Anyone who still believes that speed limits higher than 55 mph are dangerous and increase accidents, need to watch these two videos:
"Speed Kills Your Pocketbook"
"Speed kills Your pocketbook 2 - Lying With Statistics"
Distracted, Drowsy, and Drunk Driving, Kills. Speed, by itself, does not. Note: These are probably the only two youtube videos with worthy content!
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 21, 2021, 11:28:59 AM
Anyone who still believes that speed limits higher than 55 mph are dangerous and increase accidents
This is a minority view on this forum. Most of us are aware that it's not true.
Are 55 MPH speed limit advocates even a thing anymore?
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 21, 2021, 11:45:20 AM
"Mothers Against Drunk Driving" are against any speed limit increases anywhere, and their slogan is an example of my point.
Citation on that mission statement? Also, when the was time MADD was a relevant talking point organization? The last time I recall encountering anyone from that advocacy group was around the turn of the century?
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 21, 2021, 12:02:47 PM
National Highway Safety Administration also, but the thing is even if the advocates don't care or exist anymore, those 55 mph speed limits have hardly been raised, and even the higher speed limits will drop again when you are within 50 miles of a city. I read that some senator in CA drafted a bill to add speed limitless lanes on I-5 and route 99, but odds of that ever happening in a state like CA are as low as you spontaneously quantum tunneling to another universe.
Again, do you have a citation that NHSTA is actively advocating 55 MPH speed limits? I kind of get the feeling you're complaining about a problem that doesn't broadly exist anymore. If you told me that individual states like Oregon (or even specific cities) could use a speed limit hike then I could see where you were trying to go with this thread.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 21, 2021, 12:22:06 PM
All interstate designated highways should not have a speed limit. All expressways and parkways should range from 65 mph to 100 mph. People already drive whatever speed they feel comfortable at, whether it's 20 mph above or below the speed limit. My top speed ever driving was 121 mph and it did not feel fast at all. I'm not saying speeds that high are necessarily safe, but the average driver can correctly judge what speeds are reasonable for a given roadway.
But it would also be fair to say that to achieve unrestricted speed limits in rural setting (even on Autobahns this isn't a thing in congested urban areas) that driver training would need to improve and getting a license would require a higher standard. I don't think there is enough to political will to institute such measures in any state. More so, the driving populace on the whole likely isn't willing to accept a higher barrier of entry to being allowed onto limited access highways.
The fastest I've ever been on a public road was 138 MPH. Given it was on a remote stretch of road in the Mojave Desert I felt somewhat assured that I was only endangering myself (it was a two lane mountain grade). I don't think that I would be comfortable with the average driver with a car maintained at a likely subpar level driving those speeds on any public highway.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 21, 2021, 11:45:20 AM
"Mothers Against Drunk Driving" are against any speed limit increases anywhere, and their slogan is an example of my point.
So...you advocate for drunk driving.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 21, 2021, 12:39:42 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 21, 2021, 12:38:28 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 21, 2021, 11:45:20 AM
"Mothers Against Drunk Driving" are against any speed limit increases anywhere, and their slogan is an example of my point.
So...you advocate for drunk driving.
No, I meant their name is focusing on drunk driving, as they should, not blaming speed limits on everything.
But that's why I asked for a citation that they have a blanket policy against any speed limit increase anywhere. That seemed like a loaded statement that needed an extra burden of proof to prove it is actually their stance.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 21, 2021, 12:46:55 PM
It is just that any story I have ever read about raising 55 mph speed limits on wide open highways, they are always mentioned as lobbying against it. And if they are against raising speed limits from 55, then there is no possibility of them supporting even higher ones, logic.
No, that's not logical because you're not actually providing an example of what you're reading. Why would you think it is logical that we would believe that MADD has a universal and all encompassing stance against increasing "any" speed limit? Your reasoning that you read a couple times MADD was against 55 MPH zone increases doesn't make your assertion true. Rather, that sounds more like an assumption on your part that you have no evidence to back up.
Where are you referring to? US 3 in northeastern Massachusetts is currently 55 and should be 65. I've spoken in person to some people at MassDOT, and the police are preventing it from happening.
On the other hand, I can't think of anyone at all who would say that I-94 in Montana should be reduced to 55.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 21, 2021, 12:58:51 PM
Are you a member of MADD?
No, I'm just not a fan of empty statements that don't have any substance. Especially when I eluded to an actual problem like certain states legislatively setting speed limits rather allowing engineers to do so. That Oregon example I gave you was an easy layup you could have ran with and one we've discussed on this forum before. I don't see what the point in blaming groups like MADD when there is no real evidence to show that they are a global hinderance to logical speed increases.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 21, 2021, 01:13:41 PM
MADD lobbied against the raise of the national 55 mph speed limit, even when it was just increased to 65 mph. I agree that states shouldn't be able to legislate speed limits, they should be set by traffic engineers/appropriate transportation departments. Speed studies should also be conducted more frequently (as low as once every 8 years in some states) to determine the 85th percentile speeds. I'm not saying they are the main culprits of slow speed limits, that's just the first that came to mind from remembering something I had read about the national maximum 55 mph speed limit, forgot where specifically I read it.
Okay, but how long ago was the National 55 MPH mandate? Suffice to say that's really old news by this point.
I mean don't get me wrong, I can think of a whole bunch of two lane California State Highways that have legislatively mandated 55 MPH speed limits that can easily handle 60-65 MPH. For the most part people drive those speeds anyways and CHP tends to look the other way unless someone is doing something additional on top of it.
I'll probably be sticking to stuff like Roadwaywiz for my road video needs. I like hearing from people in the hobby and the actual history with the highways that get featured.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 21, 2021, 01:13:41 PM
MADD lobbied against the raise of the national 55 mph speed limit, even when it was just increased to 65 mph. I agree that states shouldn't be able to legislate speed limits, they should be set by traffic engineers/appropriate transportation departments. Speed studies should also be conducted more frequently (as low as once every 8 years in some states) to determine the 85th percentile speeds. I'm not saying they are the main culprits of slow speed limits, that's just the first that came to mind from remembering something I had read about the national maximum 55 mph speed limit years ago, forgot where specifically I read it, you may be right, can we move on from that?
Along with this being decades ago, you still have provided
zero evidence that MADD has actually lobbied against the 65 mph speed limit. I googled "madd lobbying speed limits" and found nothing to back your claim. It looks more like you have a personal vendetta and are making up lies rather than bothering with anything resembling proof.
Then again, I doubt your moniker claiming you're "safe" in the first place.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 21, 2021, 11:55:08 AM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 21, 2021, 11:45:20 AM
"Mothers Against Drunk Driving" are against any speed limit increases anywhere, and their slogan is an example of my point.
Also, when the was time MADD was a relevant talking point organization? The last time I recall encountering anyone from that advocacy group was around the turn of the century?
Right around the same time I was going through the motions in DARE class.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 21, 2021, 02:46:10 PM
I think even Wikipedia mentions it. I have a perfect driving record despite hitting 120+ mph on 2 highways and over 100 on 17 different highways. And the only reason my top speed is 121 mph is because my car tops out at that speed. Could have gone faster in those road conditions at the time. Will not reveal where or when though as not to fully incriminate myself!
The example I gave was on the Oatman Highway a decade ago. I doubt Mohave County Sheriff is going to care what someone did on a poorly maintained segment of former US 66 in a Camaro that far back.
Some low key trolling going on here.
Your username checks out.
Quote from: Rothman on August 21, 2021, 02:55:23 PM
Some low key trolling going on here.
This is no different from some of what agentsteel53 said.
Nah, I already know what I'll say to people that think a 55 mph speed limit on all of I-465 is perfect.
Quote from: Rothman on August 21, 2021, 02:55:23 PM
Some low key trolling going on here.
I'm always on the look out for the next Cra_shIt. If a video sounds too sensationalized then it probably is another troll or someone looking to monetize their channel.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 21, 2021, 03:20:32 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 21, 2021, 02:55:23 PM
Some low key trolling going on here.
I'm always on the look out for the next Cra_shIt. If a video sounds too sensationalized then it probably is another troll or someone looking to monetize their channel.
I've watched the first of the two videos (years ago). It's actually quite good.
jakeroot (not a troll), 2019:
Quote from: jakeroot on November 18, 2019, 06:15:10 PM
Speed Kills Your Pocketbook 2 has been rolled out by Chris Thompson, creator of the original SKYP video. It looks at several of the issues above, and addresses several new very important issues, such as mobile phone usage (which has been on the crack-down in BC like I've not seen anywhere else). He, and SenseBC, certainly seem to be onto something with their research. I can only hope that this second version gets as much press as the first version:
https://youtu.be/amS2sqZNOas
MnDOT has been steadily eliminating swaths of urban 55s on freeways in the Twin Cities area.
Quote from: 1 on August 21, 2021, 03:26:12 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 21, 2021, 03:20:32 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 21, 2021, 02:55:23 PM
Some low key trolling going on here.
I'm always on the look out for the next Cra_shIt. If a video sounds too sensationalized then it probably is another troll or someone looking to monetize their channel.
I've watched the first of the two videos (years ago). It's actually quite good.
jakeroot (not a troll), 2019:
Quote from: jakeroot on November 18, 2019, 06:15:10 PM
Speed Kills Your Pocketbook 2 has been rolled out by Chris Thompson, creator of the original SKYP video. It looks at several of the issues above, and addresses several new very important issues, such as mobile phone usage (which has been on the crack-down in BC like I've not seen anywhere else). He, and SenseBC, certainly seem to be onto something with their research. I can only hope that this second version gets as much press as the first version:
https://youtu.be/amS2sqZNOas
Good to know, appreciate the feedback from someone established in the community. I might put it on my evening drive home watch list.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 21, 2021, 01:51:39 PM
Even for people who support higher speed limits, the two videos in the OP are beyond genius. Those are what I call effort!
You seem very inve$ted in getting ¢licks. I wonder why?
As far as this forum goes I guess I'm on the low end for speed limits. But I don't know how anyone would think that a 55 MPH limit on rural Interstates is reasonable. 65 for some, 70 or 75 for most, and 80 for a select few is what it should be.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 21, 2021, 07:08:29 PM
80 is my enjoy the scenery speed. 70-75 nph would be good minimum speeds though, especially for roads like I-80 through Utah, Nevada, and Nebraska.
How fast do you drive on I-80 in that part of the country? 95? 105?
Quote from: thspfc on August 21, 2021, 09:51:38 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 21, 2021, 07:08:29 PM
80 is my enjoy the scenery speed. 70-75 nph would be good minimum speeds though, especially for roads like I-80 through Utah, Nevada, and Nebraska.
How fast do you drive on I-80 in that part of the country? 95? 105?
Probably isn't unreasonable in those large, rural, desolate areas currently posted for 80 mph, especially if there's very little to no traffic around for miles.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 21, 2021, 12:02:47 PM
National Highway Safety Administration also, but the thing is even if the advocates don't care or exist anymore, those 55 mph speed limits have hardly been raised, and even the higher speed limits will drop again when you are within 50 miles of a city.
(https://i.imgur.com/IZ55loG.jpg)
(taken 6 miles away from Oklahoma City limits)
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 21, 2021, 10:40:05 PM
Nice. 60 mph is a high minimum speed also. Oklahoma recently allowed 80 mph limits on turnpikes. In the Northeast, speed limits go up to 65 mph, but will drop instantly, without warning, seemingly for no reason. 35 mph in "work zones" where the highways empty and not one cone or a guy in a hard hat in sight. So 1 minute you are going 70 in a 65, and the next minute you are going double the speed limit in a "construction zone". Also, there are some 55 mph roads with 45 mph minimum speeds, as if that makes alot of sense.
Oklahoma also has a policy of stepping down speed limits in 10 mph increments as you approach a lower-speed zone. So as you approach a town, you go from 65 to 55, to 45, to 35, to 25 through the downtown area. You don't see sudden 65→35 drops like you see in other states.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 21, 2021, 10:40:05 PM
Nice. 60 mph is a high minimum speed also. Oklahoma recently allowed 80 mph limits on turnpikes. In the Northeast, speed limits go up to 65 mph, but will drop instantly, without warning, seemingly for no reason. 35 mph in "work zones" where the highways empty and not one cone or a guy in a hard hat in sight. So 1 minute you are going 70 in a 65, and the next minute you are going double the speed limit in a "construction zone". Also, there are some 55 mph roads with 45 mph minimum speeds, as if that makes alot of sense.
Yeah I had several phantom 45 zones on IN-25 going to uni today. Speed limit decreased to 45, lasted about 1/4 mile, then cones show up for 1/4 mile on the shoulder where the uncovered 60 mph signs were. After the third one I stopped lowering my cruise speed.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 21, 2021, 11:00:12 PM
Well sudden drops obviously make more money and leads to possible reckless driving charges for going double the limit for a few seconds. Oklahoma seems more rational.
I've found them to be more tedious than the sudden drop. Florida also does the same thing and even raises speeds back up often in the same interval. I much rather have an advisory about a speed limit drop and have it hit a couple hundred feet down the road. That's how Caltrans handles speed reductions anyways.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 21, 2021, 11:04:01 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 21, 2021, 11:00:12 PM
Well sudden drops obviously make more money and leads to possible reckless driving charges for going double the limit for a few seconds. Oklahoma seems more rational.
I've found them to be more tedious than the sudden drop. Florida also does the same thing and even raises speeds back up often in the same interval. I much rather have an advisory about a speed limit drop and have it hit a couple hundred feet down the road. That's how Caltrans handles speed reductions anyways.
Usually in Indiana we either have signs indicating a speed limit drop or we can see small towns far enough out to expect the drop.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 21, 2021, 04:14:42 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 21, 2021, 03:56:23 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 21, 2021, 01:51:39 PM
Even for people who support higher speed limits, the two videos in the OP are beyond genius. Those are what I call effort!
You seem very inve$ted in getting ¢licks. I wonder why?
Sigh, those are not my videos, but I do intend for them to get clicks nonetheless because it is an extremely important subject matter. It's better than babyshark for sure!
I haven't watched the video in the OP, but as to the boldfaced, the 2019 World Series compels me to disagree....
https://youtu.be/AetTT3d5k70
https://youtu.be/hSDqYypxfz8
My area has so much commercial traffic that raising speed limits wouldn't change anything.
I've never seen high speed limits being discussed this much since Ethanman.
Quote from: SkyPesos on August 22, 2021, 08:38:04 PM
I've never seen high speed limits being discussed this much since Ethanman.
I mean, nothing is really wrong about it. Most of the information is accurate and based on reality, engineering logic.
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 22, 2021, 08:42:02 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on August 22, 2021, 08:38:04 PM
I've never seen high speed limits being discussed this much since Ethanman.
I mean, nothing is really wrong about it. Most of the information is accurate and based on reality, engineering logic.
I know. It just reminds me of the "85 mph on I-366" thing, as well as Ethanman saying that he'll allow us to drive that fast on it.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 21, 2021, 05:36:21 PM
I know the Autobohn in Germany is safer because Americans can't drive by comparison, but they should have advanced driving courses in the US for people who want to go faster. A speed limit exemption at least.
And how, exactly, would the police enforce the speed limit for everyone else?
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 21, 2021, 10:43:14 PM
BTW, if anyone's curious, the highest speed limit on any road in the world (that's not unlimited like the autobahn) is 160 kph (99 mph) on 2 motorways in the UAE. And even the speed limits that Germany does have are in the 80 to 93 mph range, not 65 like the stupid USA!
"The stupid USA" doesn't have a 65mph speed limit. Unless I'm counting wrong, more states allow speed limits of 75 than cap them at 65 or less.
Also, where does Germany have a speed limit of 150 km/h?
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 23, 2021, 02:43:53 PM
The advanced driving course people could have some kind of printed documentation, where if they get pulled over, they show the cop and don't get a ticket. Or some kind of license plate tag so the cop sees beforehand and doesn't pull them over in the 1st place.
1. Printed documentation would only help after the fact. I doubt police officers would want to waste their time pulling over drivers who have speeding-friendly papers.
2. Yeah, right, why would anyone ever
remove such a license plate tag? Say I have such an exemption and then my wife drives the car. What reason would she have to remove it rather than just drive as fast as she wanted?
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 23, 2021, 02:43:53 PM
The UAE stands for United Arab Emirates, that's where the two 160 kph limits are, highest limited roads ever.
I know what UAE stands for. And I know that's where there's 160 km/h can be found.
That's not what I questioned. You said "the speed limits that
Germany does have are in the 80 to
93 mph range". 93 mph is 150 km/h. I asked you where Germany has 150 km/h speed limits.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 23, 2021, 02:43:53 PM
As I said the stupid USA has mostly 65-70 mph speed limits with very few roads getting up to the maximums ...
Most roads in Germany aren't 130 km/h either. The default speed limit for rural highways in Germany is 100 km/h. Only on the Autobahn or certain special roads will you find speed limits higher than that.
Isn't there also a recommended speed limit (Richtgeschwindigkeit) of 130 km/h even on the parts of the autobahn with no speed limit, such that if you exceed 130, you may face greater financial liability in the event you are deemed at fault in an accident?
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 23, 2021, 03:08:38 PM
Isn't there also a recommended speed limit (Richtgeschwindigkeit) of 130 km/h even on the parts of the autobahn with no speed limit, such that if you exceed 130, you may face greater financial liability in the event you are deemed at fault in an accident?
Yes.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 23, 2021, 03:40:06 PM
... and it was found that you were exceeding the roads' design speed ...
So, for every accident, they'll have to look up the design speed for the stretch of road in question?
Countdown until someone contests the design speed of the road he had an accident on...
Quote from: kphoger on August 23, 2021, 03:44:40 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 23, 2021, 03:40:06 PM
... and it was found that you were exceeding the roads' design speed ...
So, for every accident, they'll have to look up the design speed for the stretch of road in question?
Countdown until someone contests the design speed of the road he had an accident on...
^ Just base it off the existing speed limit. If you exceed it, you can be found at fault for an accident if speed is a factor.
But merely doing 100 mph on a wide open desert highway wouldn't be an automatic ticket.
That's the risk you take exceeding the posted speed limit. And if it's truly not your fault, regardless of speed, then not speed related. If someone comes into my lane and sideswipes me off the road, even if I'm going 5-10 mph over, it's blatantly their fault.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 23, 2021, 03:56:40 PM
Or...people could just be civil and not automatically resort to blaming each other for an accident, and just accept that accidents happen, and move on. Finding someone to blame for an automobile accident accomplishes nothing. People assume the risk when driving on a public road, including myself, and people shouldn't be pressing charges after an accident, unless one of the drivers was committing a very serious infraction such as being drunk or knowingly driving with a defective car..etc, not just because of speed.
So, when our insurance companies figure out who pays for the damages, fault doesn't matter?
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 23, 2021, 04:00:05 PM
That's the risk you take exceeding the posted speed limit. And if it's truly not your fault, regardless of speed, then not speed related. If someone comes into my lane and sideswipes me off the road, even if I'm going 5-10 mph over, it's blatantly their fault.
It could be, if driving slower would have given the driver better reaction time to get back into his own lane and avoid the collision–or if it would have allowed you enough reaction time to brake and/or swerve out of the way.
^ So I should have to pay more in insurance because someone ran a stop sign and crashed into my side?
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 23, 2021, 04:03:31 PM
The insurance company should be the ones paying, that's why we pay for insurance. Germany has far higher premiums than the US due to their lack of speed limits. Instead of the drivers suing each other, simply have both pay higher insurance to begin with.
In the case of an accident, there are two companies involved. Who pays what amount? That depends on how much blame goes to each person. The last time I had a fender bender, I was found at 20% fault and the other driver at 80% fault. Speed is a part of such a determination.
Imagine if you get in a wreck, call your insurance agent, they ask you what speed you were driving, and you answer "That shouldn't matter."
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 23, 2021, 04:05:03 PM
^ So I should have to pay more in insurance because someone ran a stop sign and crashed into my side?
No, and that isn't what I said.
I think I misconstrued your hypothetical as a head-on situation, but you actually meant same-direction traffic.
Quote from: kphoger on August 23, 2021, 04:06:58 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 23, 2021, 04:05:03 PM
^ So I should have to pay more in insurance because someone ran a stop sign and crashed into my side?
No, and that isn't what I said.
I was referring to SafeSpeeder's comments that no party should be "blamed" .
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 23, 2021, 04:03:31 PM
Quote from: kphoger on August 23, 2021, 04:01:02 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 23, 2021, 03:56:40 PM
Or...people could just be civil and not automatically resort to blaming each other for an accident, and just accept that accidents happen, and move on. Finding someone to blame for an automobile accident accomplishes nothing. People assume the risk when driving on a public road, including myself, and people shouldn't be pressing charges after an accident, unless one of the drivers was committing a very serious infraction such as being drunk or knowingly driving with a defective car..etc, not just because of speed.
So, when our insurance companies figure out who pays for the damages, fault doesn't matter?
The insurance company should be the ones paying, that's why we pay for insurance. Germany has far higher premiums than the US due to their lack of speed limits. Instead of the drivers suing each other, simply have both pay higher insurance to begin with.
Please go to Michigan someday and see how ridiculous, expensive, and patently unfair no-fault insurance is.
Drivers rarely sue each other. I adjusted thousands of injury claims and saw dozens go to suit. None went to trial.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 23, 2021, 04:33:56 PM
The misconception is that speed is a main factor in the severity of an accident, after the accident occurs but is not necessarily the cause of the accident, like the media likes you to believe. As shown in the original videos, even braking distance calculations for old cars are grossly exaggerated.
You say "not necessarily the cause", but you have to agree that having less time to react surely results in more accidents than having
more time to react.
Chris
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 23, 2021, 05:19:24 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on August 23, 2021, 05:07:41 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 23, 2021, 04:33:56 PM
The misconception is that speed is a main factor in the severity of an accident, after the accident occurs but is not necessarily the cause of the accident, like the media likes you to believe. As shown in the original videos, even braking distance calculations for old cars are grossly exaggerated.
You say "not necessarily the cause", but you have to agree that having less time to react surely results in more accidents than having more time to react.
Chris
Yes, but the question is what are you having to react to? If it is someone's idiotic driving you have to react to, why should you take the penalty?
The simple answer is: because had you been following the rules set forth, you would have had time to react to their idiocy. If nothing else, both of you share in the culpability at that point then.
Chris
Quote from: kphoger on August 23, 2021, 04:05:13 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 23, 2021, 04:03:31 PM
The insurance company should be the ones paying, that's why we pay for insurance. Germany has far higher premiums than the US due to their lack of speed limits. Instead of the drivers suing each other, simply have both pay higher insurance to begin with.
In the case of an accident, there are two companies involved. Who pays what amount? That depends on how much blame goes to each person. The last time I had a fender bender, I was found at 20% fault and the other driver at 80% fault. Speed is a part of such a determination.
Imagine if you get in a wreck, call your insurance agent, they ask you what speed you were driving, and you answer "That shouldn't matter."
I would think it would be far simpler if one just paid for the damage to one's own vehicle with their insurance. Let the other party pay for the damage to their vehicle with their insurance. That strikes me as so much simpler than having to assign blame and then have one party try to collect money from the other party's insurance. I would think it would also reduce the time it takes to clear the road after a crash, since then the police wouldn't have to worry about assigning blame.
Quote from: vdeane on August 23, 2021, 05:59:29 PM
Quote from: kphoger on August 23, 2021, 04:05:13 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 23, 2021, 04:03:31 PM
The insurance company should be the ones paying, that's why we pay for insurance. Germany has far higher premiums than the US due to their lack of speed limits. Instead of the drivers suing each other, simply have both pay higher insurance to begin with.
In the case of an accident, there are two companies involved. Who pays what amount? That depends on how much blame goes to each person. The last time I had a fender bender, I was found at 20% fault and the other driver at 80% fault. Speed is a part of such a determination.
Imagine if you get in a wreck, call your insurance agent, they ask you what speed you were driving, and you answer "That shouldn't matter."
I would think it would be far simpler if one just paid for the damage to one's own vehicle with their insurance. Let the other party pay for the damage to their vehicle with their insurance. That strikes me as so much simpler than having to assign blame and then have one party try to collect money from the other party's insurance. I would think it would also reduce the time it takes to clear the road after a crash, since then the police wouldn't have to worry about assigning blame.
That means that the person not at fault is no better off than the person at fault. This might be unpopular, but the person at fault shouldn't even be covered.
Quote from: vdeane on August 23, 2021, 05:59:29 PM
Quote from: kphoger on August 23, 2021, 04:05:13 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 23, 2021, 04:03:31 PM
The insurance company should be the ones paying, that's why we pay for insurance. Germany has far higher premiums than the US due to their lack of speed limits. Instead of the drivers suing each other, simply have both pay higher insurance to begin with.
In the case of an accident, there are two companies involved. Who pays what amount? That depends on how much blame goes to each person. The last time I had a fender bender, I was found at 20% fault and the other driver at 80% fault. Speed is a part of such a determination.
Imagine if you get in a wreck, call your insurance agent, they ask you what speed you were driving, and you answer "That shouldn't matter."
I would think it would be far simpler if one just paid for the damage to one's own vehicle with their insurance. Let the other party pay for the damage to their vehicle with their insurance. That strikes me as so much simpler than having to assign blame and then have one party try to collect money from the other party's insurance. I would think it would also reduce the time it takes to clear the road after a crash, since then the police wouldn't have to worry about assigning blame.
I've often thought about this too. But the police don't place do they? The insurance companies do? I've read before but not sure how true it is that in Japan you automatically at fault for a certain percentage of the costs from a car accident because you simply being the road contributed to being in a wreck.
The reason I've thought it could potentially be a good idea to remove The Who is a fault aspect is to discourage fraud which infuriates me. A it should be a law that all new cars come with manufacturers dash cam and frankly it should be a law to have dash cams in general. The amount of blatant insurance fraud is alarming and often those caught get a slap on the wrist.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 23, 2021, 07:09:02 PM
But the police don't place do they? The insurance companies do?
Right. An officer might fill out a police report, and the insurance companies will take that into consideration, but the police aren't deciding who is at fault unless there's a ticket to be written.
Heck, the last time I had a fender bender, COVID-19 restrictions meant that police officers weren't even being dispatched to the scene of an accident unless there was an injury. The other party and I came into my house (the accident was in the street right outside), sat down at my home computer, texted each other pictures, and filled out our
own police report online.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 23, 2021, 07:09:02 PM
A it should be a law that all new cars come with manufacturers dash cam and frankly it should be a law to have dash cams in general. The amount of blatant insurance fraud is alarming and often those caught get a slap on the wrist.
Yeah, no invasion of privacy there.
Quote from: kphoger on August 23, 2021, 07:16:25 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 23, 2021, 07:09:02 PM
But the police don't place do they? The insurance companies do?
Right. An officer might fill out a police report, and the insurance companies will take that into consideration, but the police aren't deciding who is at fault unless there's a ticket to be written.
Heck, the last time I had a fender bender, COVID-19 restrictions meant that police officers weren't even being dispatched to the scene of an accident unless there was an injury. The other party and I came into my house (the accident was in the street right outside), sat down at my home computer, texted each other pictures, and filled out our own police report online.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 23, 2021, 07:09:02 PM
A it should be a law that all new cars come with manufacturers dash cam and frankly it should be a law to have dash cams in general. The amount of blatant insurance fraud is alarming and often those caught get a slap on the wrist.
Yeah, no invasion of privacy there.
How is that an invasion of privacy?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 23, 2021, 07:19:05 PM
How is that an invasion of privacy?
A legal requirement that there be video evidence of everywhere you drive? OK, so I'm certainly not a lawyer, but I can't imagine that would go over very well.
Quote from: kphoger on August 23, 2021, 07:28:28 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 23, 2021, 07:19:05 PM
How is that an invasion of privacy?
A legal requirement that there be video evidence of everywhere you drive? OK, so I'm certainly not a lawyer, but I can't imagine that would go over very well.
I can't imagine such hypothetical legislation would get a ton of political support. Besides, I know speaking for myself I don't want my actions behind the wheel constantly recorded.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 23, 2021, 07:30:24 PM
Quote from: kphoger on August 23, 2021, 07:28:28 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 23, 2021, 07:19:05 PM
How is that an invasion of privacy?
A legal requirement that there be video evidence of everywhere you drive? OK, so I'm certainly not a lawyer, but I can't imagine that would go over very well.
I can't imagine such hypothetical legislation would get a ton of political support. Besides, I know speaking for myself I don't want my actions behind the wheel constantly recorded.
The only person who has access to the footage is you. Besides there are options to turn it off. Tesla's have this ability. I believe it would be beneficial and not invade people's privacy at all. I have a dash cam and don't consider it an invasion of privacy.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 23, 2021, 07:37:36 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 23, 2021, 07:30:24 PM
Quote from: kphoger on August 23, 2021, 07:28:28 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 23, 2021, 07:19:05 PM
How is that an invasion of privacy?
A legal requirement that there be video evidence of everywhere you drive? OK, so I'm certainly not a lawyer, but I can't imagine that would go over very well.
I can't imagine such hypothetical legislation would get a ton of political support. Besides, I know speaking for myself I don't want my actions behind the wheel constantly recorded.
The only person who has access to the footage is you. Besides there are options to turn it off. Tesla's have this ability. I believe it would be beneficial and not invade people's privacy at all. I have a dash cam and don't consider it an invasion of privacy.
But that's just it, I don't want everything I do recorded. Tesla-like options don't necessarily appeal to me nor in a blanket form in a consumer base. I work in surveillance already, I don't want anymore of life monitored than already is. There is a huge difference between something like this being "optional equipment" versus "mandatory." Even if I was the only one with access to video it can still be subpoenaed and used.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 23, 2021, 07:43:10 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 23, 2021, 07:37:36 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 23, 2021, 07:30:24 PM
Quote from: kphoger on August 23, 2021, 07:28:28 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 23, 2021, 07:19:05 PM
How is that an invasion of privacy?
A legal requirement that there be video evidence of everywhere you drive? OK, so I'm certainly not a lawyer, but I can't imagine that would go over very well.
I can't imagine such hypothetical legislation would get a ton of political support. Besides, I know speaking for myself I don't want my actions behind the wheel constantly recorded.
The only person who has access to the footage is you. Besides there are options to turn it off. Tesla's have this ability. I believe it would be beneficial and not invade people's privacy at all. I have a dash cam and don't consider it an invasion of privacy.
But that's just it, I don't want everything I do recorded. Tesla-like options don't necessarily appeal to me nor in a blanket form in a consumer base. I work in surveillance already, I don't want anymore of life monitored than already is. There is a huge difference between something like this being "optional equipment" versus "mandatory." Even if I was the only one with access to video it can still be subpoenaed and used.
I see your point but there can be an option to disable it entirely so no footage is taken at all. I figure more people than not would have it on. I had someone back into me at a drive thru once and said I rear ended them. Cops believe them and said that on the report. When the adjuster came I showed my dash cam and it was settled then and there. That person was never charged with fraud though maybe he really thought I rear ended him who knows
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 23, 2021, 08:50:56 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 23, 2021, 07:09:02 PM
Quote from: vdeane on August 23, 2021, 05:59:29 PM
Quote from: kphoger on August 23, 2021, 04:05:13 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 23, 2021, 04:03:31 PM
The insurance company should be the ones paying, that's why we pay for insurance. Germany has far higher premiums than the US due to their lack of speed limits. Instead of the drivers suing each other, simply have both pay higher insurance to begin with.
In the case of an accident, there are two companies involved. Who pays what amount? That depends on how much blame goes to each person. The last time I had a fender bender, I was found at 20% fault and the other driver at 80% fault. Speed is a part of such a determination.
Imagine if you get in a wreck, call your insurance agent, they ask you what speed you were driving, and you answer "That shouldn't matter."
I would think it would be far simpler if one just paid for the damage to one's own vehicle with their insurance. Let the other party pay for the damage to their vehicle with their insurance. That strikes me as so much simpler than having to assign blame and then have one party try to collect money from the other party's insurance. I would think it would also reduce the time it takes to clear the road after a crash, since then the police wouldn't have to worry about assigning blame.
I've often thought about this too. But the police don't place do they? The insurance companies do? I've read before but not sure how true it is that in Japan you automatically at fault for a certain percentage of the costs from a car accident because you simply being the road contributed to being in a wreck.
The reason I've thought it could potentially be a good idea to remove The Who is a fault aspect is to discourage fraud which infuriates me. A it should be a law that all new cars come with manufacturers dash cam and frankly it should be a law to have dash cams in general. The amount of blatant insurance fraud is alarming and often those caught get a slap on the wrist.
Fender benders shouldn't even be paid for by insurance, if you can afford an automobile, you can afford to live with a harmless dent or two. Also, they shouldn't block the road, if there's barely any damage, you can both pull off to the side. I always lean on the horn when passing morons who do that. I once followed another driver who was leading me to a destination successfully despite being totally unfamiliar with the area. So they can definitely follow each other 50 feet to the side of the road and chat. In fact if someone rear ended my softly, I would just wave them on, cars are for transportation and thrills, not for looks. And anyone who thinks that would be "leaving the scene of an accident" is like calling a parent who takes their own kid after a custody dispute a "kidnapping" LOL
Today's term of a "fender bender" is different than that of a few decades ago. Then, there were metal bumpers, and if two cars hit, the fender bent a little, but didn't really break, and didn't affect anything else in the car. In today's cars, a bumper hit can set off air bags, destroy sensors, and affect a number of car components. The car is still movable, but you're best to get it off the road, get a police report if possible, and contact your insurance company, because the car could very well be totaled.
Forgot to mention, but the idea of one's own insurance paying for one's own damage also protects in the case that the other motorist is uninsured or under-insured.
Regarding the dash cam idea, it reminds me of a Black Mirror episode where people were legally required to give insurance adjusters a full view of their memories.
I'm very surprised how many are so opposed to mandated dash cams. I just don't see how they invade your privacy. I wonder how many here against it have "smart" phones and wonder why when they talk about needing to get cat litter on the way start getting pet related advertisements lol. I can't think of the last time have been to someone's house that didn't have a camera network, smart TV(with camera), voice assistant device(like Echo etc), or any other device that records and listens. The difference is with the dash cam idea is it could save you thousands.
I figure we're going to that anyways. I believe GM is going to have a feature that won't let you shift your car unless you're seatbelt is buckled though it will be optional.
Just happened upon this thread. Reading this is like listening to my 12 year-old trying to explain to me a concept he heretofore knew nothing about, but, because he just saw a YouTube video about it, he now thinks he's an expert on the subject.
Have fun.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 23, 2021, 08:36:48 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on August 23, 2021, 05:34:47 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 23, 2021, 05:19:24 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on August 23, 2021, 05:07:41 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 23, 2021, 04:33:56 PM
The misconception is that speed is a main factor in the severity of an accident, after the accident occurs but is not necessarily the cause of the accident, like the media likes you to believe. As shown in the original videos, even braking distance calculations for old cars are grossly exaggerated.
You say "not necessarily the cause", but you have to agree that having less time to react surely results in more accidents than having more time to react.
Chris
Yes, but the question is what are you having to react to? If it is someone's idiotic driving you have to react to, why should you take the penalty?
The simple answer is: because had you been following the rules set forth, you would have had time to react to their idiocy. If nothing else, both of you share in the culpability at that point then.
Chris
You didn't answer the question, what are we having to react to? I explained how not being able to react in tile to someone's idiot driving usually has nothing to do with speed. Again, just because one or both vehicles were going faster than the speed limit, it doesn't mean that was the main reason they crashed.
If you ever rear end anyone, doesn't matter what they were doing, you're going to be at fault, and I agree with it. Either you were too close to start with or you were going too fast to be able to stop.
As for the other types of idiocy that could cause an accident, I'm not saying it's always the speeder's fault, but they're going to be at least partially culpable a majority of the time. If they could have avoided the accident had they been going the speed limit, but chose not to be, they're just as culpable as someone who pulled out in front of them.
Chris
Quote from: jayhawkco on August 24, 2021, 02:02:31 AM
If you ever rear end anyone, doesn't matter what they were doing, you're going to be at fault, and I agree with it. Either you were too close to start with or you were going too fast to be able to stop.
I'm pretty sure that's not true at all. You're telling me every case of someone being rear ended the person who rear ended the other car was found at fault? I highly doubt that. You seem to have some idealistic fantasy about how everyone should drive like there's an endgame in mind. There isn't. Speeding is fun and gets you to where you want to be quicker which a simple mathematical equation can prove regardless of your "he sped past me and ended up at the same light as me miles down the road" anecdote.
But if you're going to defend speed limits by saying we need to abide by them so we can react to other drivers errors and traffic violations well that's just ridiculous. With that point why not just ban cars entirely so there isn't a bad driver to react to? And that all goes back to you having some idealistic scenario of how your drive will be.
Sorry man but it's no different than someone getting pissed at others for abiding by the speed limit on a two lane or jerk on this forum who likes to lay on his horn at drivers who mistakenly stop at a right turn when they don't need to. Stay in the right lane unless you're passing. Let others go 100+ if that makes them happy and let the LEOs deal with it. Road warrior mentality is the worst offenders by any stretch and speed limits should be mandated to the 85th percentile except on interstates where rural sections shouldn't have a limit at all, IMO.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 24, 2021, 02:45:07 AM
Quote from: jayhawkco on August 24, 2021, 02:02:31 AM
If you ever rear end anyone, doesn't matter what they were doing, you're going to be at fault, and I agree with it. Either you were too close to start with or you were going too fast to be able to stop.
I'm pretty sure that's not true at all. You're telling me every case of someone being rear ended the person who rear ended the other car was found at fault? I highly doubt that.
See links such as this: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/is-fault-automatic-rear-end-car-accident-case.html (https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/is-fault-automatic-rear-end-car-accident-case.html). Basically you're going to be at fault unless you can prove that the other person was reversing, stopped to make a turn on a dime and didn't actually do so, has broken brake lights (good luck proving that after you've crushed them), or got a flat tire and didn't pull off with hazards. Otherwise, the person who did the rear-ending will likely be found negligent.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 24, 2021, 02:45:07 AMYou seem to have some idealistic fantasy about how everyone should drive like there's an endgame in mind. There isn't. Speeding is fun and gets you to where you want to be quicker which a simple mathematical equation can prove regardless of your "he sped past me and ended up at the same light as me miles down the road" anecdote.
You make an awful lot of assumptions about how I view driving. Shocker, I don't always drive the speed limit. That said, there
is an endgame in mind when I drive -- to get to where I want to go without damaging my car or others'. Seems simple enough. It's one thing to only advocate for higher speed limits, as many others do on this forum (myself included when it comes to certain states), but some seem to want to be the fastest guy on the road to prove something. All it proves is that you're more risk averse than others and (IMO) inconsiderate of others and the law itself.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 24, 2021, 02:45:07 AMBut if you're going to defend speed limits by saying we need to abide by them so we can react to other drivers errors and traffic violations well that's just ridiculous. With that point why not just ban cars entirely so there isn't a bad driver to react to? And that all goes back to you having some idealistic scenario of how your drive will be.
Wheeeeeeeeee, look at that slippery slope. It's just simple math. If you're going x speed and have enough time to react to some impediment in your travel and you just barely are able to avoid it, then driving x+20 means you won't be able to avoid it. I'm not saying the various transportation authorities have the speed limits 100% dialed in to make sure those are the right numbers for x, but you get my point.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 24, 2021, 02:45:07 AMSorry man but it's no different than someone getting pissed at others for abiding by the speed limit on a two lane or jerk on this forum who likes to lay on his horn at drivers who mistakenly stop at a right turn when they don't need to. Stay in the right lane unless you're passing. Let others go 100+ if that makes them happy and let the LEOs deal with it. Road warrior mentality is the worst offenders by any stretch and speed limits should be mandated to the 85th percentile except on interstates where rural sections shouldn't have a limit at all, IMO.
Those people you mention are also jerks on the road. My advice to everyone is to not be a jerk. Personally, I'm not going to be the one stopping people going 100 mph. But I'm supportive of big tickets when you're going over 30mph above the posted speed limits, especially when there's other traffic around. It's negligent driving with a far higher probability of injuring yourself or others. Again, because this will be slippery sloped when quoted I'm sure, I'm not saying every time you drive 100mph that you're going to get into an accident. But I am saying that the probably scales up non-linearly as would the resultant damage/potential for injury if an accident were to occur.
Chris
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on August 24, 2021, 01:49:21 AM
Just happened upon this thread. Reading this is like listening to my 12 year-old trying to explain to me a concept he heretofore knew nothing about, but, because he just saw a YouTube video about it, he now thinks he's an expert on the subject.
Have fun.
FWIW I'm gathering from the comments that the OP is a relatively young person and a inexperienced driver.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 23, 2021, 07:37:36 PM
Besides there are options to turn it off. Tesla's have this ability.
If people are allowed to turn it off, then why make it mandatory in the first place?
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 23, 2021, 08:36:48 PM
You didn't answer the question, what are we having to react to? I explained how not being able to react in tile to someone's idiot driving usually has nothing to do with speed. Again, just because one or both vehicles were going faster than the speed limit, it doesn't mean that was the main reason they crashed.
In that short paragraph, you shifted from "has
nothing to do with speed" to "doesn't mean that was
the main reason they crashed". In that shift, you crossed a pretty wide semantic gap, and it betrays the fact that you really do know speed has
something to do with it.
Back in 2007 or so, a fellow delivery drive for the company I worked for was involved in a multi-vehicle pileup on the Paducah (KY) I-24 bridge. His truck wasn't the one that initially caused the first collision, but he couldn't stop in time to avoid the second or third car back. Right then and there on the bridge, they checked the truck's brake system and discovered that the rear brakes were nonfunctioning, and our company was therefore held more responsible for the pileup than it otherwise would have been. And that was perfectly appropriate because, if the rear brakes had been functioning properly, then our driver might have had enough time to stop before rear-ending that Corvette. Speed works the same way: the faster you're going, the longer it takes you to stop. Imagine instead that the driver had perfectly good brakes but was going 15 mph faster. Same results, same culpability.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 23, 2021, 08:43:30 PM
as long as the money comes to pay, who cares which company pays how much? Maybe both companies should pay equal amounts regardless of the percentage calculations of faulthood.
Then there would be less financial incentive to drive safely. Your repairs are going to be handled the same no matter what.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 23, 2021, 09:53:34 PM
Today's term of a "fender bender" is different than that of a few decades ago. Then, there were metal bumpers, and if two cars hit, the fender bent a little, but didn't really break, and didn't affect anything else in the car. In today's cars, a bumper hit can set off air bags, destroy sensors, and affect a number of car components. The car is still movable, but you're best to get it off the road, get a police report if possible, and contact your insurance company, because the car could very well be totaled.
Yes. Was the integrity of the bumper compromised, thereby putting the vehicle's occupants more at risk? Did the impact put a small crack in the coolant expansion tank, which will then burst a few months later? Is your alignment off now?
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 23, 2021, 08:43:30 PM
With all the money insurance companies make, I don't think it would hurt them that much to pay even if it was unfairly charged. It's like a billionaire relentlessly pursuing a court case over someone who stole his wallet, there's no point.
Oh, please. Just because a person or the company he owns is wealthier than you are, that doesn't mean he's less entitled to it than you are.
But, regarding your analogy, it's actually more like a billionaire not pursuing
six million thefts per year.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 12:40:16 PM
Only a 12 year old would say this without actually watching the videos. If you drove for even 2 minutes any of the roads where I live you would see in 3 seconds how absurdly and outrageously low the speed limits are.
Only a 12 year old would assume a total stranger hasn't, in fact, already driven plenty in the area you live in.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 12:48:53 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2021, 10:26:34 AM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on August 24, 2021, 01:49:21 AM
Just happened upon this thread. Reading this is like listening to my 12 year-old trying to explain to me a concept he heretofore knew nothing about, but, because he just saw a YouTube video about it, he now thinks he's an expert on the subject.
Have fun.
FWIW I'm gathering from the comments that the OP is a relatively young person and a inexperienced driver.
I drive anywhere from 60 to 290 miles a day, and have most likely driven around the earth multiple times in the decade I've been driving, in one of the hardest places to drive. I knew eventually the trolls would come ranting random BS, I doubt you even watched 30 seconds of the videos, and I bet you frequently find yourself driving 20 mph over the speed limits without realizing it. And those videos don't even do a justice to my points because when you convert, Canada speed limits are mostly like 70-75 mph, not 55-70 in this country. If a 12 year old had made those two videos, I would say he is smarter and more mature than 99% of American Adults.
All hat, no cattle.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 12:48:53 PM
I bet you frequently find yourself driving 20 mph over the speed limits without realizing it. And those videos don't even do a justice to my points because when you convert, Canada speed limits are mostly like 70-75 mph, not 55-70 in this country.
Because I'm a conscientious driver, I can guarantee you that I am never driving 20mph over the limit unless passing and I need to gun it.
Also, just FYI, mph = km/h ÷ 1.6. I only post that because you clearly don't understand how to convert speed limits in Canada to mph.
(https://i.postimg.cc/P5npnNtf/KMH.png)
One should know what they're talking about prior to engaging.
Chris
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 12:48:53 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2021, 10:26:34 AM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on August 24, 2021, 01:49:21 AM
Just happened upon this thread. Reading this is like listening to my 12 year-old trying to explain to me a concept he heretofore knew nothing about, but, because he just saw a YouTube video about it, he now thinks he's an expert on the subject.
Have fun.
FWIW I'm gathering from the comments that the OP is a relatively young person and a inexperienced driver.
I drive anywhere from 60 to 290 miles a day, and have most likely driven around the earth multiple times in the decade I've been driving, in one of the hardest places to drive. I knew eventually the trolls would come ranting random BS, I doubt you even watched 30 seconds of the videos, and I bet you frequently find yourself driving 20 mph over the speed limits without realizing it. And those videos don't even do a justice to my points because when you convert, Canada speed limits are mostly like 70-75 mph, not 55-70 in this country. If a 12 year old had made those two videos, I would say he is smarter and more mature than 99% of American Adults.
I mean, you were the one who said upthread you have only been on the likes of I-80 and I-95.... So, how are you on the hardest drives possible when you are just commuting in a developed part of the country on mostly limited access roads?
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 12:58:10 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 24, 2021, 12:50:17 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 12:48:53 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2021, 10:26:34 AM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on August 24, 2021, 01:49:21 AM
Just happened upon this thread. Reading this is like listening to my 12 year-old trying to explain to me a concept he heretofore knew nothing about, but, because he just saw a YouTube video about it, he now thinks he's an expert on the subject.
Have fun.
FWIW I'm gathering from the comments that the OP is a relatively young person and a inexperienced driver.
I drive anywhere from 60 to 290 miles a day, and have most likely driven around the earth multiple times in the decade I've been driving, in one of the hardest places to drive. I knew eventually the trolls would come ranting random BS, I doubt you even watched 30 seconds of the videos, and I bet you frequently find yourself driving 20 mph over the speed limits without realizing it. And those videos don't even do a justice to my points because when you convert, Canada speed limits are mostly like 70-75 mph, not 55-70 in this country. If a 12 year old had made those two videos, I would say he is smarter and more mature than 99% of American Adults.
All hat, no cattle.
But your OP was?
You're the OP of this thread (original poster).
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 01:04:07 PM
Quote"Today's term of a "fender bender" is different than that of a few decades ago. Then, there were metal bumpers, and if two cars hit, the fender bent a little, but didn't really break, and didn't affect anything else in the car. In today's cars, a bumper hit can set off air bags, destroy sensors, and affect a number of car components. The car is still movable, but you're best to get it off the road, get a police report if possible, and contact your insurance company, because the car could very well be totaled."
By fender bender, I don't literally mean someone's bumper was damaged, but people have this idea that any time two cars come into contact, it's an "accident" that both drivers should stop in the road for. And most cars that I see blocking 2+ lanes don't have any visible damage and most likely can pull over 20 feet. And stopping dead like that only causes more accidents.
Depends on the drivers. Many drivers will just move out of the roadway if it was a simple bump. But some drivers go with the old notion that you should never move the cars at all, because they think the police will come out and do an entire investigation. They will use up all kinds of cop equipment that they had hanging around the police officer's station. They will take plaster tire tracks, foot prints, dog smelling prints, and twenty seven eight-by-ten color glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was to be used as evidence. They'll take pictures of the approach, the getaway, the northwest corner the southwest corner and that's not to mention the aerial photography.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 01:08:47 PM
Yes and most of those rural freeway speed limits(the ones he was focusing on) are almost 70 mph, or as high as 75 mph, which is why I said 70-75 mph. Also in the video, the guy was referencing how the govt dropped many of the speed limits after raising them, so some of those were initially higher. Again, watch both videos start to finish before engaging. I never claimed to be the expert on road safety, hence why the title of this thread was the title of the two videos and not something like "Speed Never Kills VROOM!"
You claimed that Canada has mostly speed limits of 70-75. In only one province, British Columbia, is that point valid. I know 68
is close to 70, but so is 65 and you have a considerable issue with that in the U.S. it appears. I might have watched some of the videos had you actually taken the time to link them, but when followed up with your opinion that they are possibly the
only two videos on YouTube with worthy content, I have a hunch I might be better educated by taking time to watch a QAnon video or maybe some Flat Earther garbage. I'll pass.
Chris
Quote from: jayhawkco on August 24, 2021, 01:17:32 PMI might have watched some of the videos had you actually taken the time to link them, but when followed up with your opinion that they are possibly the only two videos on YouTube with worthy content, I have a hunch I might be better educated by taking time to watch a QAnon video or maybe some Flat Earther garbage. I'll pass.
Chris
They're legitimately good videos. I saw the first of them (before the second came out) several years ago.
Quote from: 1 on August 24, 2021, 01:18:59 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on August 24, 2021, 01:17:32 PMI might have watched some of the videos had you actually taken the time to link them, but when followed up with your opinion that they are possibly the only two videos on YouTube with worthy content, I have a hunch I might be better educated by taking time to watch a QAnon video or maybe some Flat Earther garbage. I'll pass.
Chris
They're legitimately good videos. I saw the first of them (before the second came out) several years ago.
I'll trust you over a random person that comes onto another forum calling others trolls for disagreeing with them. Perhaps I'll check them out later.
Chris
^^^
What does Qanon and Flat Earth have anything to do with the subject of speed limits? If you can't handle receiving feedback that runs contrary to your opinions then maybe this forum isn't for you?
Quote from: jayhawkco on August 24, 2021, 01:20:09 PM
Quote from: 1 on August 24, 2021, 01:18:59 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on August 24, 2021, 01:17:32 PMI might have watched some of the videos had you actually taken the time to link them, but when followed up with your opinion that they are possibly the only two videos on YouTube with worthy content, I have a hunch I might be better educated by taking time to watch a QAnon video or maybe some Flat Earther garbage. I'll pass.
Chris
They're legitimately good videos. I saw the first of them (before the second came out) several years ago.
I'll trust you over a random person that comes onto another forum calling others trolls for disagreeing with them. Perhaps I'll check them out later.
Chris
The feedback by 1 is the only reason I have it sitting my watch list. The OP really has done nothing in this thread to establish much credibility, at least to the extent I wouldn't trust a video recommendation.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 01:23:03 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on August 24, 2021, 01:20:09 PM
Quote from: 1 on August 24, 2021, 01:18:59 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on August 24, 2021, 01:17:32 PMI might have watched some of the videos had you actually taken the time to link them, but when followed up with your opinion that they are possibly the only two videos on YouTube with worthy content, I have a hunch I might be better educated by taking time to watch a QAnon video or maybe some Flat Earther garbage. I'll pass.
Chris
They're legitimately good videos. I saw the first of them (before the second came out) several years ago.
I'll trust you over a random person that comes onto another forum calling others trolls for disagreeing with them. Perhaps I'll check them out later.
Chris
I had a hard time trying to link them because I am not sure how to get the URL from a mobile phone. I tried the youtube icon option, didn't work. Literally type in the first three words and they'll both come up almost instantly, are you that lazy? And if you are going to compare Qanon or flat earth to those videos, you are definitely a troll.
Don't think that word quite means what you think it does. But that's okay. Per
1's recommendations, I'll check them out later.
Chris
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 01:15:10 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2021, 01:02:21 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 12:58:10 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 24, 2021, 12:50:17 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 12:48:53 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2021, 10:26:34 AM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on August 24, 2021, 01:49:21 AM
Just happened upon this thread. Reading this is like listening to my 12 year-old trying to explain to me a concept he heretofore knew nothing about, but, because he just saw a YouTube video about it, he now thinks he's an expert on the subject.
Have fun.
FWIW I'm gathering from the comments that the OP is a relatively young person and a inexperienced driver.
I drive anywhere from 60 to 290 miles a day, and have most likely driven around the earth multiple times in the decade I've been driving, in one of the hardest places to drive. I knew eventually the trolls would come ranting random BS, I doubt you even watched 30 seconds of the videos, and I bet you frequently find yourself driving 20 mph over the speed limits without realizing it. And those videos don't even do a justice to my points because when you convert, Canada speed limits are mostly like 70-75 mph, not 55-70 in this country. If a 12 year old had made those two videos, I would say he is smarter and more mature than 99% of American Adults.
All hat, no cattle.
But your OP was?
You're the OP of this thread (original poster).
I said your OP, not "the" OP, as in, your original comment about 12 YOs. The basic concept is: Most interstate speed limits are unreasonably low, the penalties are outrageously harsh, and insurance shouldn't automatically raise rates due to a speeding ticket when there was no accident, nor automatically consider speed the main reason for an accident. And BTW, I don't usually drive 100-120 mph, my top speeds are probably only hit for less than a miles distance, and I usually drive in the 70-90 mph range or with traffic flow, regardless of the speed limit, and I usually drive less than the speed limit on any road that is not limited access.
I didn't say anything about 12-year-olds.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 01:20:45 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 24, 2021, 01:15:45 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 01:04:07 PM
Quote"Today's term of a "fender bender" is different than that of a few decades ago. Then, there were metal bumpers, and if two cars hit, the fender bent a little, but didn't really break, and didn't affect anything else in the car. In today's cars, a bumper hit can set off air bags, destroy sensors, and affect a number of car components. The car is still movable, but you're best to get it off the road, get a police report if possible, and contact your insurance company, because the car could very well be totaled."
By fender bender, I don't literally mean someone's bumper was damaged, but people have this idea that any time two cars come into contact, it's an "accident" that both drivers should stop in the road for. And most cars that I see blocking 2+ lanes don't have any visible damage and most likely can pull over 20 feet. And stopping dead like that only causes more accidents.
Depends on the drivers. Many drivers will just move out of the roadway if it was a simple bump. But some drivers go with the old notion that you should never move the cars at all, because they think the police will come out and do an entire investigation. They will use up all kinds of cop equipment that they had hanging around the police officer's station. They will take plaster tire tracks, foot prints, dog smelling prints, and twenty seven eight-by-ten color glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was to be used as evidence. They'll take pictures of the approach, the getaway, the northwest corner the southwest corner and that's not to mention the aerial photography.
And all of that is a waste of the cops' time.
Especially when they see the seeing-eye dog next to the judge.
That wasn't Rothman.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 01:41:29 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on August 24, 2021, 01:25:51 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 01:23:03 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on August 24, 2021, 01:20:09 PM
Quote from: 1 on August 24, 2021, 01:18:59 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on August 24, 2021, 01:17:32 PMI might have watched some of the videos had you actually taken the time to link them, but when followed up with your opinion that they are possibly the only two videos on YouTube with worthy content, I have a hunch I might be better educated by taking time to watch a QAnon video or maybe some Flat Earther garbage. I'll pass.
Chris
They're legitimately good videos. I saw the first of them (before the second came out) several years ago.
I'll trust you over a random person that comes onto another forum calling others trolls for disagreeing with them. Perhaps I'll check them out later.
Chris
I had a hard time trying to link them because I am not sure how to get the URL from a mobile phone. I tried the youtube icon option, didn't work. Literally type in the first three words and they'll both come up almost instantly, are you that lazy? And if you are going to compare Qanon or flat earth to those videos, you are definitely a troll.
Don't think that word quite means what you think it does. But that's okay. Per 1's recommendations, I'll check them out later.
Chris
By later you mean never, or most likely skimming it with severe bias because of my statements here. That's why anyone posting should have fully watched both before commenting. If you think they are stupid, feel free to rant here, but not before watching.
Why do you care so much what all of us watch? You don't get to dictate our opinions and what we should/shouldn't be watching. You certainly have no authority to tell any of us we can't comment in this thread.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 12:40:16 PM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on August 24, 2021, 01:49:21 AM
Only a 12 year old would say this without actually watching the videos. If you drove for even 2 minutes any of the roads where I live ...
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 12:56:34 PM
I said only a 12 year old would rant like this without watching the videos, nothing about you driving in the same areas as me.
And I said only a 12 year old would presume to know where and how much |Occidental Tourist| has or has not driven in your area.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 12:56:34 PM
Do you think all billionaires made their money fairly?
I don't assume they made it fairly, and I don't assume they made it unfairly. Likewise, the guy down the street who's almost broke and can barely afford the car he drives–I don't assume he made the little money he has fairly, and I don't assume he made it unfairly. For all I know, he bought his car by trafficking meth; I certainly know a person or two of whom that is true. It seems, however, that you think "billionaires" (such as, apparently, the owners of car insurance companies) are all evil, law-breaking scoundrels who don't deserve the wealth they've earned.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 12:56:34 PM
Do you think it's fair that people making tic tok videos are collecting 6x the salary of a neurosurgeon?
What does that have to do with anything?
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 12:56:34 PM
each person's insurance paying for each of their damage, regardless of fault, is simpler and less tedious.
The correct idea (or fair or right or whatever) isn't necessarily the simplest and least tedious.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 12:56:34 PM
I'm not saying the rich drivers should pay for every other drivers damage
No, but you're saying the rich
insurance companies should pay the same amount no matter what. You're saying my insurance company should pay for half of the fender bender I was in, even though the other driver was 80% at fault. You're saying that, if I decide to go 50 mph through a parking lot and slam into your car, that my insurance company should only foot half be bill. And your reasoning is that insurance companies are flush with money and it doesn't matter how much they pay.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 12:48:53 PM
when you convert, Canada speed limits are mostly like 70-75 mph
Not exactly a math major, are you? The only round number in km/h that lands between 70 and 75 mph is 120 km/h–a speed which only exists in one province.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 01:15:10 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2021, 01:02:21 PM
You're the OP of this thread (original poster).
I said your OP, not "the" OP, as in, your original comment about 12 YOs.
That's not what "OP" means. It can mean one of two things:
(1) Original Poster – The person who started the thread
(2) Original Post – The first post of the thread, i.e. the one that the Original Poster made
Quote from: 1 on August 24, 2021, 01:43:25 PM
That wasn't Rothman.
I agree with 1, for he is credible.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 01:42:53 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 24, 2021, 01:36:39 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 01:15:10 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2021, 01:02:21 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 12:58:10 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 24, 2021, 12:50:17 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 12:48:53 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2021, 10:26:34 AM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on August 24, 2021, 01:49:21 AM
Just happened upon this thread. Reading this is like listening to my 12 year-old trying to explain to me a concept he heretofore knew nothing about, but, because he just saw a YouTube video about it, he now thinks he's an expert on the subject.
Have fun.
FWIW I'm gathering from the comments that the OP is a relatively young person and a inexperienced driver.
I drive anywhere from 60 to 290 miles a day, and have most likely driven around the earth multiple times in the decade I've been driving, in one of the hardest places to drive. I knew eventually the trolls would come ranting random BS, I doubt you even watched 30 seconds of the videos, and I bet you frequently find yourself driving 20 mph over the speed limits without realizing it. And those videos don't even do a justice to my points because when you convert, Canada speed limits are mostly like 70-75 mph, not 55-70 in this country. If a 12 year old had made those two videos, I would say he is smarter and more mature than 99% of American Adults.
All hat, no cattle.
But your OP was?
You're the OP of this thread (original poster).
I said your OP, not "the" OP, as in, your original comment about 12 YOs. The basic concept is: Most interstate speed limits are unreasonably low, the penalties are outrageously harsh, and insurance shouldn't automatically raise rates due to a speeding ticket when there was no accident, nor automatically consider speed the main reason for an accident. And BTW, I don't usually drive 100-120 mph, my top speeds are probably only hit for less than a miles distance, and I usually drive in the 70-90 mph range or with traffic flow, regardless of the speed limit, and I usually drive less than the speed limit on any road that is not limited access.
I didn't say anything about 12-year-olds.
Sigh
I wasn't the one who said "12 year old" either. I did insinuate that you appear to be an inexperienced driver based off your comments. The only OP of this thread is you since you are in fact the one who created it. You might want to look at the AAroads dictionary thread to get up to speed on some of the lingo on the forum.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 01:37:45 PM
To establish my credibility, you have to watch the videos, nice circular reasoning. I don't care who eventually convinces you to watch them. He compared Qanon conspiracy videos and flat earth to two intelligent videos he never watched, so he is the troll and the one who should be reported for spamming.
If someone who I've never interacted with comes on strong and highly recommends videos about any topic, I am likely to be dubious about the content of such videos. Perhaps, based on posters here with long track records recommending the videos, I dismissed the videos hastily. I will admit fault in that. That said, you could take lessons on how to get people to do what you want. You want people to watch the videos, so perhaps calling them names might not suit your purpose.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 01:41:29 PM
By later you mean never, or most likely skimming it with severe bias because of my statements here. That's why anyone posting should have fully watched both before commenting. If you think they are stupid, feel free to rant here, but not before watching.
If I say I'll do something, I'll do it. Perhaps I'll rant away; perhaps I won't. That remains to be seen.
Chris
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2021, 01:47:26 PM
The only OP of this thread is you since you are in fact the one who created it. You might want to look at the AAroads dictionary thread to get up to speed on some of the lingo on the forum.
That's not a "lingo on the forum" thing. That's an "all forums everywhere" thing.
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/424366/does-op-mean-original-poster-or-original-post
Quote from: kphoger on August 24, 2021, 01:57:16 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2021, 01:47:26 PM
The only OP of this thread is you since you are in fact the one who created it. You might want to look at the AAroads dictionary thread to get up to speed on some of the lingo on the forum.
That's not a "lingo on the forum" thing. That's an "all forums everywhere" thing.
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/424366/does-op-mean-original-poster-or-original-post
True, but I also thought it would be an opportune time to send the OP in the right direction to get some experience with road lingo. Perhaps he would like to chime in with how he defines a "fender bender?"
Why are you assuming that anyone is angry but you? I know I'm not "mad" at anything, amused perhaps.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 12:48:53 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2021, 10:26:34 AM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on August 24, 2021, 01:49:21 AM
Just happened upon this thread. Reading this is like listening to my 12 year-old trying to explain to me a concept he heretofore knew nothing about, but, because he just saw a YouTube video about it, he now thinks he's an expert on the subject.
Have fun.
FWIW I'm gathering from the comments that the OP is a relatively young person and a inexperienced driver.
I drive anywhere from 60 to 290 miles a day, and have most likely driven around the earth multiple times in the decade I've been driving, in one of the hardest places to drive.
Buddy, we've all done that. You realize what forum you're on, right? Drop your Travel Mapping link if you want anyone to care.
^^^
Actually several people early in the thread said the exact opposite and were of the opinion that speed limits were often too low.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 02:16:06 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2021, 02:03:32 PM
Why are you assuming that anyone is angry but you? I know I'm not "mad" at anything, amused perhaps.
You seemed pretty ticked off about my mention of that group in one of the early posts, and wouldn't let it go for a few posts, but I again I apologize for being an error. MAD was a joke, chill.
Not so much, I was more confused on what basis you were trying to inform your opinions off of early in the thread. Again, awfully assumptive of you that I'm (or was) angry about anything. You don't know me, but lots of people on this forum do. I tend to be pretty sarcastic which admittedly can fall flat in written form.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on August 24, 2021, 01:49:21 AM
Just happened upon this thread. Reading this is like listening to my 12 year-old trying to explain to me a concept he heretofore knew nothing about, but, because he just saw a YouTube video about it, he now thinks he's an expert on the subject.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 12:40:16 PM
If you drove for even 2 minutes any of the roads where I live you would see in 3 seconds how absurdly and outrageously low the speed limits are.
Quote from: kphoger on August 24, 2021, 12:41:26 PM
Only a 12 year old would assume a total stranger hasn't, in fact, already driven plenty in the area you live in.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 12:56:34 PM
I said only a 12 year old would rant like this without watching the videos, nothing about you driving in the same areas as me.
Quote from: kphoger on August 24, 2021, 01:44:43 PM
And I said only a 12 year old would presume to know where and how much |Occidental Tourist| has or has not driven in your area.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 01:59:57 PM
I said "if", and the odds are you don't live in the same area as me.
No.
|Occidental Tourist| compared you to his 12-year-old explaining a concept based on a YouTube video.
Then you asserted that, if he "drove for even 2 minutes" where you drive, then he would apparently agree with your position.
I called you out for assuming that he hasn't actually driven in your area–to which you denied having said anything about driving in the same area as you.
Then I reminded you of that thing you said that assumed |Occidental Tourist| hadn't driven in your area.
The clear implication by your use of the word "if" was that anyone who disagrees with you has obviously not driven in your area. Perhaps you were employing hyperbole in that statement. Whatever.
Also, what does it matter if we
live in the same area as you? All that matter is if someone has
experience driving in your area.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 02:22:19 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 24, 2021, 02:06:26 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 12:48:53 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2021, 10:26:34 AM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on August 24, 2021, 01:49:21 AM
Just happened upon this thread. Reading this is like listening to my 12 year-old trying to explain to me a concept he heretofore knew nothing about, but, because he just saw a YouTube video about it, he now thinks he's an expert on the subject.
Have fun.
FWIW I'm gathering from the comments that the OP is a relatively young person and a inexperienced driver.
I drive anywhere from 60 to 290 miles a day, and have most likely driven around the earth multiple times in the decade I've been driving, in one of the hardest places to drive.
Buddy, we've all done that. You realize what forum you're on, right? Drop your Travel Mapping link if you want anyone to care.
Which is why I am shocked that so many people here think speed is such a huge factor in causing accidents. And no, I don't keep track of traveling in a link, nor log miles or am on a mission to drive every mile of interstate in the US.
Then how do you expect anyone to take your claims seriously, if even you do not know where you've driven?
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 02:30:04 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2021, 02:23:56 PM
^^^
Actually several people early in the thread said the exact opposite and were of the opinion that speed limits were often too low.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 02:16:06 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2021, 02:03:32 PM
Why are you assuming that anyone is angry but you? I know I'm not "mad" at anything, amused perhaps.
You seemed pretty ticked off about my mention of that group in one of the early posts, and wouldn't let it go for a few posts, but I again I apologize for being an error. MAD was a joke, chill.
Not so much, I was more confused on what basis you were trying to inform your opinions off of early in the thread. Again, awfully assumptive of you that I'm (or was) angry about anything. You don't know me, but lots of people on this forum do. I tend to be pretty sarcastic which admittedly can fall flat in written form.
Fine, I was an idiot for assuming so, I don't have a problem with admitting I'm wrong, but I have a problem with those who assume age or experience are the sole factors in the validity of someone's point or someone else's videos that I simply referenced. 1,000,000 miles of driving at 75 mph doesn't give anyone experience at 120 mph.
I mean, unless someone actually competes in racing circuits you are not likely to encounter much of anyone domestically that has a great deal of experience with 120 MPH plus. Even still, that is a different kind of driving and it might at best translate to a higher measure of car control during a potential crash scenario. I would argue that you're wrong though, one million miles behind the wheel is a massive amount of driving experience. I would trust someone with that level of experience at any speed far more than an inexperienced driver.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 02:30:04 PM
1,000,000 miles of driving at 75 mph doesn't give anyone experience at 120 mph.
Alright. I just watched both videos, as I said I would. I don't disagree with the vast majority of what's in the videos. As I mentioned upthread, I'm not typically driving right at the speed limit either. But I hang out probably in the 5-8 mph over the limit thread. Technically illegal yes, but I'm going with the majority of the traffic. Why I've been disagreeing with you specifically (without having needed to watch the videos as they don't change my stance based on what you've posted), is that you bring up things like what I quoted above. We
could find middle ground that speed limits should be raised based on the 85th percentile stuff. But then you talk about going 120 mph, which is well outside the 85th percentile of any road in North America.
If you want to make a fully reasoned argument that raising speed limits isn't unsafe (and according to videos, is actually
more safe, which is one of the things that I disagree with
1), then you need to not come from the standpoint of one of the outliers that even the presenter in your videos wasn't arguing in favor of.
Chris
1 - He doesn't like the use of shorter sample sizes when discussing crashes after the speed limits were raised, yet uses the same sample sizes when saying that things got safer. Can't have it both ways.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 02:10:30 PM
I consider a fender bender any damage that is only cosmetic and does not impede the functionality of the car, so if a small dent for example made a car aerodynamically unstable, that wouldn't be a fender bender.
But our point is that you don't always know right away if the damage is just a fender bender or not. Secondary damage is not always apparent. This is why just waving the other person off and living with the dent isn't necessarily the best course of action.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 02:10:30 PM
Now I would like some people to chime in and tell me how many years and, miles, and variety of situations on the road encountered qualities one for "experience"? I have driven on all different types of roads
traffic circles – check
crazy short entrance ramps – check
dealt with people who swerve into your lane at the last seconds – check (who hasn't?)
weird signage – check
in the hurricane 2 days ago – never done that one
in thunderstorms – check (including tornado warnings and sandstorms and through the middle of a dust devil)
on extremely windy days – check
in horrible traffic – check
experienced rapid changes in traffic – check (if I understand what that means correctly)
been on toll roads – check
narrow roads – check (including two-way traffic on one-lane streets)
wide roads – check (up to ten-lane freeways)
in other states – check (plus probably 8000 miles or so in Mexico)
made U turns in congested areas – check (notably Chicago)
parallel parked in tight spaces – check
found my way without GPS – check (are you really that young?)
on little sleep – check (multiple overnight trips of >1000 miles)
at night – check (see above)
through puddles – check (seriously??? https://i.imgur.com/X1bjnLq.png (https://i.imgur.com/X1bjnLq.png))
through snowstorms – check
and have had no accidents or tickets – Nope, I can't claim that!
I've also driven through the desert with no roads, driven on creek beds, bribed my way out of a speeding ticket in Mexico, driven over high-clearance mountain passes, driven on flooded streets, and probably a bunch of other stuff I haven't thought of.
And I've
had accidents or tickets. Doesn't that make me
more experienced when it comes to speed and driving safety, not less?
And I am
far from being the most experienced driver on here. Quite a few others on here have much wider experience driving than I have. What makes you think you've got a corner on "experience"?
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 02:22:19 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 24, 2021, 02:06:26 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 12:48:53 PM
I drive anywhere from 60 to 290 miles a day, and have most likely driven around the earth multiple times in the decade I've been driving, in one of the hardest places to drive.
Buddy, we've all done that. You realize what forum you're on, right? Drop your Travel Mapping link if you want anyone to care.
Which is why I am shocked that so many people here think speed is such a huge factor in causing accidents.
Good. It should shock you, I think. Take that for what it is: there are people who drive as much as you (or more) who think speed plays a bigger part in highway safety than you give it credit for.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 02:43:42 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 24, 2021, 02:36:42 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 02:22:19 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 24, 2021, 02:06:26 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 12:48:53 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2021, 10:26:34 AM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on August 24, 2021, 01:49:21 AM
Just happened upon this thread. Reading this is like listening to my 12 year-old trying to explain to me a concept he heretofore knew nothing about, but, because he just saw a YouTube video about it, he now thinks he's an expert on the subject.
Have fun.
FWIW I'm gathering from the comments that the OP is a relatively young person and a inexperienced driver.
I drive anywhere from 60 to 290 miles a day, and have most likely driven around the earth multiple times in the decade I've been driving, in one of the hardest places to drive.
Buddy, we've all done that. You realize what forum you're on, right? Drop your Travel Mapping link if you want anyone to care.
Which is why I am shocked that so many people here think speed is such a huge factor in causing accidents. And no, I don't keep track of traveling in a link, nor log miles or am on a mission to drive every mile of interstate in the US.
Then how do you expect anyone to take your claims seriously, if even you do not know where you've driven?
What? I don't have to keep a digital log of every road I drive on to know in general where I drive!
I never said "in general". I don't care about generalities, I care about specifics, since you mentioned specific mileages, and because you don't learn anything new driving the same road over and over. Which leads you to say things that are grossly incorrect, like:
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 02:43:42 PM
Most highways are the same, whether they are in Nevada, CA, NY, Florida, or Nebraska
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2021, 02:23:56 PM
^^^
Actually several people early in the thread said the exact opposite and were of the opinion that speed limits were often too low.
I was wondering this myself. If anything this is the first community where I've seen it widely encouraged to increase speed limits lol. The "OP" would not like the threads in urban forums like SSP or City where it is often suggested to reduce the speed limit.
I can kinda/sorta see where he/she is coming from but they are being pretty combative and it is amusing thread. I guess sometimes I fall into my opinion too much and become more confrontational than wanting an actual debate and it's something I've been trying to work on. Hopefully I've never been this bad though.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 02:43:42 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 24, 2021, 02:36:42 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 02:22:19 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 24, 2021, 02:06:26 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 12:48:53 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2021, 10:26:34 AM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on August 24, 2021, 01:49:21 AM
Just happened upon this thread. Reading this is like listening to my 12 year-old trying to explain to me a concept he heretofore knew nothing about, but, because he just saw a YouTube video about it, he now thinks he's an expert on the subject.
Have fun.
FWIW I'm gathering from the comments that the OP is a relatively young person and a inexperienced driver.
I drive anywhere from 60 to 290 miles a day, and have most likely driven around the earth multiple times in the decade I've been driving, in one of the hardest places to drive.
Buddy, we've all done that. You realize what forum you're on, right? Drop your Travel Mapping link if you want anyone to care.
Which is why I am shocked that so many people here think speed is such a huge factor in causing accidents. And no, I don't keep track of traveling in a link, nor log miles or am on a mission to drive every mile of interstate in the US.
Then how do you expect anyone to take your claims seriously, if even you do not know where you've driven?
What? I don't have to keep a digital log of every road I drive on to know in general where I drive! Most highways are the same, whether they are in Nevada, CA, NY, Florida, or Nebraska, and given that most roads I haven't driven on are probably better than where I live, that only further supports my point. The only differences traffic, and whether they are asphalt or concrete, my claims are about speed safety and insurance, not about scenic beauty or knowing trivia about the history of routes.
When you say your most frequent roads traveled are largely limited access Interstates it doesn't convey a sense of worldly experience behind the wheel. The arguments you trying to prove need some kind of qualifications to actually substantiate them, a broad driving record would be one such way. I know that's what you are trying to do with the videos. All the same you haven't been able to form more valid arguments for your own theories which is why they have been picked apart repeatedly. The reasons for that seemingly speaks to a certain level of inexperience with the subject matter you're trying to discuss.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 02:22:19 PMAnd no, I don't keep track of traveling in a link, nor log miles or am on a mission to drive every mile of interstate in the US.
That's where you don' went and fucked up son.
^^^
I'd love to have a Travel Mapping account but I'm a least a decade past being able to reasonably update something like that.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 24, 2021, 02:50:34 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2021, 02:23:56 PM
^^^
Actually several people early in the thread said the exact opposite and were of the opinion that speed limits were often too low.
I was wondering this myself. If anything this is the first community where I've seen it widely encouraged to increase speed limits lol. The "OP" would not like the threads in urban forums like SSP or City where it is often suggested to reduce the speed limit.
I can kinda/sorta see where he/she is coming from but they are being pretty combative and it is amusing thread. I guess sometimes I fall into my opinion too much and become more confrontational than wanting an actual debate and it's something I've been trying to work on. Hopefully I've never been this bad though.
FWIW I tried to swing the conversation towards highways of any type that could have a reasonable speed bump. That would have interested me, but the OP wanted to go down this rabbit hole with just limited access roads.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2021, 02:55:09 PM
^^^
I'd love to have a Travel Mapping account but I'm a least a decade past being able to reasonably update something like that.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 24, 2021, 02:50:34 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2021, 02:23:56 PM
^^^
Actually several people early in the thread said the exact opposite and were of the opinion that speed limits were often too low.
I was wondering this myself. If anything this is the first community where I've seen it widely encouraged to increase speed limits lol. The "OP" would not like the threads in urban forums like SSP or City where it is often suggested to reduce the speed limit.
I can kinda/sorta see where he/she is coming from but they are being pretty combative and it is amusing thread. I guess sometimes I fall into my opinion too much and become more confrontational than wanting an actual debate and it's something I've been trying to work on. Hopefully I've never been this bad though.
FWIW I tried to swing the conversation towards highways of any type that could have a reasonable speed bump. That would have interested me, but the OP wanted to go down this rabbit hole with just limited access roads.
I'm more perturbed by him not wanting to travel every inch of the interstate system than anything. Well, I guess if I had to tell anyone a stretch of interstate they should never have to worry about not ever having driven would be I-70 in eastern Kansas. But then agains it's the Eisenhower interstate fer crying out loud. Drive it at least once! Just don't speed because then KSP boys will getcha. ;)
^ I actually love driving in Kansas. The scenery in some parts is uninspiring but KDOT generally does such a great job, especially on their freeways, that it makes it a treat to go up there. I'd drive a KDOT freeway over a TxDOT one, given the choice.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2021, 02:55:09 PM
I'd love to have a Travel Mapping account but I'm a least a decade past being able to reasonably update something like that.
All I had prior to last summer (and Covid lockdowns) was my interstate mileage logged as a vestige from the CHM site. It didn't take me that long to update mine. Obviously you might have way more mileage than me (which is actually probable based on your posts), but it doesn't take quite as long as you think it would.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 02:56:55 PM
Make no mistake though, where I live, traffic flow is often 80-90 in 55 zones, and up to 95 in 65 zones, consistently.
I'm assuming you live out east, and while it's not the part of the country I've driven in the most, I have driven/ridden there a decent amount. I've never seen traffic cruising at 95. On which roads are you saying this is happening?
Chris
When I lived in Florida, traffic regularly flowed at 85 - 90 mph on I-75 between the Florida Turnpike and Macon and 90 - 100 between I-75 and Miami. I remember once driving 120 - 125 in a CONVOY between Port St. Lucie and Orlando.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 02:56:55 PM
Make no mistake though, where I live, traffic flow is often 80-90 in 55 zones, and up to 95 in 65 zones, consistently.
Just curious... where exactly?
Don't get me wrong, I understand the flow of traffic being greater than the speed limit. Around here, traffic is often up to 70-80 mph regardless of a 55 mph or 60 mph zone, and the fastest will push 80-85 mph on the 65 mph areas, but seeing regular speeds of over
90 mph is something I question.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 24, 2021, 02:59:13 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2021, 02:55:09 PM
^^^
I'd love to have a Travel Mapping account but I'm a least a decade past being able to reasonably update something like that.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 24, 2021, 02:50:34 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2021, 02:23:56 PM
^^^
Actually several people early in the thread said the exact opposite and were of the opinion that speed limits were often too low.
I was wondering this myself. If anything this is the first community where I've seen it widely encouraged to increase speed limits lol. The "OP" would not like the threads in urban forums like SSP or City where it is often suggested to reduce the speed limit.
I can kinda/sorta see where he/she is coming from but they are being pretty combative and it is amusing thread. I guess sometimes I fall into my opinion too much and become more confrontational than wanting an actual debate and it's something I've been trying to work on. Hopefully I've never been this bad though.
FWIW I tried to swing the conversation towards highways of any type that could have a reasonable speed bump. That would have interested me, but the OP wanted to go down this rabbit hole with just limited access roads.
I'm more perturbed by him not wanting to travel every inch of the interstate system than anything. Well, I guess if I had to tell anyone a stretch of interstate they should never have to worry about not ever having driven would be I-70 in eastern Kansas. But then agains it's the Eisenhower interstate fer crying out loud. Drive it at least once! Just don't speed because then KSP boys will getcha. ;)
Personally I'm kind of glad I got myself out of the mindset of trying to clinch every major cross country route and focus more on highways I think will be interesting. I-10 alone with grating to finish and I don't think that I wouldn't enjoy finishing another large east/west Interstate (I've also clinched I-40) given how boring the Great Plain states are.
Quote from: Daniel Fiddler on August 24, 2021, 03:03:09 PM
When I lived in Florida, traffic regularly flowed at 85 - 90 mph on I-75 between the Florida Turnpike and Macon and 90 - 100 between I-75 and Miami. I remember once driving 120 - 125 in a CONVOY between Port St. Lucie and Orlando.
Yeah, but OP says roads in Florida are the same as in New York. :rolleyes:
Quote from: jayhawkco on August 24, 2021, 03:02:34 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2021, 02:55:09 PM
I'd love to have a Travel Mapping account but I'm a least a decade past being able to reasonably update something like that.
All I had prior to last summer (and Covid lockdowns) was my interstate mileage logged as a vestige from the CHM site. It didn't take me that long to update mine. Obviously you might have way more mileage than me (which is actually probable based on your posts), but it doesn't take quite as long as you think it would.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 02:56:55 PM
Make no mistake though, where I live, traffic flow is often 80-90 in 55 zones, and up to 95 in 65 zones, consistently.
I'm assuming you live out east, and while it's not the part of the country I've driven in the most, I have driven/ridden there a decent amount. I've never seen traffic cruising at 95. On which roads are you saying this is happening?
Chris
The issue I would have with travel mapping now is just trying to remember all the stuff I've actually done. My Dad and I even were out clinching stuff all the way back to the 1980s. It probably would drive me nuts to start something on Travel Mapping only to never be fully sure if I had everything. That's before even getting into stuff I know they don't pick up so well like non-signed highways of note.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 02:56:55 PM
I never once said speed limit should be 120, or that everyone should go 120 of there were no limits. I was just adding in that when I hit that speed, it didn't feel as fast as expected, despite only ever getting near it, twice.
How safe it
feels and how safe it
is are two different things.
When I was in high school back in the 90s, I had a need for speed. On several occasions, I drove the nearly-thirty miles between home and the town I had orchestra rehearsal and/or piano lessons in at 110-120 mph. On one occasion, I was going about 100 mph and moved into the left lane to pass a car. I realized that I might not have enough room with an oncoming vehicle, so I braked in order to slow down and duck back into the right lane. I fishtailed, at 100 mph. I'm darned lucky the car didn't spin out, or I'd have been a goner. And all because 100 mph didn't
seem very dangerous, but a normal slowdown with the brake pedal turned out to be more than I expected.
Quote from: jayhawkco on August 24, 2021, 02:45:23 PM
But then you talk about going 120 mph, which is well outside the 85th percentile of any road in North America.
Which gets me wondering what road has the 85th percentile in the world, or least a verifiable one. I'd want to say Germany but even then I had read somewhere most drivers drive around 80-85 MPH.
Frankly, my racing through city traffic playing cat and mouse days are over. I'll speed for one of two reasons, long boring stretch of interstate with little traffic makes me want to go faster as it keeps me more focused. With newer cars being able to go 100 feeling like you aren't even going 50 makes that argument less and less valid though.
I love US highways in the west winding through the hills and mountains and if little traffic is present it's fun to be a bit naughty and go over the limit especially on UT 128(my favorite state Highway).
In regards to my it's simple math I was more or less being facetious but still making a point that in theory you will get to your destination faster at higher speeds. That doesn't take into account obstructions and up to chance encounters like hitting red lights or having to wait a longer cycle due a pedestrian, etc. But I get your point.
My argument for having higher speed limits is to push more cars through per hour per lane. That won't happen if higher limits contribute to more wrecks and cause more slowdowns. I figure this becomes less an issue on rural segments, particularly those that are up to modern interstate standards, and when self driving cars become a thing that can talk to each other. I have to say I'm not that excited about self driving cars given the prospect we may very well see a ban of driving cars "manually" during our(my) lifetime or least on certain facilities. I wouldn't be surprised if we see proposals like that in the 2040s.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 03:06:09 PM
As for the checking off my experience post, I never stated that desert non-roads or highways in Mexico should have higher limits.
I didn't claim you had. My point is that your experience is likely matched by quite a few of the members here, and it seems to be somewhat geographically limited.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2021, 03:07:45 PM
The issue I would have with travel mapping now is just trying to remember all the stuff I've actually done. My Dad and I even were out clinching stuff all the way back to the 1980s. It probably would drive me nuts to start something on Travel Mapping only to never be fully sure if I had everything. That's before even getting into stuff I know they don't pick up so well like non-signed highways of note.
I'd just say it doesn't have to be perfect. Every once in a while I'll go through my stuff state by state and then remember a place I know I've been. I know if it was early in life before I was driving that my parents would have taken the shortest route that was shown on a map, so I log it. I'm not so OCD that I'd freak out if one of my highways is logged slightly incorrectly. If anything, I'm sure I'm missing far more than I've accidentally logged having traveled without actually having done so. It all depends I suppose on what your rationale is for logging.
Chris
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 24, 2021, 03:02:02 PM
^ I actually love driving in Kansas. The scenery in some parts is uninspiring but KDOT generally does such a great job, especially on their freeways, that it makes it a treat to go up there. I'd drive a KDOT freeway over a TxDOT one, given the choice.
I love to go to Kansas specifically to stop at Salina and eat at the Cozy Inn and have some nice sliders. But I gotta say I get tired of I-70 real quick though the scenery is nice at times. I have always found the churches in the middle of fields to be particularly interesting. I don't start to get any excitement until I hit Limon.
Quote from: jayhawkco on August 24, 2021, 03:12:22 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2021, 03:07:45 PM
The issue I would have with travel mapping now is just trying to remember all the stuff I've actually done. My Dad and I even were out clinching stuff all the way back to the 1980s. It probably would drive me nuts to start something on Travel Mapping only to never be fully sure if I had everything. That's before even getting into stuff I know they don't pick up so well like non-signed highways of note.
I'd just say it doesn't have to be perfect. Every once in a while I'll go through my stuff state by state and then remember a place I know I've been. I know if it was early in life before I was driving that my parents would have taken the shortest route that was shown on a map, so I log it. I'm not so OCD that I'd freak out if one of my highways is logged slightly incorrectly. If anything, I'm sure I'm missing far more than I've accidentally logged having traveled without actually having done so. It all depends I suppose on what your rationale is for logging.
Chris
That's the rub, I know that I'll try to go for perfection based off how obsessed I can get with things like photos and posting blogs on Gribblenation. My wife already tolerates a lot of my participation in the hobby (I suspect since she indirectly benefits with travel) so it probably would be wise to just not scratch the itch in terms of creating an account.
I personally think speed limits are far too low on especially Interstates and toll roads in the east. I don't know if they should be 120, or even over 100, but I do think they should absolutely be higher. Not all drivers have the skill and experience I do (not to boast, although I have 24 years of driving experience and zero wrecks that were considered my fault).
I personally think that MOST states east of the Mississippi River should have maximum speed limits of 80, with the exceptions of:
FL Turnpike Mainline between FL 70 Ft. Pierce and Kissimmee Park Rd St. Cloud: 90
Remainder of Florida Turnpike Mainline: maximum of 85
I-75 between Florida Turnpike Mainline and I-475 Macon Bypass in Florida and Georgia: maximum of 85
NJ (except for the NJ Turnpike, which should be 80), MA, MD, CT, WV, NH, RI, DE, VT: maximum of 75
Speed limits should reflect the velocity of 85% of the flow of traffic, or a little faster, if at all possible. They should be based on terrain and local population. Not some arbitrary number set by the government. And absolutely not set at an artificially and inappropriately low number for the purpose of catching "speeders" to write speeding tickets!
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 03:09:52 PM
@Scott, I said most other roads arebetter than NY/NJ. NJ was recently ranked as the worst state roads in the country, #50. So, if I am saying that NY/NJ roads deserve a speed limit increase, then obviously roads in Florida, Nevada, Texas, Utah, and virtually anywhere in the Midwest should be even higher.
Better how? Maintenance/condition? Level of service? Design? Signage quality? And ranked by who, on which of the aforementioned criteria?
You can have a road that's immaculately maintained but congested, so it may warrant a lower speed limit.
You can have a road that's mostly free flowing, but is in terrible shape, so it may warrant a lower speed limit (hey there, I-29 in Iowa).
You can have a road that's free flowing and immaculately maintained, but was designed with sharp curves and/or closely-spaced interchanges, so it may warrant a lower speed limit. (And, of course, terrain may dictate design. It would be foolhardy to try to maintain 80 mph down US-550.)
You can have a road that's poorly maintained with poor-quality signage and design, but free-flowing, so it may warrant an Oklahoma state highway shield.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 03:38:09 PM
There are some speed limits so low that the recommended yellow speeds around curves are the same as the speed limit, or only 5 mph less. The Jersey Turnpike is where I hit my top speed of 121 mph, only for a few seconds, but it took my car a while just to get from 115 to 120! That could easily be 85. Also since it's a toll road it should be a little higher. The problem with determining the %tile speeds on roads like that is often you have half the drivers going 70, and the other half at 100, with nothing in between, no uniform traffic flow to base a speed limit off if. It's possible my perceptions of normal traffic flow are off due to the pandemic, some scientists even say that the ozone layer over some larger cities actually regenerated considerably after a year with barely any cars on the road.
I agree. 65 is ridiculously low for the NJ Turnpike. Just like 70 is ridiculously low for speed limits in Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee (especially on the Florida Turnpike).
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 23, 2021, 02:43:53 PM
And the fact that some states toll a road because you can go 5 mph faster shows that it's not about safety or traffic engineering. They only raised the limits so they can get an extra dollar from you, that's all that matters to them.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 03:38:09 PM
Also since it's a toll road it should be a little higher.
Because safety, right?
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 03:55:22 PM
The highest speed limit in Texas is 85 on Route 130, but I fail to see why that road is so much better than I-80 through the Bonneville Salt Flats ...
TX-130 is only 85 mph because the speed limit was a condition of its being built. That is to say, the enterprise responsible for its construction strong-armed the speed limit into state law.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 03:55:22 PM
That's what happens when states enact "statutory" limits, they cannot post any road higher even, if it is in better condition than a road woth the same speed limit. I-287 is very curvy as you head north, and even of 65 mph is still perfectly safe around those curves, the Turnpike should definitely be higher as it is even better. I have also found the Jersey Turnpike to be slightly better than the PENN Turnpike, yet that jumps to 70 almost immediately, it's like they should be swapped. The highest speed limit in Texas is 85 on Route 130, but I fail to see why that road is so much better than I-80 through the Bonneville Salt Flats,(other than its Echelon Paving Technique) where you could go "off the road" and it wouldn't feel different. But as I stated earlier, since they charge you to drive on it the only reason they make it appeal with the 5 mph extra speed is not about safety but just so they can make an extra few dollars from you.
I concur. I've been on the NJ Turnpike and I've been on part of the PA Turnpike, and I agree the NJ Turnpike is the better road.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 04:05:15 PM
Similar to how the National Maximum 55 limit was strong-armed by the govt threatening to withhold federal highway trustfunds from any state that had any speed limit on any road above 55. I am against that kind of bribery whether it is to lower or raise the speed limits. They should be set based on engineering guidelines only and not political elections. It got so ridiculous that governments even banned the reporting of tickets to insurance companies and instead issued $15 energy wasting fees or something (as long as the driver stayed under whatever the old speed limit was)
But the NMSL was never about safety to begin with.
Indeed. There is absolutely no credible evidence showing that speed limits being lower improves safety.
In fact, quite the opposite. Empirical evidence shows the safest speed limits is a MINIMUM of 120 km / h (75 mph), up to no speed limit whatsoever, if you go by European nations, which have significantly lower accident rates than we do! Also, except for NJ (whose drivers do not obey the 65 mph speed limit), states with 75 and 80 mph speed limits have fewer accidents per capita than states with 65 and 70 mph speed limits!
Even if you take my family for example.
My mother and I drive faster (5 - 10 over) than my younger brother and late sister do / did (5 - 10 UNDER). They drove faster than my late father did (he never got faster than 55 on the Interstates and toll roads).
I have never had an accident that was my fault in 24 years of driving and my mother has had ONE in 52 years of driving (SHIT, I just alluded to how old my mother was).
My younger brother has had 2 accidents that was his fault, and my late sister had 4 before she died. My late father had an average of 1 per year.
Who would you say is / was the safest driver(s)? My mother and I? My younger brother and late sister? Or my late father?
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 04:10:39 PM
@Daniel
You should read this hilarious ranking of roads in the tri-state region, how he puts the Jackie-Robinson Parkway above the Jersey Turnpike is beyond me
https://jalopnik-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/jalopnik.com/all-52-highways-and-parkways-in-the-new-york-city-a-1821506061/amp?amp_js_v=a6&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#aoh=16296722189290&_ct=1629672221293&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fjalopnik.com%2Fall-52-highways-and-parkways-in-the-new-york-city-a-1821506061
LOL
Here's a little kicker about the NJ Speed Limit law: It never says 65 mph is the maximum limit in the state. The law in Section 39:4-98.1 provides for, unless otherwise signed:
25 mph in any business or residential district;
35 mph in any suburban business or residential district;
50 mph in all other locations, except as otherwise provided in the "Sixty-Five MPH Speed Limit Implementation Act," pursuant to P.L.1997, c.415 (C.39:4-98.3 et al.).
That 65 mph law is nothing more than a study (which has long since expired), and the State and its authorities are to provide locations where 65 mph should be used. Other laws regarding 65 mph zones are found in 39:4-98.3, 39:4-98.4, 39:4-98.5, 39:4-98.6 & 39:4-98.8. And certain penalties are doubled when a person is found guilty of violating the law in a 65 mph zone. But none of them ever say 65 mph is the highest limit permitted.
Also related: There was no law that stated 55 mph was the maximum speed limit during the NMSL. The max limit was 55 because of the threat of losing federal funds.
To be absolutely technical, there's nothing stopping the State or its authorities from using anything higher. Or, for that matter, using 60 mph. But, the laws are written in such a way where it would be absurd that a 70 mph or faster zone wouldn't have the same penalties as a 65 mph zone, so they won't be raised.
Quote from: kphoger on August 24, 2021, 04:20:09 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 04:05:15 PM
Similar to how the National Maximum 55 limit was strong-armed by the govt threatening to withhold federal highway trustfunds from any state that had any speed limit on any road above 55. I am against that kind of bribery whether it is to lower or raise the speed limits. They should be set based on engineering guidelines only and not political elections. It got so ridiculous that governments even banned the reporting of tickets to insurance companies and instead issued $15 energy wasting fees or something (as long as the driver stayed under whatever the old speed limit was)
But the NMSL was never about safety to begin with.
Common 3 speed transmissions lacking an overdrive gear coupled with big V8s were never a recipe for sound fuel economy.
^ Is the New Jersey Turnpike Authority opposed to increasing the speed limit? Or is it simply because state law doesn't "allow" them to, in the way they may interpret it.
Legislature should amend the law to mandate at least a 70 mph speed limit on certain segments of roadway.
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 24, 2021, 04:28:13 PM
^ Is the New Jersey Turnpike Authority opposed to increasing the speed limit? Or is it simply because state law doesn't "allow" them to, in the way they may interpret it.
Legislature should amend the law to mandate at least a 70 mph speed limit on certain segments of roadway.
It's the Governor that amends laws.
I don't agree with mandates, because things can and do change. Look at US 130 in Burlington. The law *mandates* that the speed limit must be 25 mph. It's the only statute that requires a specific limit. If something were to change in the future, the State DOT would be powerless to change the limit until the governor grants its OK.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 04:37:59 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 24, 2021, 04:28:13 PM
^ Is the New Jersey Turnpike Authority opposed to increasing the speed limit? Or is it simply because state law doesn't "allow" them to, in the way they may interpret it.
Legislature should amend the law to mandate at least a 70 mph speed limit on certain segments of roadway.
There is currently a proposed bill that would repeal the 65 mph maximum, and base all limits on the 85th percentile calculations (rounded to the nearest 5 mph). NY may have had a similar bill suggesting a raise to 75, but it's been in committee for so many years I doubt it will ever be passed.
That bill has been proposed in NJ for many years as well. When the legislative sessions ends, the bill automatically pops up in the next legislative session. It's not going anywhere, especially the way it's written.
Thank you, Safe.
And I agree that traffic fines should be for:
Driving below the minimum
Left lane hogging
Texting while driving
Failure to use a turning signal
Careless driving (Differentiating between "reckless driving" here because I don't want to confuse "driving 15+ mph over the speed limit" with this, I am referring to not giving regard to others)
Driving above .08 BAC or under the influence of any illegal or controlled drug not prescribed to oneself except cannabis (cannabis is legal in some states and the states it is illegal in I believe it should be legalized in, and it's difficult to tell if someone is truly driving stoned since it hangs around so long)
Quote from: Daniel Fiddler on August 24, 2021, 04:43:52 PM
Driving above .08 BAC or under the influence of any illegal or controlled drug not prescribed to oneself except cannabis (cannabis is legal in some states and the states it is illegal in I believe it should be legalized in, and it's difficult to tell if someone is truly driving stoned since it hangs around so long)
So you're ok with someone being under the influence of prescription meds that they've overdosed on, then driving and possibly killing someone, simply because they were prescribed to them?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 24, 2021, 04:48:12 PM
Quote from: Daniel Fiddler on August 24, 2021, 04:43:52 PM
Driving above .08 BAC or under the influence of any illegal or controlled drug not prescribed to oneself except cannabis (cannabis is legal in some states and the states it is illegal in I believe it should be legalized in, and it's difficult to tell if someone is truly driving stoned since it hangs around so long)
So you're ok with someone being under the influence of prescription meds that they've overdosed on, then driving and possibly killing someone, simply because they were prescribed to them?
Absolutely not. Alright, let me restate that.
If people have taken the prescribed amount of a controlled substance and NO MORE THAN THAT, they should not be judged at fault for it.
For example, I take two controlled meds. They don't affect my driving. If I took my prescribed dose, and no more than that, I should not be judged at fault because someone else was a moron and THEY caused the accident merely because of my prescribed meds. Fortunately, I've not had to encounter that yet.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 04:53:08 PM
Any alcohol at all should be an offense. But Virginia's and North Carolinas madmndatory reckless ticket laws for a specific amount over is absurd. Prescription medication can be more dangerous than some illicit drugs. Marijuana is safer than alcohol, yet Benadryl no one should take when driving.
Mouthwash can show up on a BAC test. And some breathalyzer tests can be skewed if the previous person was drunk. And if no alcohol at all was allowed, that would kill a lot of restaurants that serve wine, mixed drinks, and beer. I can agree with the BAC being lowered though, maybe to .04? Although absolutely none if you take meds that it should not be mixed with, I agree with.
Absolutely no benedryl though. That should count as a DUI. They should have tests for benedryl.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 05:15:24 PM
.05 is DUI and .08 is DWI but I think they are equally bad charges. I take Lexapro, which I found improves my reaction time. With teens 18-19 they have 0 tolerance for alcohol in their system when driving, and for new drivers. Sleepy driving can be just as bad as having a BAC 3x the legal limit.
Hmmm, you must live in a different state than me, in Tennessee (as well as Florida and Georgia), DUI is .08 for regular drivers, .04 for CDL's, .02 if you are 20 and younger.
I take Lexapro too! As well as other meds. And yes, I agree, sleepy driving is horrible.
One strange thing about me is that I am the only member of my family that can safely take a benzodiazepine (I am prescribed Ativan) and still safely drive. I've been taking it every day since 2013, and it doesn't affect my driving in the slightest, if anything, it improves it, because it calms me down (I suffer from extreme anxiety). With my mother, late sister, and younger brother, they'd slowly drift off to sleep with a benzo and forget all their problems for a few hours. With my late grandfather, he'd be completely knocked out cold, almost unconscious! I remember when my grandmother and I had to CARRY him into the house after he had 1/2 a mg of Xanax after a procedure!
Going back to a previous discussion: if you're not at fault, your insurance should completely cover the damages, plus court costs, plus a few hundred to account for the time and money spent and job hours lost for court, looking for a new car, etc., up to a couple thousand if the person suddenly starts needing to make monthly payments on a new car when the previous one was fully paid off. It should be enough that he or she would likely come out slightly ahead.
The person at fault, on the other hand, gets nothing. (Except court costs. Nobody should have to pay to go to court, especially if it's mandatory.)
I was driving a 2003 Mustang Shelby Cobra with 600 horsepower. I took it up north and got on a back road where I knew I could punch it. I got up to 162 mph. I was basically floating and took over a mile to come to a complete stop. It was the wildest ride I was ever on. Blowing through Emmet County like it was nothing.
About two weeks ago I was on M-28 in the U.P. going through the Seney Stretch. I had my 2019 Ford Fusion this time and got up to 110 mph. I held it at 100 for about 5 miles.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 05:15:24 PM
.05 is DUI and .08 is DWI
Stating such as an absolute fact just further betrays a writer who thinks the way things are where he lives is the way things are everywhere else too.
"DWI" isn't even a thing in my state of Kansas, for example. In neighboring Missouri, "DWI" is .08 or above, "DUI" isn't a thing, and "DUID" has to do with non-alcohol drug impairment.
Whoops, I didn't realize my tortured metaphor would be rolling a grenade into the tent. Sorry for the wasted server space.
<slowly backs out>
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 07:24:02 PM
I thought those were federal guidelines and just the penalties differed by state, NVM then.
Like the NMSL, there's no federal law per se that the threshold is .08, but feds will start withholding funds if a state doesn't reduce their limit to .08.
For CDL license holders, I believe there is a federal limit of .04. And it doesn't matter if you're driving a truck or not. Even if you're in a regular vehicle, simply holding a CDL subjects you to the .04 limitation.
Bring back R.A.D. so that we don't have to hear about this crap. I hated it when R.A.D. crap where one guy thought he was smarter than everyone else because he has a lead foot got crossposted to MTR.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 12:40:16 PM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on August 24, 2021, 01:49:21 AM
Just happened upon this thread. Reading this is like listening to my 12 year-old trying to explain to me a concept he heretofore knew nothing about, but, because he just saw a YouTube video about it, he now thinks he's an expert on the subject.
Have fun.
Only a 12 year old would say this without actually watching the videos. If you drove for even 2 minutes any of the roads where I live you would see in 3 seconds how absurdly and outrageously low the speed limits are.
Oh, you're here in Oregon? You'd know then there's a culture of drivers who are obstenantly against raising the speed limits and try to enforce it by camping the left lane.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 12:48:53 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2021, 10:26:34 AM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on August 24, 2021, 01:49:21 AM
Just happened upon this thread. Reading this is like listening to my 12 year-old trying to explain to me a concept he heretofore knew nothing about, but, because he just saw a YouTube video about it, he now thinks he's an expert on the subject.
Have fun.
FWIW I'm gathering from the comments that the OP is a relatively young person and a inexperienced driver.
I drive anywhere from 60 to 290 miles a day, and have most likely driven around the earth multiple times in the decade I've been driving, in one of the hardest places to drive.
Wait, you've driven in India? Neat.
Interestingly enough I came across which a town in New Mexico is doing:
https://highways-news.com/american-city-curbs-speeding-drivers-on-residential-street-by-using-rest-in-red-solution/
My first thought is hello increased fuel and fine particulate emissions as well as more red light runners. I feel like California does this at least LA will have lights in all direction that will be red in some areas and you are supposed to come to a full stop and wait for the green. I'm not going to comment what I do but I've certainly seen many others just disregard the light completely. I really feel as what was supposed to be a well intended idea has made the area more dangerous.
Quote from: Daniel Fiddler on August 24, 2021, 04:58:37 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 04:53:08 PM
Any alcohol at all should be an offense. But Virginia's and North Carolinas madmndatory reckless ticket laws for a specific amount over is absurd. Prescription medication can be more dangerous than some illicit drugs. Marijuana is safer than alcohol, yet Benadryl no one should take when driving.
Mouthwash can show up on a BAC test. And some breathalyzer tests can be skewed if the previous person was drunk. And if no alcohol at all was allowed, that would kill a lot of restaurants that serve wine, mixed drinks, and beer. I can agree with the BAC being lowered though, maybe to .04? Although absolutely none if you take meds that it should not be mixed with, I agree with.
Absolutely no benedryl though. That should count as a DUI. They should have tests for benedryl.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8254857/
Ignore idiot DUI lawyers, this is actual research that shows that mouthwash does no such thing. Albeit not as scientific, Mythbusters tried it out as well and got no positive results after swigging mouthwash.
Quote from: SectorZ on August 30, 2021, 03:43:14 PM
Quote from: Daniel Fiddler on August 24, 2021, 04:58:37 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 24, 2021, 04:53:08 PM
Any alcohol at all should be an offense. But Virginia's and North Carolinas madmndatory reckless ticket laws for a specific amount over is absurd. Prescription medication can be more dangerous than some illicit drugs. Marijuana is safer than alcohol, yet Benadryl no one should take when driving.
Mouthwash can show up on a BAC test. And some breathalyzer tests can be skewed if the previous person was drunk. And if no alcohol at all was allowed, that would kill a lot of restaurants that serve wine, mixed drinks, and beer. I can agree with the BAC being lowered though, maybe to .04? Although absolutely none if you take meds that it should not be mixed with, I agree with.
Absolutely no benedryl though. That should count as a DUI. They should have tests for benedryl.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8254857/
Ignore idiot DUI lawyers, this is actual research that shows that mouthwash does no such thing. Albeit not as scientific, Mythbusters tried it out as well and got no positive results after swigging mouthwash.
I know firsthand they will show up on interlock devices. If you even drink kombucha it will show up.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 30, 2021, 03:35:47 PM
Interestingly enough I came across which a town in New Mexico is doing:
https://highways-news.com/american-city-curbs-speeding-drivers-on-residential-street-by-using-rest-in-red-solution/
My first thought is hello increased fuel and fine particulate emissions as well as more red light runners. I feel like California does this at least LA will have lights in all direction that will be red in some areas and you are supposed to come to a full stop and wait for the green. I'm not going to comment what I do but I've certainly seen many others just disregard the light completely. I really feel as what was supposed to be a well intended idea has made the area more dangerous.
I wasn't able to get the article to load, but I know of a street in Alexandria, Virginia, that has a traffic light that turns red if you exceed the speed limit (note the sign on the right; the light is a midblock light visible in the distance) (https://goo.gl/maps/QwkuGDacYNTVkwPR7). I tried exceeding 25 mph on that street once and the light did indeed turn red. When I was on that street a few weeks ago, I had the cruise control set at 25 mph because of that light and the jerk behind me with Maryland plates decided he was entitled to pass over the double yellow line right as we hit that midblock light. He got stuck directly in front of me at the next light, so it's not clear what he accomplished other than proving himself to be a jackass.
Every car has a "sweet spot" in terms of gas mileage where it runs at peak efficiency, and then it drops off again the further you go above that. On the PT Cruiser I used to drive, it was about 50 mph.
Typically the less aerodynamic a vehicle is the lower the speed it reaches peak MPG. Note this isn't the Coefficient of Drag (cD) but Drag Area which is cD multiplied by the Frontal Area of the vehicle. Gearing and RPM also affect the peak MPG speed.
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 30, 2021, 09:03:46 PM
Every car has a "sweet spot" in terms of gas mileage where it runs at peak efficiency, and then it drops off again the further you go above that. On the PT Cruiser I used to drive, it was about 50 mph.
To be fair, it felt like PT Cruisers topped out at 70 and you had to floor it to maintain 50 going uphill.
I've found that most often, you'll get your best fuel economy if you can consistently hold the lowest speed that allows you to use your car's highest gear without lugging. Hype about particular speeds, such as 55 mph, is mostly oversimplification because so many automatic gearbox drivers have no concept of their car's gearing and also because Americans so often want bright-line rules for everything.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 31, 2021, 12:19:37 PM
There's also the factor of once you reach a high enough speed, you can remain above a given speed by momentum alone, barely having to hit the gas at all to maintain it, or to maintain a slightly lower speed. If you hit 120 mph and then take your foot off the gas, and it takes you 30 seconds to slow down to 60, you just averaged 90 mph for 30 seconds without using any gas.
The gas to go from 90 to 120 is more than the gas saved from 120 to 60.
Chris
Quote from: Bickendan on August 30, 2021, 11:40:38 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 30, 2021, 09:03:46 PM
Every car has a "sweet spot" in terms of gas mileage where it runs at peak efficiency, and then it drops off again the further you go above that. On the PT Cruiser I used to drive, it was about 50 mph.
To be fair, it felt like PT Cruisers topped out at 70 and you had to floor it to maintain 50 going uphill.
I always thought that PT Cruisers had a cool, retro look in a quirky way. The execution however was horrible and typical of many American cars during that time had awful reliability and was cheaply made. Chrysler's made some cool cars like the Prowler and the ME Four Twelve they should have built. If they just wouldn't have gone so damn cheap and maybe charged a few thousand more trading for a better made car I really believe they would have the reputation they do.
Now, aside from the charger, the 300 is the only car they make except for their minivans. I wonder if Fiat will give them the ax.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 31, 2021, 02:41:40 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on August 30, 2021, 11:40:38 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 30, 2021, 09:03:46 PM
Every car has a "sweet spot" in terms of gas mileage where it runs at peak efficiency, and then it drops off again the further you go above that. On the PT Cruiser I used to drive, it was about 50 mph.
To be fair, it felt like PT Cruisers topped out at 70 and you had to floor it to maintain 50 going uphill.
I always thought that PT Cruisers had a cool, retro look in a quirky way. The execution however was horrible and typical of many American cars during that time had awful reliability and was cheaply made. Chrysler's made some cool cars like the Prowler and the ME Four Twelve they should have built. If they just wouldn't have gone so damn cheap and maybe charged a few thousand more trading for a better made car I really believe they would have the reputation they do.
Now, aside from the charger, the 300 is the only car they make except for their minivans. I wonder if Fiat will give them the ax.
Fiat probably might not give them the ax, but Stellantis might, although I hope they don't. They also make the Challenger.
Wait, are we talking about Dodge, or Chrysler, or Stellantis as a whole? The Durango sells very well.
Chrysler needs to revive the Aspen as an electric SUV (otherwise, there is no reason for them to exist anymore) and Dodge should get in on the bandwagon of making SUV coupes, since they are now apparently a performance brand. Maybe they could resurrect the Magnum name for it and have it compete with the Mach-E?
Quote from: jakeroot on August 31, 2021, 03:47:03 PM
Wait, are we talking about Dodge, or Chrysler, or Stellantis as a whole? The Durango sells very well.
Chrysler specifically. Not the other brands under the corporation. I believe Fiat owns Chrysler and Ferrari but under the company I presumed they would use the Chrysler name as opposed to fiat. I really don't understand the full deal but as far as I know Fiat owns the Chrysler group which includes Dodge(RAM), Jeep, and I'm forgetting someone else other than Ferrari.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 31, 2021, 06:31:23 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 31, 2021, 03:47:03 PM
Wait, are we talking about Dodge, or Chrysler, or Stellantis as a whole? The Durango sells very well.
Chrysler specifically. Not the other brands under the corporation. I believe Fiat owns Chrysler and Ferrari but under the company I presumed they would use the Chrysler name as opposed to fiat. I really don't understand the full deal but as far as I know Fiat owns the Chrysler group which includes Dodge(RAM), Jeep, and I'm forgetting someone else other than Ferrari.
I see. Looking at North America, Stellantis sells a fair number of cars: Chrysler 300, Alfa Romeo Giulia, Fiat 500X and 124 (sort of), and the Maserati Quattroporte and Ghibli.
If you look at the worldwide brands, they sell numerous five and three door hatchbacks, as well as sedans, especially lately through their purchase of PSA (which netted them Peugeot, Citroen, DS, and Opel).
Quote from: jayhawkco on August 31, 2021, 12:22:03 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 31, 2021, 12:19:37 PM
There's also the factor of once you reach a high enough speed, you can remain above a given speed by momentum alone, barely having to hit the gas at all to maintain it, or to maintain a slightly lower speed. If you hit 120 mph and then take your foot off the gas, and it takes you 30 seconds to slow down to 60, you just averaged 90 mph for 30 seconds without using any gas.
The gas to go from 90 to 120 is more than the gas saved from 120 to 60.
Chris
Aerodynamic drag increases by the square of speed.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 31, 2021, 07:08:40 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on August 31, 2021, 12:22:03 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 31, 2021, 12:19:37 PM
There's also the factor of once you reach a high enough speed, you can remain above a given speed by momentum alone, barely having to hit the gas at all to maintain it, or to maintain a slightly lower speed. If you hit 120 mph and then take your foot off the gas, and it takes you 30 seconds to slow down to 60, you just averaged 90 mph for 30 seconds without using any gas.
The gas to go from 90 to 120 is more than the gas saved from 120 to 60.
Chris
Thanks for signing your name after every post easing confusion. How much gas is burnt while accelerating?
Just a habit -- similar to your needing to be kinda standoffish and/or rude in nearly every post you make. I think mine is less offensive.
If you want me to give you exact answer, I'd have to have a little information like the gearing of the car, fuel efficiency, aerodynamic property of the vehicle, etc., but a quick Google search (https://www.quora.com/How-much-more-gas-do-cars-burn-when-they-accelerate-as-opposed-to-when-they-are-on-neutral) shows that your average car uses about 12x as much gas per second at full throttle vs. coasting at 30-60 mph. 24 g/s vs. 2 g/s respectively.
So, I'll pick a pretty fast car with good acceleration, a Dodge Charger (https://www.automobile-catalog.com/performance/2020/2760350/dodge_charger_rt.html). It goes 0-60 in 5.2 seconds and 0-120 in 20.4 seconds. So 60-120 takes 15.2 seconds. So during that time, to accelerate, you're using 364.8 grams of gas, and then you use none for your deceleration back down to 60.
If you're coasting, for that same 15.2 seconds, you're only burning 30.4 grams of gas. You'll need to continue using gas for the time it takes for the 120mph car to slow down from 120 to 60. I don't have a great way of calculating that, but to spend as much gas as the accelerating car (364.8-30.4=334.4 grams), it would have to take 167 seconds (2 minutes, 47 seconds) to slow down that much. Between air resistance, gravitational force, and force of friction on the tires, it would never take that long. Maybe a minute tops.
Chris
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 31, 2021, 12:19:37 PM
There's also the factor of once you reach a high enough speed, you can remain above a given speed by momentum alone, barely having to hit the gas at all to maintain it, or to maintain a slightly lower speed. If you hit 120 mph and then take your foot off the gas, and it takes you 30 seconds to slow down to 60, you just averaged 90 mph for 30 seconds without using any gas.
Okay, maybe I'm not that sorry about rolling the grenade into the thread.
I am enjoying visiting the thread every couple of days just for the schadenfreude.
Speed kills your pocketbook.
NoDoz is cheaper.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on September 01, 2021, 02:10:01 AM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on August 31, 2021, 12:19:37 PM
There's also the factor of once you reach a high enough speed, you can remain above a given speed by momentum alone, barely having to hit the gas at all to maintain it, or to maintain a slightly lower speed. If you hit 120 mph and then take your foot off the gas, and it takes you 30 seconds to slow down to 60, you just averaged 90 mph for 30 seconds without using any gas.
Okay, maybe I'm not that sorry about rolling the grenade into the thread.
I am enjoying visiting the thread every couple of days just for the schadenfreude.
Chris
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 01, 2021, 01:28:50 PM
The calculation for distance involved in acceleration is D=1/2AT ^2, which is why whatever your starting speed is, and whatever your ending speed is, whether accelerating or decelerating, regardless of how long is takes to change speeds, the distance will always be whatever is exactly halfway between the two speeds, times the time to change speeds. If you graph this speed vs time, the distance is the area underneath the line, which is the area of a triangle, which is 1/2 Base* Height, resulting in 1/2 A*T ^2. That's why I was claiming that you averaged 90 mph when decelerating from 120 to 60, simple physics, which is pure math. I didn't take into account idle gas usage, even if you are coasting, just from the engine being on, so the gas used accelerating may also always offset the coasting.
Did I miss something? Who claimed that you
don't average 90 mph when decelerating from 120 to 60 mph?
Quote from: kphoger on September 01, 2021, 01:32:55 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 01, 2021, 01:28:50 PM
The calculation for distance involved in acceleration is D=1/2AT ^2, which is why whatever your starting speed is, and whatever your ending speed is, whether accelerating or decelerating, regardless of how long is takes to change speeds, the distance will always be whatever is exactly halfway between the two speeds, times the time to change speeds. If you graph this speed vs time, the distance is the area underneath the line, which is the area of a triangle, which is 1/2 Base* Height, resulting in 1/2 A*T ^2. That's why I was claiming that you averaged 90 mph when decelerating from 120 to 60, simple physics, which is pure math. I didn't take into account idle gas usage, even if you are coasting, just from the engine being on, so the gas used accelerating may also always offset the coasting.
Did I miss something? Who claimed that you don't average 90 mph when decelerating from 120 to 60 mph?
Not I. I didn't actually assume anything about the average speed during deceleration because it's immaterial. I showed that to use the same amount of gas (or less as SafeSpeeder alleges), in a Dodge Charger, it would require that it takes upward of three minutes to decelerate from 120 to 60 without braking, which is not how it works in real life. I would imagine you might be at a dead stop long before that time.
Chris
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 01, 2021, 02:43:10 PM
From my experience slowing down from those speeds without hitting the brake, friction alone tends to slow you down at about 2 mph per second.
What do you do, put it in neutral and somehow remove wind resistance?
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 01, 2021, 02:43:10 PM
Still would most likely take around 30 seconds at least. From my experience slowing down from those speeds without hitting the brake, friction alone tends to slow you down at about 2 mph per second.
And hence why I said it took way more gas to go from 60->120->60 than to just coast at 60.
Chris
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 01, 2021, 02:43:10 PM
Still would most likely take around 30 seconds at least. From my experience slowing down from those speeds without hitting the brake, friction alone tends to slow you down at about 2 mph per second.
If your vehicle has
that much drag, speed isn't the only thing killing your pocketbook. Gasoline is. My Charger only slows by 1 mph every second-and-a-half. In gear.
Quote from: renegade on September 01, 2021, 04:35:11 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 01, 2021, 02:43:10 PM
Still would most likely take around 30 seconds at least. From my experience slowing down from those speeds without hitting the brake, friction alone tends to slow you down at about 2 mph per second.
If your vehicle has that much drag, speed isn't the only thing killing your pocketbook. Gasoline is. My Charger only slows by 1 mph every second-and-a-half. In gear.
So there you go. Same car as my example. 1.5 seconds X 60 mph to slow down = 90 seconds, which is way less than the 167 seconds that it would require to make it "cost effective" to boost up to 120 and then drop back down.
Chris
Quote from: jayhawkco on September 01, 2021, 04:40:49 PM
Quote from: renegade on September 01, 2021, 04:35:11 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 01, 2021, 02:43:10 PM
Still would most likely take around 30 seconds at least. From my experience slowing down from those speeds without hitting the brake, friction alone tends to slow you down at about 2 mph per second.
If your vehicle has that much drag, speed isn't the only thing killing your pocketbook. Gasoline is. My Charger only slows by 1 mph every second-and-a-half. In gear.
So there you go. Same car as my example. 1.5 seconds X 60 mph to slow down = 90 seconds, which is way less than the 167 seconds that it would require to make it "cost effective" to boost up to 120 and then drop back down.
Chris
I thought the whole concept brought forth by the OP to be quite stupid, actually. It takes way less fuel to cruise along at 60 than it does to jam it up to 120, then coast. Besides, in my state, 120 mph would get him carted off to jail in a Michigan heartbeat.
Quote from: renegade on September 01, 2021, 04:48:51 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on September 01, 2021, 04:40:49 PM
Quote from: renegade on September 01, 2021, 04:35:11 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 01, 2021, 02:43:10 PM
Still would most likely take around 30 seconds at least. From my experience slowing down from those speeds without hitting the brake, friction alone tends to slow you down at about 2 mph per second.
If your vehicle has that much drag, speed isn't the only thing killing your pocketbook. Gasoline is. My Charger only slows by 1 mph every second-and-a-half. In gear.
So there you go. Same car as my example. 1.5 seconds X 60 mph to slow down = 90 seconds, which is way less than the 167 seconds that it would require to make it "cost effective" to boost up to 120 and then drop back down.
Chris
I thought the whole concept brought forth by the OP to be quite stupid, actually. It takes way less fuel to cruise along at 60 than it does to jam it up to 120, then coast. Besides, in my state, 120 mph would get him carted off to jail in a Michigan heartbeat.
Well, I think most of us did. I just figured I'd try to prove it with math because math don't lie.
Chris
Math lies all the time. Lies, damn lies and statistics...
Quote from: Rothman on September 01, 2021, 05:10:09 PM
Math lies all the time. Lies, damn lies and statistics...
Well, if you find a lie in
my specific math above, feel free to call it out.
Chris
Quote from: jayhawkco on September 01, 2021, 05:19:00 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 01, 2021, 05:10:09 PM
Math lies all the time. Lies, damn lies and statistics...
Well, if you find a lie in my specific math above, feel free to call it out.
Chris
Lies.
Quote from: Rothman on September 01, 2021, 06:00:01 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on September 01, 2021, 05:19:00 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 01, 2021, 05:10:09 PM
Math lies all the time. Lies, damn lies and statistics...
Well, if you find a lie in my specific math above, feel free to call it out.
Chris
Lies.
I prefer to utilize the damn lies, thanks.
Chris
Quote from: jayhawkco on September 01, 2021, 05:19:00 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 01, 2021, 05:10:09 PM
Math lies all the time. Lies, damn lies and statistics...
Well, if you find a lie in my specific math above, feel free to call it out.
Chris
The math is sound. Your estimates are off, so your math is off.
Quote from: Rothman on September 01, 2021, 06:00:01 PM
Lies.
You know, I'm starting to think you keep a jar of bugs in the cellar–just so, every so often, you can take one out, put it up your ass, and then post on here.
Some people probably think the same thing about me...
:bigass:
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 01, 2021, 06:08:34 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on September 01, 2021, 05:19:00 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 01, 2021, 05:10:09 PM
Math lies all the time. Lies, damn lies and statistics...
Well, if you find a lie in my specific math above, feel free to call it out.
Chris
The math is sound. Your estimates are off, so your math is off.
Which estimates are off?
Chris
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 02, 2021, 06:32:13 PM
Not surprised in a screwed up state like that. Didn't they give a teen 90 days in jail + sex offender registration because a girl lied about her age? I will never drive in Michigan, Virginia, or North Carolina. Luckily here in NJ, the maximum license points for any amount over the limit is 5. The original concept though was not stupid. Setting speed limits based on the 85th percentile is basically the only rational method. Actually I think I said it backward, it is more like 1 mph every 2 seconds as a slow down rate from drag. Thankfully Waze warns you of cops half a mile away which is more than enough time with my braking power. And if my car could, I would go far faster than 120, that's a promise. Those cops would have to work to catch up to me from a standstill.
(https://c.tenor.com/kpClz6FhUwgAAAAM/happy-days-the-fonz.gif)
Chris
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 02, 2021, 06:32:13 PMNot surprised in a screwed up state like that. Didn't they give a teen 90 days in jail + sex offender registration because a girl lied about her age? I will never drive in Michigan, Virginia, or North Carolina. Luckily here in NJ, the maximum license points for any amount over the limit is 5. The original concept though was not stupid. Setting speed limits based on the 85th percentile is basically the only rational method. Actually I think I said it backward, it is more like 1 mph every 2 seconds as a slow down rate from drag. Thankfully Waze warns you of cops half a mile away which is more than enough time with my braking power. And if my car could, I would go far faster than 120, that's a promise. Those cops would have to work to catch up to me from a standstill.
The sex offender part of that has jack shit to do with anything discussed in this thread up to this point, so I'll just go ahead and dismiss it without comment. As for the second part, no one asked you to come to any of the states you chose to outline. In fact, I'd prefer you
don't come to my state, especially if your driving habits are anything like the trash you spout. Having said that, the rest of the paragraph is "blah blah blah blah," and I don't want devote any more time to this thread.
Have a nice day! :wave:
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 02, 2021, 06:32:13 PM
And if my car could, I would go far faster than 120, that's a promise.
You should talk to
ethanman62187 - if he can let people drive 65 on
VA 28 I-366 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5504.msg121088#msg121088), I'm sure you could work out a deal with him to let you drive >120 on the NJTP.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 02, 2021, 06:32:13 PM
I will never drive in Michigan, Virginia, or North Carolina
So let's say you have to drive to, I don't know, Columbia SC for work...how would that work? Would you stop in the middle of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, call a tow truck, have it haul you to South of the Border, and then resume driving?
Quote from: jmacswimmer on September 03, 2021, 09:01:53 AM
You should talk to ethanman62187 - if he can let people drive 65 on VA 28 I-366 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5504.msg121088#msg121088), I'm sure you could work out a deal with him to let you drive >120 on the NJTP.
In fairness, VA-28 should be 65 mph. But point understood here :)
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 02, 2021, 06:32:13 PM
Quote from: renegade on September 01, 2021, 04:48:51 PM
Quote from: jayhawkco on September 01, 2021, 04:40:49 PM
Quote from: renegade on September 01, 2021, 04:35:11 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 01, 2021, 02:43:10 PM
Still would most likely take around 30 seconds at least. From my experience slowing down from those speeds without hitting the brake, friction alone tends to slow you down at about 2 mph per second.
If your vehicle has that much drag, speed isn't the only thing killing your pocketbook. Gasoline is. My Charger only slows by 1 mph every second-and-a-half. In gear.
So there you go. Same car as my example. 1.5 seconds X 60 mph to slow down = 90 seconds, which is way less than the 167 seconds that it would require to make it "cost effective" to boost up to 120 and then drop back down.
Chris
I thought the whole concept brought forth by the OP to be quite stupid, actually. It takes way less fuel to cruise along at 60 than it does to jam it up to 120, then coast. Besides, in my state, 120 mph would get him carted off to jail in a Michigan heartbeat.
I will never drive in Michigan, Virginia, or North Carolina.
The residents of Michigan, Virginia and North Carolina would like to thank you for that.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 03, 2021, 01:06:19 PM
Virginia though LOL, go 79 in a 70 you may not even get a ticket, but dare to hit 86 mph, mandatory reckless ticket, and anything over 90 gets you 1 day in jail per mph over 90! As if these people think that thr effects of getting in a car accident at 70 is so much better than at 90..
Anything over 86 mph and/or 20 mph over is
not a mandatory reckless ticket, despite what you think. It's up to the officer's discretion. Will they likely write reckless driving? Maybe. But it's not a
guarantee or
mandated by law.
Back when the law was only 80 mph (which, IMO, is far more ridiculous than 85 mph is), the city of Hopewell (famous speed trap on I-295) would not reckless driving tickets unless you exceeded 85 mph. Any tickets between 80 - 85 mph were merely speeding tickets. You can view public court records if you don't "believe" me. They publicly stated this and their ticketing history seems to back up this statement.
Meanwhile, cities like Emporia (famous speed trap on I-95) would automatically cite reckless at 81 mph or above. To comply with the new law, obviously, now they're forced to wait until 86 mph.
Again - it's up to the officer's discretion. State law does not mandate
anything as far as who
must get reckless based off solely speed.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 03, 2021, 01:06:19 PM
Quote from: renegade on September 02, 2021, 08:41:07 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 02, 2021, 06:32:13 PMNot surprised in a screwed up state like that. Didn't they give a teen 90 days in jail + sex offender registration because a girl lied about her age? I will never drive in Michigan, Virginia, or North Carolina. Luckily here in NJ, the maximum license points for any amount over the limit is 5. The original concept though was not stupid. Setting speed limits based on the 85th percentile is basically the only rational method. Actually I think I said it backward, it is more like 1 mph every 2 seconds as a slow down rate from drag. Thankfully Waze warns you of cops half a mile away which is more than enough time with my braking power. And if my car could, I would go far faster than 120, that's a promise. Those cops would have to work to catch up to me from a standstill.
The sex offender part of that has jack shit to do with anything discussed in this thread up to this point, so I'll just go ahead and dismiss it without comment. As for the second part, no one asked you to come to any of the states you chose to outline. In fact, I'd prefer you don't come to my state, especially if your driving habits are anything like the trash you spout. Having said that, the rest of the paragraph is "blah blah blah blah," and I don't want devote any more time to this thread.
Have a nice day! :wave:
Shows Michigan's irrationality. Even Virginia has other messed up laws on top of their extreme traffic penalties, such as lenient child abuse/allowing religious BS as an excuse to neglect kids..etc. North Carolina on the other hand, has very rational laws despite their weird speed limits and penalties. Michigan is not in the way of anything between two states, so unless someone lives in Buffalo, NY, and wanted to drive to Michigan directly on the other side of Canada, or to Chicago (even that you can just do I-90--->I-86-----> I-80..etc instead of going through Canada and Michigan) there is no reason anyone would have to drive through Michigan to get to another state. Why on earth would I get a job where I have to drive 600 miles to South Carolina every day? Maybe getting on that Fury325 rollercoaster is the only useful thing in the Carolinas. Virginia though LOL, go 79 in a 70 you may not even get a ticket, but dare to hit 86 mph, mandatory reckless ticket, and anything over 90 gets you 1 day in jail per mph over 90! As if these people think that thr effects of getting in a car accident at 70 is so much better than at 90..
First of all if someone lived in Buffalo and wanted to go to Chicago there isn't a change of Interstate required, you take I-90 the entire way.
Secondly what does driving 600 miles to South Carolina have to do with Michigan?
Thirdly what the hell is Michigan's irrationality that you speak of?
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 03, 2021, 01:16:26 PM
Virginia ain't getting my toll money in the "express lanes", neither is that $112 Pennsylvania Turnpike.
Nobody is forcing you to use the HO/T lanes. I've commuted throughout Northern Virginia numerous times and never paid the toll / used the lanes except when I was HOV-3 and was exempt at times. The HO/T lanes down here in Norfolk, on the other hand, I've used a number of times, given the rate is usually around $0.50 - $2.00 during peak hours, and can often avoid congestion on the mainline. It's also posted at 65 mph vs. 55 mph on the mainline. It's a low toll that's worth it at most times. Not to mention, off peak there's no toll (this may change in the future, however). HOV-2+ is always free.
As for the Pennsylvania Turnpike, the toll rate is $47 with E-ZPass, not $112. It's also 360 miles long (not saying the toll per mile isn't high, but it's not $100+ overall).
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 03, 2021, 01:25:08 PM
Even 86 mph is a little low to consider reckless though. The cops may have discretion, but am not sure if judges in traffic courts have to sentence them as if they committed a reckless driving charge, after a certain amount over, despite whether the cops wrote the ticket as such. I don't know, am not a legal expert, but getting jail time is very common in VA even for low level speeding.
They don't. I know someone who got an 80 / 55 mph (on an underposted rural divided highway - no other traffic around), and it was a mere speeding ticket. Paid off as a speeding ticket. No reckless charge. Could the officer have written reckless driving? Easily. That's 25 mph over. But he used his discretion to indicate the offense was not reckless in nature, therefore did not charge reckless.
Do you have a source for the last statement?
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 03, 2021, 01:18:38 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 03, 2021, 01:16:26 PM
Virginia ain't getting my toll money in the "express lanes", neither is that $112 Pennsylvania Turnpike.
Nobody is forcing you to use the HO/T lanes. I've commuted throughout Northern Virginia numerous times and never paid the toll / used the lanes except when I was HOV-3 and was exempt at times. The HO/T lanes down here in Norfolk, on the other hand, I've used a number of times, given the rate is usually around $0.50 - $2.00 during peak hours, and can often avoid congestion on the mainline. It's also posted at 65 mph vs. 55 mph on the mainline. It's a low toll that's worth it at most times. Not to mention, off peak there's no toll (this may change in the future, however). HOV-2+ is always free.
As for the Pennsylvania Turnpike, the toll rate is $47 with E-ZPass, not $112. It's also 360 miles long (not saying the toll per mile isn't high, but it's not $100+ overall).
Not to mention, the PATP (with E-ZPass) is actually comparable to the NJTP on a per-mile basis (and of course, the NJTP is roughly 1/3 the length of the PATP). Does the NJTP get any of your toll money?
(FWIW, the toll-by-plate rate for all 360 miles is $95.30 EB/$90.50 WB. Which I completely agree is ridiculous, but now I'm just objectively curious where the $112 came from.)
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 02, 2021, 06:32:13 PM
I will never drive in Michigan, Virginia, or North Carolina.
Clue:
If you're at the point of flat-out refusing to drive in multiple states, then the problem does not lie with how those states enforce laws. The problem lies with you.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 03, 2021, 01:06:19 PM
Quote from: renegade on September 02, 2021, 08:41:07 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 02, 2021, 06:32:13 PMNot surprised in a screwed up state like that. Didn't they give a teen 90 days in jail + sex offender registration because a girl lied about her age? I will never drive in Michigan, Virginia, or North Carolina. Luckily here in NJ, the maximum license points for any amount over the limit is 5. The original concept though was not stupid. Setting speed limits based on the 85th percentile is basically the only rational method. Actually I think I said it backward, it is more like 1 mph every 2 seconds as a slow down rate from drag. Thankfully Waze warns you of cops half a mile away which is more than enough time with my braking power. And if my car could, I would go far faster than 120, that's a promise. Those cops would have to work to catch up to me from a standstill.
The sex offender part of that has jack shit to do with anything discussed in this thread up to this point, so I'll just go ahead and dismiss it without comment. As for the second part, no one asked you to come to any of the states you chose to outline. In fact, I'd prefer you don't come to my state, especially if your driving habits are anything like the trash you spout. Having said that, the rest of the paragraph is "blah blah blah blah," and I don't want devote any more time to this thread.
Have a nice day! :wave:
Shows Michigan's irrationality. Even Virginia has other messed up laws on top of their extreme traffic penalties, such as lenient child abuse/allowing religious BS as an excuse to neglect kids..etc. North Carolina on the other hand, has very rational laws despite their weird speed limits and penalties. Michigan is not in the way of anything between two states, so unless someone lives in Buffalo, NY, and wanted to drive to Michigan directly on the other side of Canada, or to Chicago (even that you can just do I-90--->I-86-----> I-80..etc instead of going through Canada and Michigan) there is no reason anyone would have to drive through Michigan to get to another state. Why on earth would I get a job where I have to drive 600 miles to South Carolina every day? Maybe getting on that Fury325 rollercoaster is the only useful thing in the Carolinas. Virginia though LOL, go 79 in a 70 you may not even get a ticket, but dare to hit 86 mph, mandatory reckless ticket, and anything over 90 gets you 1 day in jail per mph over 90! As if these people think that the effects of getting in a car accident at 70 is so much better than at 90..
(https://c.tenor.com/Cd2kkPLqg78AAAAC/off-the-rails-train.gif)
Chris
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 03, 2021, 01:06:19 PM
Quote from: renegade on September 02, 2021, 08:41:07 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 02, 2021, 06:32:13 PM
Not surprised in a screwed up state like that. Didn't they give a teen 90 days in jail + sex offender registration because a girl lied about her age? I will never drive in Michigan, Virginia, or North Carolina. Luckily here in NJ, the maximum license points for any amount over the limit is 5. The original concept though was not stupid. Setting speed limits based on the 85th percentile is basically the only rational method. Actually I think I said it backward, it is more like 1 mph every 2 seconds as a slow down rate from drag. Thankfully Waze warns you of cops half a mile away which is more than enough time with my braking power. And if my car could, I would go far faster than 120, that's a promise. Those cops would have to work to catch up to me from a standstill.
The sex offender part of that has jack shit to do with anything discussed in this thread up to this point, so I'll just go ahead and dismiss it without comment. As for the second part, no one asked you to come to any of the states you chose to outline. In fact, I'd prefer you don't come to my state, especially if your driving habits are anything like the trash you spout. Having said that, the rest of the paragraph is "blah blah blah blah," and I don't want devote any more time to this thread.
Have a nice day! :wave:
Shows Michigan's irrationality. Even Virginia has other messed up laws on top of their extreme traffic penalties, such as lenient child abuse/allowing religious BS as an excuse to neglect kids..etc. North Carolina on the other hand, has very rational laws despite their weird speed limits and penalties. Michigan is not in the way of anything between two states, so unless someone lives in Buffalo, NY, and wanted to drive to Michigan directly on the other side of Canada, or to Chicago (even that you can just do I-90--->I-86-----> I-80..etc instead of going through Canada and Michigan) there is no reason anyone would have to drive through Michigan to get to another state. Why on earth would I get a job where I have to drive 600 miles to South Carolina every day? Maybe getting on that Fury325 rollercoaster is the only useful thing in the Carolinas. Virginia though LOL, go 79 in a 70 you may not even get a ticket, but dare to hit 86 mph, mandatory reckless ticket, and anything over 90 gets you 1 day in jail per mph over 90! As if these people think that the effects of getting in a car accident at 70 is so much better than at 90..
How was that even a response to what you quoted |renegade| saying? When did he say anything about driving through Michigan or working in South Carolina?
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 03, 2021, 02:02:52 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 03, 2021, 01:52:02 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 02, 2021, 06:32:13 PM
I will never drive in Michigan, Virginia, or North Carolina.
Clue:
If you're at the point of flat-out refusing to drive in multiple states, then the problem does not lie with how those states enforce laws. The problem lies with you.
I also have no reason to, there is no possible route between any two states you would have to take that would require going through Michigan, and unless you want to get covid no reason to head south!
So you've decided that you'll never have any reason to drive through Michigan until you die of old age?
If that's the case, then what point are you even making?
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 03, 2021, 01:41:28 PM
I typed in the first and last entry and exit points in the toll calculator website, but as I said, maybe it was including I-476.
Looks like Ohio to Clarks Summit is indeed $112.90 with toll-by-plate...again, not disagreeing that that is an absurd amount, but going from Youngstown to Scranton via this route is completely illogical. I-80 to I-81 is the obvious routing here, but even I-76 to I-81 (which would incur $30.50 E-ZPass/$62.50 toll-by-plate) would make more sense than heading all the way to SE PA then sharply turning due north.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 03, 2021, 01:41:28 PM
Now with contesting pricing coming to NYC, imagine paying three times to commute from NJ, the Turnpike, the crossings, and then just to enter Manhattan!
There are, of course, several options to get from North Jersey to Manhattan that don't involve driving & paying those tolls (or parking once you do reach Manhattan) - but I get the sense that like some other posters here, you wouldn't like any of them. ;-)
Funny. I once lived in the Chicago suburbs and went camping in Rondeau Provincial Park (Ontario). I'm curious to know how you would have driven there without going through Michigan.
My best friend in college also later asked me to be a groomsman in his wedding. He got married in Michigan. What would you do in such a situation? Refuse to stand in your friend's wedding?
It just makes you sound idiotic when you say things like "I will never drive in..." as if you can predict everywhere you'll live and travel to between now and the end of your life. And, if you flatly refuse to even drive in a state because of how their abuse laws and traffic enforcement differ from your ideal, then you're hardly a reasonable person starting out. I have zero idea what the abuse laws are like in the states I visit, nor do I care. And I have zero idea what the legal ramifications would be for going 120 mph, nor do I care.
Besides, which, answer my other question: If you've really determined that you'll never have any reason to travel to Michigan, then what point are you trying to prove by saying you'll never go drive there? I might as well say "I would never drive in Antarctica or on Mars."
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 03, 2021, 02:15:45 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 03, 2021, 02:03:54 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 03, 2021, 02:02:52 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 03, 2021, 01:52:02 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 02, 2021, 06:32:13 PM
I will never drive in Michigan, Virginia, or North Carolina.
Clue:
If you're at the point of flat-out refusing to drive in multiple states, then the problem does not lie with how those states enforce laws. The problem lies with you.
I also have no reason to, there is no possible route between any two states you would have to take that would require going through Michigan, and unless you want to get covid no reason to head south!
So you've decided that you'll never have any reason to drive through Michigan until you die of old age?
If that's the case, then what point are you even making?
Yes, because the geometry of the US makes it completely unnecessary to ever pass through Michgian, the same way you would never pass through Key West Florida to go anywhere other than Key West, common sense. My initial point was that after hearing years ago about how the state victimized a 19 yo with jail+sex registration, who was essentially deceived+ catfished by an underage teen, I was not surprised at all that I would be chartered off to jail after going 120 mph because of the speed alone. Anything fun is forbidden and illegal!
I am going to let you in on some news. In all 50 states, someone 19 years old has banged a minor and gone to jail for it. I bet in all 50 states someone has gone to jail for driving 120 MPH as well.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 03, 2021, 01:53:25 PM
Well they shouldn't even be allowed to cite reckless just for 25 over. Traffic flow is often 30 over in NJ, and it wouldn't make sense to charge everyone with reckless driving. Even as the videos in my OP stated, making the already existing traffic speeds legal isn't extra dangerous, as most people will not go much faster than traffic flow. One should at least have to be doing some other dangerous activity in addition to speeding to be cited reckless, such as using a phone, weaving in and out, in wet weather.
I don't disagree with this point, speed alone should not be considered "reckless" , and the speed limits should be higher, but how does this back up the claim that 20 mph or over 85 mph is
automatically reckless?
Quote from: kphoger on September 03, 2021, 01:52:02 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 02, 2021, 06:32:13 PM
I will never drive in Michigan, Virginia, or North Carolina.
Clue:
If you're at the point of flat-out refusing to drive in multiple states, then the problem does not lie with how those states enforce laws. The problem lies with you.
Eh, I dunno that I'd go quite that far. My last road trip I spent the absolute minimal amount of time in Texas needed (entering a county, turning around at the first junction, and going back to Oklahoma) because I realized midway through the trip that I had some of my work equipment in the trunk. My job is illegal in Texas, my car unfortunately kind of smells like my job now, and my work equipment would be considered "paraphernalia".
I think Texas, and other states that make my job illegal, are being stupid, but there are enough of them that I can't avoid them all totally (especially since Kansas is one of them, and that's where most of my family is). I'll just be sure to visit those states with a car I don't go to work in next time.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 03, 2021, 01:35:49 PM
I never understood how the express lanes, which are narrower overall (less of them) should be posted higher, since you barely have any passing options compared to the 3-4 in the local lanes. I-78 in NJ the local ones are always faster then the express ones, but at least they are the same speed limit and not "tolled" in one set and not the other. If anything, the higher limit should be on the wider spur. As mentioned earlier the NJ Turnpike tends to be faster in the truck spur of traffic, but it does have the same or more lanes at some points, so it makes sense. I don't know if that total I looked up included the 476 extension of the Penn Tpke, but even $47 is like a dollar every 7-8 miles! So unless you want to drive 50 miles north to I-80, you are stuck paying that exorbant amount if you are driving from NJ to Ohio, and then add the $20 for the Ohio Turnpike, and another $5 for the Indiana toll road, you are paying triple digits just to drive across 3 states. $112 without EZ-pass. Anything not a bridge or a tunnel should be federally banned from being tolled.
The higher speed limit on the Express Lanes is due to limited entry/exit points, truck restrictions, plus the incentive to pay the toll, etc.
I will say though - most areas here in Virginia where the HO/T lanes are posted at 65 mph and the general purpose are 55 mph, I would argue that in most instances both roadways should at least be 65 mph, if not 70 mph.
Looking at Texas as an extreme, the Dallas/Fort Worth area, most urban interstates are posted at 70 mph with the toll lanes often posted at 75 mph. And interestingly enough, those
do permit trucks, but are usually at least 2 lanes each way with paved shoulders.
As for the toll comments, those roads have always been tolled since they were constructed and did not / do not use federal funding for initial construction / maintenance / later projects, etc.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 03, 2021, 02:37:29 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 03, 2021, 01:52:02 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 02, 2021, 06:32:13 PM
I will never drive in Michigan, Virginia, or North Carolina.
Clue:
If you're at the point of flat-out refusing to drive in multiple states, then the problem does not lie with how those states enforce laws. The problem lies with you.
Eh, I dunno that I'd go quite that far. My last road trip I spent the absolute minimal amount of time in Texas needed (entering a county, turning around at the first junction, and going back to Oklahoma) because I realized midway through the trip that I had some of my work equipment in the trunk. My job is illegal in Texas, my car unfortunately kind of smells like my job now, and my work equipment would be considered "paraphernalia".
I think Texas, and other states that make my job illegal, are being stupid, but there are enough of them that I can't avoid them all totally (especially since Kansas is one of them, and that's where most of my family is). I'll just be sure to visit those states with a car I don't go to work in next time.
So you would never, for example, drive a rental car through Texas? or someone else's car? or drive there after switching careers and no longer having the issue you do now? or ... ... ...
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 03, 2021, 02:35:30 PM
I don't disagree with this point, speed alone should not be considered "reckless" , and the speed limits should be higher, but how does this back up the claim that 20 mph or over 85 mph is automatically reckless?
Keep working on him, |sprjus4|. You've almost got his opinion whittled down to common sense.
The progression thus far:
Asserts that over 85 mph is mandatory reckless driving ticketQuote from: SafeSpeeder on September 03, 2021, 01:06:19 PM
but dare to hit 86 mph, mandatory reckless ticket
Asserts that over 85 is mandatory reckless driving sentence, even if not ticketed as suchQuote from: SafeSpeeder on September 03, 2021, 01:25:08 PM
The cops may have discretion, but am not sure if judges in traffic courts have to sentence them as if they committed a reckless driving charge, after a certain amount over, despite whether the cops wrote the ticket as such.
Tacitly accepts that 85 over isn't actually mandatory reckless driving at allQuote from: SafeSpeeder on September 03, 2021, 01:53:25 PM
Well they shouldn't even be allowed to cite reckless just for 25 over.
The next step is to question whether he thinks 45 in a 20mph school zone should
never be considered reckless driving.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 03, 2021, 02:49:23 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on September 03, 2021, 02:30:53 PM
In all 50 states, someone 19 years old has banged a minor and gone to jail for it.
I bet in all 50 states someone has gone to jail for driving 120 MPH as well.
Wrong ...
None of what you said after that is a contradiction of the two things |SectorZ| said.
(Edit: Unless that thing about Texas is true.)
Quote from: kphoger on September 03, 2021, 02:41:54 PM
So you would never, for example, drive a rental car through Texas? or someone else's car? or drive there after switching careers and no longer having the issue you do now? or ... ... ...
Rental car or someone else's car, maybe, but only by myself. It's complicated by the fact that my wife actually derives a significant medical benefit from the product, so she's effectively banned from those states for anything more than a day trip. There's nothing to do in Texas that's worth going through that amount of physical pain for her.
For what it's worth, it appears that a mere speeding ticket cannot land you in jail in Texas, but an officer is free to write a reckless driving ticket to you if you're going 120 mph–which can land you in jail.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 03, 2021, 02:53:02 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 03, 2021, 02:46:54 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 03, 2021, 02:35:30 PM
I don't disagree with this point, speed alone should not be considered "reckless" , and the speed limits should be higher, but how does this back up the claim that 20 mph or over 85 mph is automatically reckless?
Keep working on him, |sprjus4|. You've almost got his opinion whittled down to common sense.
The progression thus far:
Asserts that over 85 mph is mandatory reckless driving ticket
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 03, 2021, 01:06:19 PM
but dare to hit 86 mph, mandatory reckless ticket
Asserts that over 85 is mandatory reckless driving sentence, even if not ticketed as such
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 03, 2021, 01:25:08 PM
The cops may have discretion, but am not sure if judges in traffic courts have to sentence them as if they committed a reckless driving charge, after a certain amount over, despite whether the cops wrote the ticket as such.
Tacitly accepts that 85 over isn't actually mandatory reckless driving at all
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 03, 2021, 01:53:25 PM
Well they shouldn't even be allowed to cite reckless just for 25 over.
The next step is to question whether he thinks 45 in a 20mph school zone should never be considered reckless driving.
Yes if should, because going 45 on a local road like that is far, far, far more dangerous than going 120 on a wide open interstate. It's more than double the speed limit, 120 may only be 1.5x the limit in some states.
Then you don't actually believe that "they shouldn't even be allowed to cite reckless just for 25 over", do you?
This thread's going off the rails on a crazy train.
I hate the smell of marijuana. Can't imagine if my car smelled like it.
Holy roach clip, Batman!
How the heck did we get from speed limits to abortion, child abuse, decriminalization, veganism, and trafficking?
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 03, 2021, 03:06:55 PM
I would not dare venture into any of those states not knowing what weird, idiotic, ridiculous, Overbearing laws I may be breaking from another state.
So, then, what states
would you venture to? That is to say, which states are you 100% certain don't have any weird, idiotic, ridiculous, overbearing laws?
Quote from: kphoger on September 03, 2021, 03:16:27 PM
Holy roach clip, Batman!
How the heck did we get from speed limits to abortion, child abuse, decriminalization, veganism, and trafficking?
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 03, 2021, 03:06:55 PM
I would not dare venture into any of those states not knowing what weird, idiotic, ridiculous, Overbearing laws I may be breaking from another state.
So, then, what states would you venture to? That is to say, which states are you 100% certain don't have any weird, idiotic, ridiculous, overbearing laws?
In Denver, it's illegal to perform acrobatics near a horse.
Chris
I shunpike always so I will never get stuck with paying a ridiculous toll. The only examples of me using a toll road or when I positively have to. Such as crossing the Mackinac Bridge to go to the &pper Peninsula. I honestly have no desire to be east of the Hudson River anymore so I don't think any of those toll bridges will ever come into my view. The ridiculous toll on the Chicago Skyway is what ultimately led to me shunpiking all the time.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 03, 2021, 02:15:45 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 03, 2021, 02:03:54 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 03, 2021, 02:02:52 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 03, 2021, 01:52:02 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 02, 2021, 06:32:13 PM
I will never drive in Michigan, Virginia, or North Carolina.
Clue:
If you're at the point of flat-out refusing to drive in multiple states, then the problem does not lie with how those states enforce laws. The problem lies with you.
I also have no reason to, there is no possible route between any two states you would have to take that would require going through Michigan, and unless you want to get covid no reason to head south!
So you've decided that you'll never have any reason to drive through Michigan until you die of old age?
If that's the case, then what point are you even making?
Yes, because the geometry of the US makes it completely unnecessary to ever pass through Michgian, the same way you would never pass through Key West Florida to go anywhere other than Key West, common sense. My initial point was that after hearing years ago about how the state victimized a 19 yo with jail+sex registration, who was essentially deceived+ catfished by an underage teen, I was not surprised at all that I would be chartered off to jail after going 120 mph because of the speed alone. Anything fun is forbidden and illegal!
I disagree that Michigan is not a travel through state in the same sense that Key West Florida is. When you go to Key West you have nowhere else to go besides Key West. It is very possible to travel through Michigan and come out and do another state. One could enter Michigan on I-75 or US-23 near Toledo and exit Michigan on US-2 in Ironwood. It's probably not the shortest or quickest way but it is a way to get there.
Quote from: Flint1979 on September 03, 2021, 03:28:54 PM
I disagree that Michigan is not a travel through state in the same sense that Key West Florida is. When you go to Key West you have nowhere else to go besides Key West. It is very possible to travel through Michigan and come out and do another state. One could enter Michigan on I-75 or US-23 near Toledo and exit Michigan on US-2 in Ironwood. It's probably not the shortest or quickest way but it is a way to get there.
According to Google Maps, it's nearly the exact same distance from Cleveland (OH) to Ashland (WI) either way.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 03, 2021, 03:53:58 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 03, 2021, 03:16:27 PM
Holy roach clip, Batman!
How the heck did we get from speed limits to abortion, child abuse, decriminalization, veganism, and trafficking?
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 03, 2021, 03:06:55 PM
I would not dare venture into any of those states not knowing what weird, idiotic, ridiculous, Overbearing laws I may be breaking from another state.
So, then, what states would you venture to? That is to say, which states are you 100% certain don't have any weird, idiotic, ridiculous, overbearing laws?
Nevada and Nebraska are my number one choices. I brought up the child abuse to point out the hypocrisy of how hyper-religious states obsess over the right of a clump of cells to be born, but then once it's born, then they could care less how it is treated. I'm not saying I 100% agree with abortion, but IMO an unwanted child being dumped in a foster hell hole for over a decade is worse than the 2 minutes of pain it could theoretically feel being disassembled, assuming it could even feel pain. It seems the only reason those states are so "prolife" is because they are pro suffering and death ends suffering. I wonder when law makers will realize how contradictory bans on Euthanasia are while practicing capital punishment.
Stop bringing up abortion in a thread about speed limits.
Quote from: Flint1979 on September 03, 2021, 03:25:37 PM
I shunpike always so I will never get stuck with paying a ridiculous toll. The only examples of me using a toll road or when I positively have to. Such as crossing the Mackinac Bridge to go to the &pper Peninsula. I honestly have no desire to be east of the Hudson River anymore so I don't think any of those toll bridges will ever come into my view. The ridiculous toll on the Chicago Skyway is what ultimately led to me shunpiking all the time.
If you're going to Massachusetts or farther north, US 20 is free across the Hudson.
Cleveland, Ohio and Ashland, Wisconsin are not located in Michigan.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 03, 2021, 03:06:55 PM
... that's horrible, all drugs should be decriminalized ... Banning Marijuana is insane enough, let alone medical Marijuana. I would not dare venture into any of those states ...
Quote from: kphoger on September 03, 2021, 03:16:27 PM
So, then, what states would you venture to? ...
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 03, 2021, 03:53:58 PM
... and Nebraska are my number one choices. ...
Anyone else see a problem with this gentleman's logic?
Quote from: kphoger on September 03, 2021, 04:10:06 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 03, 2021, 03:06:55 PM
... that's horrible, all drugs should be decriminalized ... Banning Marijuana is insane enough, let alone medical Marijuana. I would not dare venture into any of those states ...
Quote from: kphoger on September 03, 2021, 03:16:27 PM
So, then, what states would you venture to? ...
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 03, 2021, 03:53:58 PM
... and Nebraska are my number one choices. ...
Anyone else see a problem with this gentleman's logic?
There are two nouns in your sentence that I might question the validity of.
Chris
Quote from: 1 on September 03, 2021, 03:57:13 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on September 03, 2021, 03:25:37 PM
I shunpike always so I will never get stuck with paying a ridiculous toll. The only examples of me using a toll road or when I positively have to. Such as crossing the Mackinac Bridge to go to the &pper Peninsula. I honestly have no desire to be east of the Hudson River anymore so I don't think any of those toll bridges will ever come into my view. The ridiculous toll on the Chicago Skyway is what ultimately led to me shunpiking all the time.
If you're going to Massachusetts or farther north, US 20 is free across the Hudson.
I would probably be ok with that area. It's mainly the NYC area and the area around there that I want to avoid. I know it's free from Albany to the north.
Quote from: kphoger on September 03, 2021, 03:43:09 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on September 03, 2021, 03:28:54 PM
I disagree that Michigan is not a travel through state in the same sense that Key West Florida is. When you go to Key West you have nowhere else to go besides Key West. It is very possible to travel through Michigan and come out and do another state. One could enter Michigan on I-75 or US-23 near Toledo and exit Michigan on US-2 in Ironwood. It's probably not the shortest or quickest way but it is a way to get there.
According to Google Maps, it's nearly the exact same distance from Cleveland (OH) to Ashland (WI) either way.
The only thing I see with it being quicker going through Indiana, Illinois and into Wisconsin that way is that when you are in Wisconsin you have a chance to move more west and have that to your advantage where if you go through Michigan you have to go to the Mackinac Bridge you have no other choice.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 03, 2021, 02:49:23 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on September 03, 2021, 02:30:53 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 03, 2021, 02:15:45 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 03, 2021, 02:03:54 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 03, 2021, 02:02:52 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 03, 2021, 01:52:02 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 02, 2021, 06:32:13 PM
I will never drive in Michigan, Virginia, or North Carolina.
Clue:
If you're at the point of flat-out refusing to drive in multiple states, then the problem does not lie with how those states enforce laws. The problem lies with you.
I also have no reason to, there is no possible route between any two states you would have to take that would require going through Michigan, and unless you want to get covid no reason to head south!
So you've decided that you'll never have any reason to drive through Michigan until you die of old age?
If that's the case, then what point are you even making?
Yes, because the geometry of the US makes it completely unnecessary to ever pass through Michgian, the same way you would never pass through Key West Florida to go anywhere other than Key West, common sense. My initial point was that after hearing years ago about how the state victimized a 19 yo with jail+sex registration, who was essentially deceived+ catfished by an underage teen, I was not surprised at all that I would be chartered off to jail after going 120 mph because of the speed alone. Anything fun is forbidden and illegal!
I am going to let you in on some news. In all 50 states, someone 19 years old has banged a minor and gone to jail for it. I bet in all 50 states someone has gone to jail for driving 120 MPH as well.
Wrong, many states, including the neighboring one, Indiana, (which is where that guy lived but crossed the state line to hook up) allow ignorance of age as a defense, not Michigan. The point is he did nothing wrong and the courts made an example out of him, when there was literally no victim. The judge who sentenced him even stated his personal grudge against hook-up culture as part of his reason for the harsh sentence. Many states allow reasonable close in age exemptions, only places like CA don't. What's even more stupid is that he got punished more simply because he crossed a state line! Laws shouldn't be so drastically different by state. And you are also wrong about the 120 mph, states like Texas have specific laws where you cannot get arrested for speeding alone, no matter how fast, some states have prima face speed limits where you can get a ticket entirely dismissed if you prove it was safe for conditions, no jail, no fine, dismissed. Some states have a hybrid system, where you'll can o ly use this prima cache defense up to certain speeds or only on certain roads. But I take back what I said because it was a false equivalency, me going 120 deserves jail time more than the sex case because at least you can claim there was a chance of endangering people's lives, even in the best road conditions, but the two teens having consensual sex literally were harming NO ONE. He literally got punished for absolutely nothing, pure stupidity. Even if there is only 1 car on the road every 20 miles, there is still am existent chance that I could end up getting into accident with them going 120, non-0. So let me modify what I said, Michgian is irrational for that case/law alone even if they had no speed limits. I know for a fact that when I move, it will never be to a Nazi state like CA, Michigan, Idaho. Etc I can guarantee you in 100 years there will never be a reason worthy enough to go to them. Imagine if marital rape/women on men rape was prosecuted as vigorously as statutory rape BS, but at least with speeding there is always some risk to justify a penalty, but absolutely nothing jn the other case.
The victim was the underage girl that could not legally consent to having sex.
Quote from: SectorZ on September 03, 2021, 04:25:56 PM
The victim was the underage girl that could not legally consent to having sex.
Exactly. The age of consent varies by state. That about sums it up.
Quote from: Rothman on September 03, 2021, 03:07:43 PM
I hate the smell of marijuana. Can't imagine if my car smelled like it.
I deal with it either while it's still in the ground or just after harvest, and it actually smells quite a bit different fresh than it does when it's smoked. Cultivation has come a long way now that it's legal, too, so the plants have been bred over time to smell more pleasant (there was one strain I defoliated that smelled just like orange chicken).
But there's no way to keep that smell from transferring to my car, because there's always some bit of trim or resin that sticks to my shirt without me noticing and falls off in there. I wouldn't want my car to smell like marijuana smoke either, but smelling like fresh bud is fine, for my sake, at least–can't imagine what people in drive-thrus and places like that must think of me!
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 03, 2021, 06:23:51 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 03, 2021, 03:07:43 PM
I hate the smell of marijuana. Can't imagine if my car smelled like it.
I deal with it either while it's still in the ground or just after harvest, and it actually smells quite a bit different fresh than it does when it's smoked. Cultivation has come a long way now that it's legal, too, so the plants have been bred over time to smell more pleasant (there was one strain I defoliated that smelled just like orange chicken).
But there's no way to keep that smell from transferring to my car, because there's always some bit of trim or resin that sticks to my shirt without me noticing and falls off in there. I wouldn't want my car to smell like marijuana smoke either, but smelling like fresh bud is fine, for my sake, at least–can't imagine what people in drive-thrus and places like that must think of me!
Stinky. :D
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 03, 2021, 06:40:54 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 03, 2021, 06:23:51 PM
Quote from: Rothman on September 03, 2021, 03:07:43 PM
I hate the smell of marijuana. Can't imagine if my car smelled like it.
I deal with it either while it's still in the ground or just after harvest, and it actually smells quite a bit different fresh than it does when it's smoked. Cultivation has come a long way now that it's legal, too, so the plants have been bred over time to smell more pleasant (there was one strain I defoliated that smelled just like orange chicken).
But there's no way to keep that smell from transferring to my car, because there's always some bit of trim or resin that sticks to my shirt without me noticing and falls off in there. I wouldn't want my car to smell like marijuana smoke either, but smelling like fresh bud is fine, for my sake, at least–can't imagine what people in drive-thrus and places like that must think of me!
Dude, don't listen to these weirdos, your wife's medical need is far more important than anyone's karen whining about the smell.
Oh, for sure. Fortunately, pretty much all of my friends are either in the industry themselves or cool with it, so I don't have to hear anyone complain (not even my parents, who when I told them I got a job in marijuana just started telling me their stories about it from the 70s that they'd kept quiet about all my life!). Like I said, I don't really mind the smell, and besides, I get paid to smell it. I don't see it as any different than a DOT employee having to smell asphalt, or, like in my previous job at a casino, cigarette smoke. Actually, I'd rather my car smell like fresh weed than the times I left my casino uniform in the car and made it smell like cigarette smoke.
That being said, I have zero interest in trying to explain any of this to a Texas Ranger...
Quote from: Flint1979 on September 03, 2021, 03:28:54 PMIt is very possible to travel through Michigan and come out and do another state. One could enter Michigan on I-75 or US-23 near Toledo and exit Michigan on US-2 in Ironwood. It's probably not the shortest or quickest way but it is a way to get there.
Been there, just recently did that.
And I wasn't driving, but IIRC the toll on the Mackinac was not incredibly expensive.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 03, 2021, 10:37:13 PM
But what state are you coming from before passing through Michigan? Even that strip of land dangling off from Wisconsin, is also Michigan I believe. I-90 may temporarily cross the border and back, but I don't consider a highway as passing through a state unless there are actual exits/entrances in the state.
If someone wanted to go from Ohio to northern Minnesota or Wisconsin without having to deal with traffic in Chicago, then going through Michigan may very well be the best option. Also, when border traffic gets back to normal, for traffic from Ontario trying to get to western Canada or the western U.S, going through Michigan is the fastest option.
And just in case you weren't sure, I-90 just barely misses Michigan. :thumbsup:
Quote from: hbelkins on September 03, 2021, 09:53:52 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on September 03, 2021, 03:28:54 PMIt is very possible to travel through Michigan and come out and do another state. One could enter Michigan on I-75 or US-23 near Toledo and exit Michigan on US-2 in Ironwood. It's probably not the shortest or quickest way but it is a way to get there.
Been there, just recently did that.
And I wasn't driving, but IIRC the toll on the Mackinac was not incredibly expensive.
It's not that expensive it's $4 each way for a regular vehicle. I've drove across the Mackinac Bridge six times this year and spent $24.
And I looked it up, to go from Toledo to Ashland, WI the shortest and quickest way involves traveling through Michigan. It's 674 miles, 10 hours, 31 minutes. Like was mentioned earlier it's about the same distance to go through Chicago but it takes about a half hour longer for some reason.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 03, 2021, 10:37:13 PM
But what state are you coming from before passing through Michigan? Even that strip of land dangling off from Wisconsin, is also Michigan I believe. I-90 may temporarily cross the border and back, but I don't consider a highway as passing through a state unless there are actual exits/entrances in the state. For example, I-684 isn't functional in CT, and is therefore owned by the NYSDOT, and I don't even know if CT state police have jurisdiction over that stretch. I know they wanted to put a $5 toll in each direction for that stretch truncating Connecticut.
Ohio and what strip of land are you talking about? I-90 never crosses into Michigan.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 04, 2021, 11:33:48 AM
Isn't both the Ohio Turnpike and the Indiana Toll Road designated as I-90 on top of I-80?
Yes, between west of Cleveland and east of Chicago.
Quote from: kphoger on September 03, 2021, 03:16:27 PM
Holy roach clip, Batman!
How the heck did we get from speed limits to abortion, child abuse, decriminalization, veganism, and trafficking?
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 03, 2021, 03:06:55 PM
I would not dare venture into any of those states not knowing what weird, idiotic, ridiculous, Overbearing laws I may be breaking from another state.
So, then, what states would you venture to? That is to say, which states are you 100% certain don't have any weird, idiotic, ridiculous, overbearing laws?
The OP is possibly an unlicensed child-abusing vegan pothead drug-trafficker who just happens to be on the sex-offender registry. How else would he be so knowledgeable of the laws of those states? The states he references are probably places he would not be allowed to travel to without risk of prison time.
Methinks he doth protest too loudly ... :hmmm:
^ This post was an adventure to read.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 04, 2021, 02:36:14 PM
Two underage teens having sex is
not on topic for this forum. Nor is most political discussion in general.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 04, 2021, 03:06:24 PM
I brought up a ton of speeding laws in that post as well.
Replies #342 and 347 say otherwise.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 04, 2021, 01:41:39 PM
... but making a 3rd offense of driving a measly 50 over the speed limit a felony punishable by 5 years in prison ...
50 over the speed limit is "measly"?? I can't see how in anybody's world that 50 over is considered "measly", whether 55 in a 5 zone or 130 in an 80 zone. Plus it's a bit ... disturbing ... that your posts seem to steer towards comments referring to underage sexual relations, which is not even close to being on topic.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 02, 2021, 06:32:13 PM
I will never drive in Michigan, Virginia, or North Carolina.
Feel free to add my state to your list.
Wow ... need that trainwreck video again. :bigass:
I just made a huge circle around the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. I started and ended in Saginaw, went to Midland, Clare, Cadillac, Big Rapids, Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo, Battle Creek, Lansing, Flint and then back to Saginaw. Took me 9 hours to do that and lemme tell ya I didn't have a problem with anyone. Michigan State Police running rampant on US-131 today though big time.
Quote from: Flint1979 on September 04, 2021, 07:49:51 PM
I just made a huge circle around the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. I started and ended in Saginaw, went to Midland, Clare, Cadillac, Big Rapids, Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo, Battle Creek, Lansing, Flint and then back to Saginaw. Took me 9 hours to do that and lemme tell ya I didn't have a problem with anyone. Michigan State Police running rampant on US-131 today though big time.
Saw very few police when I was in Michigan a couple of weeks ago (I-75/US 23/I-75/US 2/M-77/M-28/US 2).
Ohio, however, was a different story. OHP everywhere on I-75.
Last ticket I got (one of only two in my life) was in Ohio. The OHP officer said i wasn't driving dangerously or excessively fast, but was driving fast enough to get a ticket. Think it was 74 in a 55, he knocked it down a little.
Guess it serves me right for taking some roadgeek's advice that OH 104 was a suitable alternative to US 23 between Chillicothe and Portsmouth. It's also why I invested in a Valentine One radar detector after that.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 04, 2021, 03:33:45 PM
I know there were a couple of people who genuinely watched the entire videos and I even acknowledged his double standard with the sample sizes, but 90% of his points remain unrefuted. The mandatory car impoundment for 40kmh over the limit (25 mph) is excessive even of the speed limits were rational. One caneasily be cruising at 15 over with traffic flow, and then gain an extra 10 mph just from coasting down a hill. And when people say "but of they raised the speed limits to 80 then people would go 110" I feel is a fallacy. The only reason people say "fuck the limits catch me of you can" is because they are so ridiculously low to even try to follow. My car doesn't even have cruise control. With 80 mph speed limits everywhere, most people would still go around 80, but would be more relaxed knowing they won't be pulled over, and therefore drive less distracted and get in less accidents. This is a major point in the videos that, given all his statistical effort, he should have included. Even on the Autobahn in Germany, traffic flows rarely exceeds 90 mph on the unlimited sections. Raising speed limits essentially don't increase traffic flow, they make it more uniform, which is safer.
Yup, pretty much. Having driven the 80 mph and 85 mph segments of SH-130 in Texas before, I usually would cruise around 82-85 mph, and 87-88 mph respectively. It felt very reasonable, I didn't have an urge to go much faster, and wasn't worried about police. Come onto I-10 or I-35 (depending on direction) as it dumps off, still going 82-85 mph with the flow of traffic despite knocking down to 75 mph. If it was 80 mph (what I feel rural interstates should be universally), my speed would not have changed, just been closer to legal. I will usually run around 80 mph regardless of 65 mph, 70 mph, 75 mph, or 80 mph.
I-35 through Temple is 65 mph, and 75 mph on either side of it. Can also say from experience, traffic flows around 80 mph in both the 65 mph and 75 mph zones. No difference except what's "legal" .
And on those two lane 75 mph segments, I'm usually perfectly conformable at around 77 mph, and around 80 mph on the four lane divided.
Meanwhile, here in Virginia, with 55 mph and 60 mph respectively, I've easily hit over 70 mph without realizing it on both because the roads are well designed, but artificially posted low.
I will never buy into the argument that faster speed limits are bad, cause faster driving, etc. It's simply false. It just legalizes what reality is.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 04, 2021, 09:35:15 PM
@hbelkins
LOL even in Nazi State NY, most state troopers let you pass them at 75 in 55 zones without batting an eye. Tens of millions of cars drive every single day 365 days a year. Of course there are 40K fatal accidents a year. People acting like that's such a huge number. The US has the nerve to model interstate highways after the German Autobahns, but then not adopt the appropriate speed limit setting scheme. Screw moving out West, just need to go to Europe at this point. Norway, Sweden, Germany, Italy, Portugal, and Belgium seem so much more rational overall than the USA (US-Assholes)
New York is pretty good about rural two-lane roads being 55 where nearby states (and Quebec and Ontario) would post them lower. For example, NY 23 is 55 where it crosses the border into Massachusetts as MA 23; it's 30 as you cross into Massachusetts despite no change in road quality. (Massachusetts default speed limits are prima facie, but only defaults, not signed ones.)
Quote from: SafeSpeederwall of text
Who was that guy that posted walls of text about how he was smarter than everyone else and got some brewery shut down a few years ago? Because this is starting to remind me a lot of him.
Quote from: US 89 on September 05, 2021, 12:47:30 AM
Quote from: SafeSpeederwall of text
Who was that guy that posted walls of text about how he was smarter than everyone else and got some brewery shut down a few years ago? Because this is starting to remind me a lot of him.
Some men aren't after anything logical. Some men just want to watch the world burn.
(https://i.imgur.com/est2FBo.gif)
Quote from: US 89 on September 05, 2021, 12:47:30 AM
Quote from: SafeSpeederwall of text
Who was that guy that posted walls of text about how he was smarter than everyone else and got some brewery shut down a few years ago? Because this is starting to remind me a lot of him.
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=14125
Quote from: hbelkins on September 04, 2021, 08:07:34 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on September 04, 2021, 07:49:51 PM
I just made a huge circle around the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. I started and ended in Saginaw, went to Midland, Clare, Cadillac, Big Rapids, Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo, Battle Creek, Lansing, Flint and then back to Saginaw. Took me 9 hours to do that and lemme tell ya I didn't have a problem with anyone. Michigan State Police running rampant on US-131 today though big time.
Saw very few police when I was in Michigan a couple of weeks ago (I-75/US 23/I-75/US 2/M-77/M-28/US 2).
Ohio, however, was a different story. OHP everywhere on I-75.
Last ticket I got (one of only two in my life) was in Ohio. The OHP officer said i wasn't driving dangerously or excessively fast, but was driving fast enough to get a ticket. Think it was 74 in a 55, he knocked it down a little.
Guess it serves me right for taking some roadgeek's advice that OH 104 was a suitable alternative to US 23 between Chillicothe and Portsmouth. It's also why I invested in a Valentine One radar detector after that.
At one point between GR and Kzoo they were sitting double in the median looking at both directions and some other MSP troopers had another car pulled over about a mile after that. I saw five MSP cruisers between Cadillac and GR. Other than 131 I didn't see anymore and I took a back way to get to M-37 and took that way into GR.
OH-104 looks like it could be an alternate to US-23 in that area but I never even knew of it's existence until you mentioned it.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 04, 2021, 09:14:45 PM
Quote from: dlsterner on September 04, 2021, 07:03:54 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 04, 2021, 01:41:39 PM
... but making a 3rd offense of driving a measly 50 over the speed limit a felony punishable by 5 years in prison ...
50 over the speed limit is "measly"?? I can't see how in anybody's world that 50 over is considered "measly", whether 55 in a 5 zone or 130 in an 80 zone. Plus it's a bit ... disturbing ... that your posts seem to steer towards comments referring to underage sexual relations, which is not even close to being on topic.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 02, 2021, 06:32:13 PM
I will never drive in Michigan, Virginia, or North Carolina.
Feel free to add my state to your list.
They were just examples of why Michigan, California, and Georgia were deranged states. I just did 109 in a 55 today, didn't feel that fast for the road, a little fast, but not that I was going 54 mph faster than the roads design speed. Maybe 14 over the road's design speed. If I added up all the times I hit 51+ over the limit, I would get a life sentence in Florida. Speed Limits shouldn't be 70 on 400+ mile long mostly straight highways in that state. 55 in a 5 zone means you are flooring it through a parking lot, huge difference than simply accelerating on a straight empty interstate. 50 over the speed limit can be as low as 105, which is not fast at all. When you take into account how 99% of roads are set at 30+ mph lower than the road design speed, 50 over is really only 10-20 faster than you should be going, at most. Don't see the big deal since there is probably no traffic down there given that half the population is hospitalized with covid. What state do you want me to add?
How about adding every state? You are insane to think that 105 mph isn't fast at all. And I very highly doubt the state's that you have mentioned are the problem. YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.
I think it makes me feel more safe to know that this guy will never drive in Michigan. Not that Michigan drivers drive safe in the first place. The other day I was traveling SB on US-23 and was trying to pass a slew of slower moving vehicles in the right lane but this truck two vehicles in front of me decides to do about 62 mph with nothing in front of him. I finally was able to get around him to find him yapping on his cell phone. I blew my horn and flicked him off.
Quote from: Flint1979 on September 05, 2021, 07:15:49 AM
this truck two vehicles in front of me decides to do about 62 mph with nothing in front of him.
Some trucks are speed governed to 63 mph or to 100 km/h (62 mph).
Quote from: 1 on September 05, 2021, 07:22:17 AM
Quote from: Flint1979 on September 05, 2021, 07:15:49 AM
this truck two vehicles in front of me decides to do about 62 mph with nothing in front of him.
Some trucks are speed governed to 63 mph or to 100 km/h (62 mph).
I should have stated that it was a pickup truck not a semi.
*blinks*
Wow. Catching up with this thread, I'm reminded of a user that got banned just prior to me becoming one of the co-owners at WordForge.
I'm generally for higher speed limits on limited access roads including Montana-style rules in some areas. But after this thread, my gut reaction is that we need speed limiters on all cars just so I don't have to worry about guys like OP smugly plowing into me on a freeway.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 05, 2021, 12:46:05 PM
Nope, Michigan is a state that wastes time with victimless crimes across the board. Actually I am tempted to drive in those states just to increase the climate change around the area, so the next storms are more severe and wash away all the weirdo law makers.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 05, 2021, 12:49:08 PM
I am hoping my extra fast driving increases the gas emissions and, eventually triggers more severe weather, hopefully in those states. I burn about 15 gallons of gas every 4-5 days at my driving rates, is that contributing enough to climate change?
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 05, 2021, 12:46:05 PM
I am a perfectly rational and smart person
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 05, 2021, 12:46:05 PM
Actually I am tempted to drive in those states just to increase the climate change around the area, so the next storms are more severe and wash away all the weirdo law makers.
Increasing emissions increases climate change globally. It won't be concentrated in the area the emissions are.
Quote from: 1 on September 05, 2021, 01:23:54 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 05, 2021, 12:46:05 PM
Actually I am tempted to drive in those states just to increase the climate change around the area, so the next storms are more severe and wash away all the weirdo law makers.
Increasing emissions increases climate change globally. It won't be concentrated in the area the emissions are.
Yeah, wind doesn't exactly stop at state lines...
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 05, 2021, 12:53:26 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 05, 2021, 12:46:05 PM
Nope, Michigan is a state that wastes time with victimless crimes across the board. Actually I am tempted to drive in those states just to increase the climate change around the area, so the next storms are more severe and wash away all the weirdo law makers.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 05, 2021, 12:49:08 PM
I am hoping my extra fast driving increases the gas emissions and, eventually triggers more severe weather, hopefully in those states. I burn about 15 gallons of gas every 4-5 days at my driving rates, is that contributing enough to climate change?
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 05, 2021, 12:46:05 PM
I am a perfectly rational and smart person
This collection of quotes made my day. :D :D :D
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 05, 2021, 12:46:05 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on September 05, 2021, 07:10:46 AM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 04, 2021, 09:14:45 PM
Quote from: dlsterner on September 04, 2021, 07:03:54 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 04, 2021, 01:41:39 PM
... but making a 3rd offense of driving a measly 50 over the speed limit a felony punishable by 5 years in prison ...
50 over the speed limit is "measly"?? I can't see how in anybody's world that 50 over is considered "measly", whether 55 in a 5 zone or 130 in an 80 zone. Plus it's a bit ... disturbing ... that your posts seem to steer towards comments referring to underage sexual relations, which is not even close to being on topic.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 02, 2021, 06:32:13 PM
I will never drive in Michigan, Virginia, or North Carolina.
Feel free to add my state to your list.
They were just examples of why Michigan, California, and Georgia were deranged states. I just did 109 in a 55 today, didn't feel that fast for the road, a little fast, but not that I was going 54 mph faster than the roads design speed. Maybe 14 over the road's design speed. If I added up all the times I hit 51+ over the limit, I would get a life sentence in Florida. Speed Limits shouldn't be 70 on 400+ mile long mostly straight highways in that state. 55 in a 5 zone means you are flooring it through a parking lot, huge difference than simply accelerating on a straight empty interstate. 50 over the speed limit can be as low as 105, which is not fast at all. When you take into account how 99% of roads are set at 30+ mph lower than the road design speed, 50 over is really only 10-20 faster than you should be going, at most. Don't see the big deal since there is probably no traffic down there given that half the population is hospitalized with covid. What state do you want me to add?
How about adding every state? You are insane to think that 105 mph isn't fast at all. And I very highly doubt the state's that you have mentioned are the problem. YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.
Nope, Michigan is a state that wastes time with victimless crimes across the board. Actually I am tempted to drive in those states just to increase the climate change around the area, so the next storms are more severe and wash away all the weirdo law makers. You are nuts if you think 105 is fast, I can do that on 2 hours of sleep, that just means you are too lazy to have the proper reaction time and effort in controlling an automobile, or are too scared to approach triples digits. Once you ever do it 2-3 times you will realize it is nothing and the speed limits should be drastically raised if not removed completely. Nice job refuting 0 of my speeding points or other points about those evil states. I am a perfectly rational and smart person. Slow drivers are just too lazy to put any extra effort in controlling their vehicle at high speeds, or to put their phone down for 3 seconds.
I think you are a very strange person. You don't know me or anything about me so saying that I'm too lazy to have proper reaction time or too scared to approach triple digits. I have what's called consideration for the safety of the community I'm in, driving at those speeds is being inconsiderate of the safety of other people around you. You have no business going that fast. I've done it before it's nothing special it doesn't impress me that you drive that fast it really doesn't. No slow drivers are people that are driving safely for the road that they are on not at all what you said. You are an ignorant person with a lot of growing up to do.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 05, 2021, 02:03:31 PM
Quote from: 1 on September 05, 2021, 01:23:54 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 05, 2021, 12:46:05 PM
Actually I am tempted to drive in those states just to increase the climate change around the area, so the next storms are more severe and wash away all the weirdo law makers.
Increasing emissions increases climate change globally. It won't be concentrated in the area the emissions are.
Not necessarily, concentrations over the major cities are slightly denser than in the middle of the pacific ocean. And even if this wasn't so, it is true that certain states get more severe weather, if only whoever those guys were, were successful in leaving the Michigan governor in the middle of the lake LOL I would have been dying laughing, she would have gotten good exercise paddling the canoe with her hands at least 😆🤣 But I think drive only contributes to around 10% of climate change. And faster driving does not burn more gas to the extent all the snail automobile operators claim it does. I get my best gas mileage (34-35 mpg) averaging 90 mph. Speed limits are set to make drivers miserable and to test their patience, there is not one valid shred of evidence supporting the idea that lower limits reduce accidents at all and they are an example of tyranny by the government. If I ever have to travel through those Tyrannical, sadistic, low life states, I will do so fast enough that by the time the cops accelerate up to me, I will have shot into the neighboring state so they have no jurisdiction to pull me over. Only 1 point so far from those academy award videos were successfully refuted so far, the other..ehh...15-20 still stand. Speed limits were only set to rake in revenue for the state and improve the prison business with bogus reckless driving convictions, and never once to improve traffic safety. The highest penalty for excessive speeding should be $10 fine, half a license point, and 2-3 hours of incarceration, provided the speed was actually reckless.
Get back on your meds, dude.
Anyone notice how he's trashing everyone's state, but won't say where he is ... :popcorn:
Quote from: renegade on September 05, 2021, 02:05:40 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 05, 2021, 02:03:31 PM
Quote from: 1 on September 05, 2021, 01:23:54 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 05, 2021, 12:46:05 PM
Actually I am tempted to drive in those states just to increase the climate change around the area, so the next storms are more severe and wash away all the weirdo law makers.
Increasing emissions increases climate change globally. It won't be concentrated in the area the emissions are.
Not necessarily, concentrations over the major cities are slightly denser than in the middle of the pacific ocean. And even if this wasn't so, it is true that certain states get more severe weather, if only whoever those guys were, were successful in leaving the Michigan governor in the middle of the lake LOL I would have been dying laughing, she would have gotten good exercise paddling the canoe with her hands at least 😆🤣 But I think drive only contributes to around 10% of climate change. And faster driving does not burn more gas to the extent all the snail automobile operators claim it does. I get my best gas mileage (34-35 mpg) averaging 90 mph. Speed limits are set to make drivers miserable and to test their patience, there is not one valid shred of evidence supporting the idea that lower limits reduce accidents at all and they are an example of tyranny by the government. If I ever have to travel through those Tyrannical, sadistic, low life states, I will do so fast enough that by the time the cops accelerate up to me, I will have shot into the neighboring state so they have no jurisdiction to pull me over. Only 1 point so far from those academy award videos were successfully refuted so far, the other..ehh...15-20 still stand. Speed limits were only set to rake in revenue for the state and improve the prison business with bogus reckless driving convictions, and never once to improve traffic safety. The highest penalty for excessive speeding should be $10 fine, half a license point, and 2-3 hours of incarceration, provided the speed was actually reckless.
Get back on your meds, dude.
Anyone notice how he's trashing everyone's state, but won't say where he is ... :popcorn:
I do notice he's trashing our state. This is prime time when I'll defend Michigan to the core.
Quote from: renegade on September 05, 2021, 02:05:40 PM
Anyone notice how he's trashing everyone's state, but won't say where he is ... :popcorn:
I was always under the impression that he lived in New Jersey. Given the roads he's been on, it's either that or New York.
Quote from: 1 on September 05, 2021, 02:08:52 PM
Quote from: renegade on September 05, 2021, 02:05:40 PM
Anyone notice how he's trashing everyone's state, but won't say where he is ... :popcorn:
I was always under the impression that he lived in New Jersey. Given the roads he's been on, it's either that or New York.
That would be my guess too or Philly area.
Speed kills. Maybe soon. :pan:
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 05, 2021, 02:20:43 PM
Quote from: renegade on September 05, 2021, 02:05:40 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 05, 2021, 02:03:31 PM
Quote from: 1 on September 05, 2021, 01:23:54 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 05, 2021, 12:46:05 PM
Actually I am tempted to drive in those states just to increase the climate change around the area, so the next storms are more severe and wash away all the weirdo law makers.
Increasing emissions increases climate change globally. It won't be concentrated in the area the emissions are.
Not necessarily, concentrations over the major cities are slightly denser than in the middle of the pacific ocean. And even if this wasn't so, it is true that certain states get more severe weather, if only whoever those guys were, were successful in leaving the Michigan governor in the middle of the lake LOL I would have been dying laughing, she would have gotten good exercise paddling the canoe with her hands at least 😆🤣 But I think drive only contributes to around 10% of climate change. And faster driving does not burn more gas to the extent all the snail automobile operators claim it does. I get my best gas mileage (34-35 mpg) averaging 90 mph. Speed limits are set to make drivers miserable and to test their patience, there is not one valid shred of evidence supporting the idea that lower limits reduce accidents at all and they are an example of tyranny by the government. If I ever have to travel through those Tyrannical, sadistic, low life states, I will do so fast enough that by the time the cops accelerate up to me, I will have shot into the neighboring state so they have no jurisdiction to pull me over. Only 1 point so far from those academy award videos were successfully refuted so far, the other..ehh...15-20 still stand. Speed limits were only set to rake in revenue for the state and improve the prison business with bogus reckless driving convictions, and never once to improve traffic safety. The highest penalty for excessive speeding should be $10 fine, half a license point, and 2-3 hours of incarceration, provided the speed was actually reckless.
Get back on your meds, dude.
Anyone notice how he's trashing everyone's state, but won't say where he is ... :popcorn:
The beautiful Garden State! And they kick NY's ass on every level. I am so happy I gave them so much toll money just for joy riding, they deserve every pico-penny. They know how to take care of their roads and provide good quality of life for citizens. That turnpike is the main tourist attraction of the East Coast! God Bless NJ
Noo Joisey is one of the ugliest states I've ever been to. You have to love smokestacks, not to mention the terrible smell. They won't even let you pump your own gas, for crying out loud. Horrible, nasty and stupid people almost everywhere. If Jersey broke off from the mainland, the Atlantic Ocean would spit it back.
The hammer will eventually swing on this guy, just like it did for tolbs17 and dzlsabe. I have faith that it will, soon.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 05, 2021, 02:26:53 PM
Quote from: renegade on September 05, 2021, 02:15:31 PM
Speed kills. Maybe soon. :pan:
Is that supposed to be an argument? After an infinite amount of time anything is bound to happen, so if after 50 years I got into accident while driving "fast" it wouldn't prove your point at all. If speeding is soo dangerous, then with the amount of driving I have done already, I should have gotten into at least 1 severe accident by now, but haven't, and I don't know how much time not getting into an accident would convince you people that it is skill, not mere luck. And all of the close calls I have had were under 30 mph. One thing speedy drivers fail to understand is that you don't have to turn the wheel as much to meet a curve at higher speeds. Overcompensating is the #1 factor in speed-related factor accidents.
Just go away.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 05, 2021, 02:17:07 PM
Mr. Flint, nope. Other drivers safety is not my responsibility, I will continue driving that fast every day, and will attempt to spice up my car so it isn't topping off at a measly 2 miles a minute. Germany has proven everything you said wrong 3x over. If you don't want to take the risk, do not drive on public roads, simple, not everyone has to cater to the needs of safety fanatics. So far, as I age, I simply find safer ways to drive faster, not slower, and realize how even more ridiculous the concept of limiting people's transportation speed is. I intend to hit 200 mph on a public highway before I die. Oh and none of this is bragging or to impress anyone, I would enjoy having no one on the road to see me blow by them, because that means I could go even faster. I'd prefer to be the only car on the road so I would not have to worry about reckless, selfish, assholes cutting into the middle/left lane at 60 mph. In Germany, they have to pay for any damages/medical bills, not the guy going 200. You have no business impeding traffic flow. People like you cause accidents just to make a point. You have no knowledge about why someone might be in a hurry, and not everything is less important than living life with what-ifs. I guarantee you if there were no speed laws whatsoever in this country, accident rates would not go up more than 5%. If in the USA people had to actually earn their license like in Germany, 99% of the accident causing driver's would never have been allowed behind the steering wheel in the first place. In fact I am conservative, my car never entered the red zone once (highest tachometer reading of 6, 6.5 is red zone) so I don't even put wear and tear on my own car! Speed Limits are literally government sanctioned trolling, not me.
The hell it isn't your responsibility. You are a complete idiot I don't care what you have to say either. What a stupid comment for real you're going to continue to drive that fast every day. Where in the fuck are you on your way to that you need to drive that fucking fast? Germany hasn't proved shit. Oh if I don't want to take the risk don't drive on a public road? Because I drive the way you are suppose to drive? Is that why I shouldn't drive on public roads?
Oh btw I am not impeding the traffic flow by driving the speed limit to 10 over when everyone else is driving the same speed. No people like me do not cause accidents by trying to make a fucking point. You have no business driving that fucking fast you stupid fucking idiot.
Quote from: renegade on September 05, 2021, 02:26:09 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 05, 2021, 02:20:43 PM
Quote from: renegade on September 05, 2021, 02:05:40 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 05, 2021, 02:03:31 PM
Quote from: 1 on September 05, 2021, 01:23:54 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 05, 2021, 12:46:05 PM
Actually I am tempted to drive in those states just to increase the climate change around the area, so the next storms are more severe and wash away all the weirdo law makers.
Increasing emissions increases climate change globally. It won't be concentrated in the area the emissions are.
Not necessarily, concentrations over the major cities are slightly denser than in the middle of the pacific ocean. And even if this wasn't so, it is true that certain states get more severe weather, if only whoever those guys were, were successful in leaving the Michigan governor in the middle of the lake LOL I would have been dying laughing, she would have gotten good exercise paddling the canoe with her hands at least 😆🤣 But I think drive only contributes to around 10% of climate change. And faster driving does not burn more gas to the extent all the snail automobile operators claim it does. I get my best gas mileage (34-35 mpg) averaging 90 mph. Speed limits are set to make drivers miserable and to test their patience, there is not one valid shred of evidence supporting the idea that lower limits reduce accidents at all and they are an example of tyranny by the government. If I ever have to travel through those Tyrannical, sadistic, low life states, I will do so fast enough that by the time the cops accelerate up to me, I will have shot into the neighboring state so they have no jurisdiction to pull me over. Only 1 point so far from those academy award videos were successfully refuted so far, the other..ehh...15-20 still stand. Speed limits were only set to rake in revenue for the state and improve the prison business with bogus reckless driving convictions, and never once to improve traffic safety. The highest penalty for excessive speeding should be $10 fine, half a license point, and 2-3 hours of incarceration, provided the speed was actually reckless.
Get back on your meds, dude.
Anyone notice how he's trashing everyone's state, but won't say where he is ... :popcorn:
The beautiful Garden State! And they kick NY's ass on every level. I am so happy I gave them so much toll money just for joy riding, they deserve every pico-penny. They know how to take care of their roads and provide good quality of life for citizens. That turnpike is the main tourist attraction of the East Coast! God Bless NJ
Noo Joisey is one of the ugliest states I've ever been to. You have to love smokestacks, not to mention the terrible smell. They won't even let you pump your own gas, for crying out loud. Horrible, nasty and stupid people almost everywhere. If Jersey broke off from the mainland, the Atlantic Ocean would spit it back.
The hammer will eventually swing on this guy, just like it did for tolbs17 and V'ger. I have faith that it will, soon.
I couldn't agree more, they don't call it the armpit of America just for no good reason. I hate that state to be quite honest about it, nothing in that state is even worth keeping. Every city there is an overcrowded shithole.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 05, 2021, 02:41:45 PM
I know, which is why the scenery doesn't distract anyone while driving, leading to safer conditions. The roads by themselves are the beauty of NJ. It's the best smelling armpit in the world! If only NYC would literally float away, as it's not even attached to the USA, with the exception of the bronx.
That isn't true in the least bit. The roads in New Jersey suck and NYC and New Jersey can both float away for all I care both are shitholes.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 05, 2021, 02:44:30 PM
@Flint, aww looks like a little American couldn't take the facts, and is breaking down :spin:
"shit fuck shit fuck fuck fucking shit fuck shit shit shit"
:rofl:
That's the best quote and the funniest of the day. @Rothman includes the one made by @Flint1979
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 05, 2021, 02:51:18 PM
Ok guys, going driving now, so don't expect my usual, rapidly dispensed, fact-based replies for a while. Going to do my holiday-weekend- Sunday superspeedy driving session, always lighter than Saturday for some reason.
see ya later charles. :colorful: :colorful:
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 05, 2021, 02:48:43 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on September 05, 2021, 02:43:39 PM
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 05, 2021, 02:41:45 PM
I know, which is why the scenery doesn't distract anyone while driving, leading to safer conditions. The roads by themselves are the beauty of NJ. It's the best smelling armpit in the world! If only NYC would literally float away, as it's not even attached to the USA, with the exception of the bronx.
That isn't true in the least bit. The roads in New Jersey suck and NYC and New Jersey can both float away for all I care both are shitholes.
They only suck because the people who Rate NJ roads are jealous that their cars can't keep up with traffic flow. I have had semi pass me at 90 in the right lane anytime I was dilly dallying in the 70s. I apologize for anytime I blocked the road by only going 10 over, I should have gotten a ticket. I even have a book just about the NJ Turnpike, "history of the 118 mile mainline" its actually 123 miles end to end. The only thing that distracts me in NJ are the much more beautiful women which NY lacks.
Again not true. And I have no problem with keeping up with the traffic flow. The traffic flow is not no 90-100 mph that is not the speed that normal people drive.
Quote from: SafeSpeeder on September 05, 2021, 02:44:30 PM
@Flint, aww looks like a little American couldn't take the facts, and is breaking down :spin:
"shit fuck shit fuck fuck fucking shit fuck shit shit shit"
Dude you don't know a fucking thing about me. But from what you have spewed on this forum you are a complete jackass. I'm breaking down? LMAO your kind don't faze me at all.
Oh btw you have provided no facts on anything.
You can go as fast as you want on this road, which is where you will be going next.
(https://www.aaroads.com/california/images999/haugen_lehmann_way_nb_san_gorgonio_01.jpg)
Locked, because...well, does it really need to be said?