Blown tire: how far do you think I can drive?

Dude, you have completely portrayed yourself to know everything in this thread

 

Can we drop this and move the heck on??? I was ALREADY CORRECTED. Maybe I should type bigger text so you can read:

I WAS CORRECTED, MOVE ON

 

Now i never said the OP would crash because off the blown tyre.
What i did say is that you might cause more damage then the load is paying.
He is driving a (aluminum ??) tanker.
It has fenders mounted to it.
If he takes them out by driving on.................how much will that repair cost??


The other point i have is his speed.
Jamin 22 thinks he did good keeping it around 60mph.
Here i disagree,i would say 50 would have been much better.

Finally a question about the wheather.

Yes,the wheather.
Jamin 22 how hot (or cold ) was it that night?
Did it rain?

 

This is called rationalization. Justifying doing something incorrectly. No matter how anyone slices and dices it, KNOWINGLY driving on a flat tire is not only illegal but unsafe. End of story.

 

No, that is called "experience", something that people are expected to have when giving advice in the "experienced truckers advice" forum.

This is "inexperience" regurgitating something read in a book, a story book by your own admission.

 

No. It's RATIONALIZATION, by definition:

rationalize |ˈra sh ənlˌīz; ˈra sh nəˌlīz|
verb [ trans. ]
1 attempt to explain or justify (one's own or another's behavior or attitude) with logical, plausible reasons, even if these are not true or appropriate

In the case of trying to justify knowingly driving around on a flat tire, the bottom line, no matter what the circumstances, is that one is breaking the law. At least that's the law in the US. I see you're from Canada. Maybe the law is different there.

No. This is the LAW. Experience or inexperience has nothing to do with breaking the law. And as far as "a story book by your own admission" comment, please explain WHERE in ANY post on this forum I ever called the rules and regs "a story book".

You set up a strawman here and that is not good debate skills.

But you do as you like. At least your screen name fits your attitude towards driving an 80K vehicle.

 

I learned a long time ago that you make someone without actual real world experience understand if their "knowledge" is gleaned from a text and they buy it lock, stock and barrel. How do I know this??, from real world experience because in my junior years I found myself in situations where I would argue black and white rules and regulations with someone with actual experience that TRIED to explain that R&R are designed with "the lowest common denominator" in mind and, under certain circumstances can be circumvented only to find out later in life (through real world experience) that they were right. Those that fit the "lowest common denominator" profile, unable to problem solve or think through any situation, will (and should) follow every rule to the letter. Others will use R&R's as a guide and apply them to each circumstance to the appropriate degree.

By your posted definition, this sure sounds like rationalization to me.

More rationalizing. Yup, I admit, there are times that i WILL knowingly break the law, not out of habit, because there are times that the law does not fit the circumstance. Here's a real life example, about a month ago, my mother (69Y/O) started getting chest pain and trouble breathing. Dad put her in the car and they headed to the hospital (1/2 hour away). He DID NOT obey the speed limits. As it turned out, he got pulled over and the dumb assed cop made them sit on the side of the road and wait for an ambulance which, of course took twice as long as if he had given them an escort. As it turned out, she was OK, BUT if it was more serious, she could have died waiting on the side of the road. Sometimes, following the letter of the law can cost someone their life. It's all about circumstances, knowledge and ability.

Your words.

Oh, by the way, I liked your comment "At least your screen name fits your attitude towards driving an 80K vehicle". I was wondering if someone would make a comment like that. Of course it's not true but I always appreciate good sarcasm even if it's directed at me.

 

LTK, we obviously disagree. I will abide by the law. I will drive safely. You believe that you can circumvent the law at times and still be safe. Do as you wish. But ANY reason ANYONE gives to circumvent the law is rationalization. Now you claim that I am rationalizing? That's ridiculous. I am the one making the case for following the law, you are not. I don't need to keep going around and around on this weird merry-go-round with you, I have already seen from your posts that you fail to grasp my point. And that's OK. Others will see from your words (and mine) what is going on. I have no reason to get dizzy trying to argue logic with you; I'm hopping off this strange m-g-r right now.

Have a nice day and be safe!

 

You can drive as far as you can before Highway Patrol notices and pulls you over. That could be 1 mile or 100 miles.