appear in court. Since I was going more than 15 m.p.h. over the speed limit, Currituck Country, North Carolina will not allow me to pay the fine over mail.* I actually have to make a court appearance. Or I can hire a lawyer and grant him or her power of attorney to appear on my behalf. There's Exhibit B. You don't have be a Jesse Ventura-esque conspiracy theorist to come to the conclusion that the police, the courts, and the lawyers have a nice "understanding" worked out; everybody gets their piece of my $500. (I received ten ads in the mail from lawyers for legal services the past two days.) I mean, if I was doing something so unsafe that it necessitates an appearance in court, why wasn't I taken off the road. How could I have been let free to continue to menace other drivers ... and myself? My wife and kid were in the car for Pete's sake!
Because, or course, I wasn't really doing anything unsafe. I wasn't cutting through traffic; I wasn't swerving; I wasn't tailgating; I did nothing to suggest an accident was imminent. I was driving in a straight line with no other cars in the immediate vicinity. It's clearly not about safety. If it was: 1) As pointed out on The ACS, the areas of highest danger -- the ones in which most accidents occur -- would be the most patrolled. But that's not the case. In fact, I suspect it's the opposite. I suspect most speeding tickets are given in relatively safe situations because the vast majority of people speed only when they feel safe doing so. 2) Police wouldn't pull you over on the side of the road sometimes blocking a lane of traffic. What's less safe then having cars zoom by you or go around you at high speeds on the side of the road? And try driving until you find somewhere better to pull off; see where that gets you.
So now I have to pay an exorbitant fine ... whatever. I'm employed; I can swing it. The bigger issue is I hate the society we've crafted. I hate that local governments are funded in large part by making traffic laws so onerous that everyday citizens cannot avoid becoming law-breakers. It's not right, and it's un-American. If municipalities needs money, bring back the policemen's ball (as Adam Carolla says), or raise the gas tax, or even charge a toll on your roads. Nobody likes higher taxes or tolls, but at least they're honest.
And by the way, this is the case everywhere, not just Nowhereville, North Carolina. My father in-law, for example, just got a ticket here in DC for parking in a street sweeping zone, despite the fact he came and left without a street sweeper coming anywhere near his vehicle. He's about as by-the-book as one can get, so if he can get dinged, anybody can. Now, you could argue that we should all just follow the law. But my response would be: How much energy should the average citizen be expected to exert to avoid punitive traffic fines? If you make the laws strict enough, everybody will eventually break them. It's very similar to credit card companies charging exorbitant fees for violating small-print regulations in user agreements. Sure, in theory, customers could avoid them by following their contract to a tee ... Or the companies could just not be allowed to do them, and we could all get on with our lives. The credit card company analogy is apt in another way too. Just as predatory lenders will levy bullshit fines and then drop them if you complain, DC government will frequently write you iffy tickets and then dismiss the charges if you contest them. It's such a racket. (By the way, if you think I'm being hyperbolic to make my point, read this.)
In conclusion, I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I hate the Tea Party, but I get why they exist. If you don't, try owning a car in DC or driving a little too fast through Currituck County, North Carolina.
OK. I'm now dismounting my soap box. I feel better. Thanks for reading. Fight the power. Until next time ...
And by the way, isn't it a really silly move to dig in so hard on something that is about to happen, unless you're really, really sure about it? If it does, in fact, take longer than five hours to get from DC to Corolla, NC, then at some point during our drive, we are going to eclipse the five hour mark, and then what do you say if you insisted it would be shorter? As it turns out, you don't say anything and then act like the other person is being petty if they bring it up. So, on second thought, maybe it's not that silly after all. It's actually kinda genius.
One of the other reasons I wasn't so keen on going is because I thought Lil' S was too young. I thought he wouldn't appreciate it, and we would just be running after him the entire time to keep him from drowning or falling off a balcony or something. Again I was half-right: He loved it, but keeping him safe was in fact exhausting. Part of the problem is my irrational fear of him falling from a high place. We had a huge rental house, and I got really uncomfortable when he was on the top deck even if he wasn't near the railing (which would have been incredibly difficult for him to get over, anyway). It got so bad that I had to leave him with S and go inside because I couldn't relax we were out there together even if I knew rationally that the likelihood of anything bad happening was extremely low. But another part of the probably is that he's often too bold for his own good, and does put himself in legitimately perilous situations. Case in point: See below.
This was taken approximately five minutes after waking up our first morning there. It's about a ten-foot drop below him. The very first thing he did when he woke up in a new house was go to the highest point and hang over it. That's what we were up against. (S is holding his leg here, by the way. I wasn't letting him risk a broken neck for the sake of a pic, I swear.)
Then when we took him to the ocean -- really no fear about going in the water. The fact that his little legs can't move that fast in the sand saved us a few times from watching him plunge into the sea. And then when we went to the pool -- he jumped right in straightaway. Our friend actually said something like, "Wow! I've never seen a kid his age just jump in like that." He was wearing this floaty thing on his back, but it's not a proper life vest, so he was just face down in the pool for a second until I pulled him up. Actually this did kinda freak him out (thankfully he does have a little bit of innate fear), as he was very apprehensive about going in the pool again after that. He was OK chilling on an inflatable raft, and he would sometimes let you swim around while holding him, but he did not want to put his face in the water again.
The trip was great for the adults too -- a lot of boozing. But it's a different type of boozing than it would have been 15 years ago. There were no wild nights (how can there be, when everybody has to wake up at six with their kids?); instead the first drops of alcohol would be served around noon, and then it was a slow-burn buzz the entire day. And why not? You're at the beach, and the only things on the agenda are salt water and chlorinated water. I discovered a new favorite sunny-day cocktail: gin and tonic with a twist of lime and a splash of grapefruit juice. It's very refreshing.
The drive back Saturday evening was not nearly as enjoyable as the ride in. It was cute to hear Lil' S demand we all sing ("Song! Song! Bah black sheep! Song!"), but toward the end I started to get really tired. (I didn't have any drinks Saturday, but I was sapped from waking up early sitting in the sun all day). Worse, I got a speeding ticket: 73 in a 55 zone. In my defense, it was a three-lane highway in each direction, in pristine conditions, and traffic was very light. I didn't even realize what the speed limit was or how fast I was going. I was not driving unsafely by any means.
Coincidentally, the other day, I was listen to The Adam Carolla Show, as I frequently do, and his guest was the Republican lieutenant governor candidate for California. I was about to skip ahead because Republicans rarely have anything new to say. It's always a big anti-union, anti-regulation, anti-Obama jack-fest. They all regurgitate the same four or five zombie lies, and if you've heard them once, there's no reason to subject yourself to them again. But I thought I'd keep an open mind and listen, and to my surprise the main point of discussion was something I very much agreed with the man on: the tyranny of traffic laws.
Traffic law and its enforcement gotten way out of hand, and it has completely strayed from what it should be -- a deterrent for unsafe driving -- and become a system of extorting revenue from citizens by local governments. Take my situation: You know how much this ticket is going to cost me? $500. That's right, $500. And for what? Driving at a speed millions of people drive at everyday on a flat stretch of smooth highway, in a safe, new car (just had the oil changed and tires rotated a few weeks ago), with no other cars near me. That is crazy.
And it gets even crazier when you break down that $500. $263 is the fine. I talked to a few lawyers -- yes, I had to lawyer up over a speeding ticket -- and they all told me the same thing: They can bargain my charge "down" to improper equipment. (It's actually a more expensive fine, but it doesn't affect my insurance.) How this is even possible, I have no idea. I didn't have improper equipment; I was speeding. There's Exhibit A that the system is crooked. Then I have to pay $250 for a lawyer fee because if I don't get a lawyer, then I have to appear in court. Since I was going more than 15 m.p.h. over the speed limit, Currituck Country, North Carolina will not allow me to pay the fine over mail.* I actually have to make a court appearance. Or I can hire a lawyer and grant him or her power of attorney to appear on my behalf. There's Exhibit B. You don't have be a Jesse Ventura-esque conspiracy theorist to come to the conclusion that the police, the courts, and the lawyers have a nice "understanding" worked out; everybody gets their piece of my $500. (I received ten ads in the mail from lawyers for legal services the past two days.) I mean, if I was doing something so unsafe that it necessitates an appearance in court, why wasn't I taken off the road. How could I have been let free to continue to menace other drivers ... and myself? My wife and kid were in the car for Pete's sake!
Because, or course, I wasn't really doing anything unsafe. I wasn't cutting through traffic; I wasn't swerving; I wasn't tailgating; I did nothing to suggest an accident was imminent. I was driving in a straight line with no other cars in the immediate vicinity. It's clearly not about safety. If it was: 1) As pointed out on The ACS, the areas of highest danger -- the ones in which most accidents occur -- would be the most patrolled. But that's not the case. In fact, I suspect it's the opposite. I suspect most speeding tickets are given in relatively safe situations because the vast majority of people speed only when they feel safe doing so. 2) Police wouldn't pull you over on the side of the road sometimes blocking a lane of traffic. What's less safe then having cars zoom by you or go around you at high speeds on the side of the road? And try driving until you find somewhere better to pull off; see where that gets you.
So now I have to pay an exorbitant fine ... whatever. I'm employed; I can swing it. The bigger issue is I hate the society we've crafted. I hate that local governments are funded in large part by making traffic laws so onerous that everyday citizens cannot avoid becoming law-breakers. It's not right, and it's un-American. If municipalities needs money, bring back the policemen's ball (as Adam Carolla says), or raise the gas tax, or even charge a toll on your roads. Nobody likes higher taxes or tolls, but at least they're honest.
And by the way, this is the case everywhere, not just Nowhereville, North Carolina. My father in-law, for example, just got a ticket here in DC for parking in a street sweeping zone, despite the fact he came and left without a street sweeper coming anywhere near his vehicle. He's about as by-the-book as one can get, so if he can get dinged, anybody can. Now, you could argue that we should all just follow the law. But my response would be: How much energy should the average citizen be expected to exert to avoid punitive traffic fines? If you make the laws strict enough, everybody will eventually break them. It's very similar to credit card companies charging exorbitant fees for violating small-print regulations in user agreements. Sure, in theory, customers could avoid them by following their contract to a tee ... Or the companies could just not be allowed to do them, and we could all get on with our lives. The credit card company analogy is apt in another way too. Just as predatory lenders will levy bullshit fines and then drop them if you complain, DC government will frequently write you iffy tickets and then dismiss the charges if you contest them. It's such a racket. (By the way, if you think I'm being hyperbolic to make my point, read this.)
In conclusion, I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I hate the Tea Party, but I get why they exist. If you don't, try owning a car in DC or driving a little too fast through Currituck County, North Carolina.
OK. I'm now dismounting my soap box. I feel better. Thanks for reading. Fight the power. Until next time ...
*By the way, the cop could have at least been nice enough to put my speed at 69 to avoid being 15-over, but he didn't. He did however praise me for being courteous. One of the biggest lies cops propagate is that it is in your best interest to cooperate with them. In my experience, it's almost the exact opposite. If you push back a little (in a legal way), things work out better for you because they don't want the hassle. In this case, there wasn't really much I could do other than help expedite the process as much as possible, so I could get on with my criminal lifestyle.
No comments:
Post a Comment