# Does everyone speed? How about you?



## gadget_lover (Apr 29, 2006)

A lot of people justify their speeding by stating that everyone speeds. There are a lot of other claims that go with it. I guess it's only fair to ask the question....

Do you habitually (and deliberatly) speed? Do you think everyone does?

Daniel


----------



## Radio (Apr 29, 2006)

Yup


----------



## gadget_lover (Apr 29, 2006)

Oh, I forgot to say.

No, I no longer habitually speed. I set the cruise control and enjoy the ride. No stress, better ride, better milage, no tickets.....

Daniel


----------



## Morelite (Apr 29, 2006)

I do, mostly only on the interstate (I-99) to and from work. The road should be 65MPH but do to the fact that it is not completed (further west of here) it is only 55MPH right now. I usually go 70 and the Troppers around here have no problem with going 70, but go 71 and they will pull you over. Even at 70, many cars seem to be flying by me.


----------



## Brighteyez (Apr 29, 2006)

I tend to drive at the pace of traffic in the lane that I'm travelling in, whether it be on a street, highway, or limited access road. Which, as you already know, is often above the posted speed limit in this area.


----------



## LouRoy (Apr 29, 2006)

I always try to fit in with the flow of traffic. If you are going faster or slower than the majority, you are hazard to yourself and others. If everyone is going 70 and you insist on going 55 because that is the posted speed limit, you are making a potentially fatal mistake.


----------



## DonShock (Apr 29, 2006)

No, not deliberately. I know I am a terrible judge of speed so I look at the speedometer frequently. I try to stay within 5 mph of the posted limit. When you look at the time it would save you on a normal around town trip, even an extra 10mph probably only gets you there a couple minutes sooner. Not worth the risk, either a ticket or an accident, IMHO. I'm most likely to find myself speeding inadvertently when I've been stuck in a group of cars going slower than the posted limit for some reason and then when traffic speeds up again, I'm still watching the car in front of me instead of the speedometer.


----------



## Ken_McE (Apr 29, 2006)

The greater question here is if the traffic (including speed) laws in your area make sense. I happen to live in one of the "Nanny" states. There are people here who make a living just sitting around and coming up with exciting new rules for residents to have to follow. I assume that the traffic laws in my state are unrelated to the abilities and needs of the actual users. They appear to be set partly to satisfy the whim of people who have never driven here, and partly to provide an easy source of local revenue. 

If your question is if I violate the letter of the law, well duh, how can you not? I've been pulled over for passing too close to the curb on a right hand turn. (that's what the officer said, what do I know) I've been stopped and questioned for driving quietly down the road with a silver tea-tray on the back seat. I tell you, I have a heck of a time keeping up with all these laws. If your question is if I am reckless and a hazard to all around me, then no, I am not.


----------



## robk (Apr 29, 2006)

NO. I'm not in such a hurry that I have to speed. If I have a service call 45 minutes away, I allow an extra 10 - 15 minutes to get there, and I go the speed limit. I'm 54 years old, 1 speeding ticket when I was 21 years old, never been stopped for anything since. I drive a 2004 Pontiac GrandAm GT2, rarely use the cruise control. I tend to "jackrabbit" start from red lights, but I really feel that 70mph on I-95 here in FL is way too much. I'm not worried about me, it's the other drivers who are going 80 and talking on their phones, drinking coffee or who knows what else, they follow too closely, wander in their lanes, just generally don't pay attention to a 3000 pound projectile traveling at 80mph+. I happen to live near one of the worst stretches of I-95, between I-4 and Palm Coast, about 30 miles of weekly twisted metal and dead bodies. So for me, it's around 65 in the right lane. I would like to see the speed limit lowered to 55 like in the 70's to conserve gas. 
Rob


----------



## Trashman (Apr 29, 2006)

Sometimes I speed. Usually, I'm driving the speed limit, especially at work. I mostly speed on the freeway coming back from my girlfriends house late at night. I go from 5 to 10 miles over the speed limit.


----------



## ACMarina (Apr 29, 2006)

I just go with the flow unless I have no choice..


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Apr 29, 2006)

I go with the "flow", or set my cruise control to +4 miles above speed limit.

Bill


----------



## gadget_lover (Apr 29, 2006)

> There are people here who make a living just sitting around and coming up with exciting new rules for residents to have to follow. I assume that the traffic laws in my state are unrelated to the abilities and needs of the actual users. They appear to be set partly to satisfy the whim of people who have never driven here, and partly to provide an easy source of local revenue.



How does one determine such things? I can see knowing the motivation in a small town where you hear the sherriff brag that he's increased revenue by creating a speed trap, but how in the heck do you find out in a normal sized city?

Unfortunately, the speed limits have to take into account the abilities of some really poor drivers as well as good drivers who are temporarily distracted. Most people believe themselves to be above average drivers
( http://www.google.com/search?num=20...ve+they+are+above+average+drivers&btnG=Search ) ans therefore feel THEY can safely drive faster.

Let me suggest a contrary thought. Predictability is the whole premise that allows millions of drivers to safely share the roads. When you drive on the right side of the road (US) you are assured that you will not find a car aproaching the wrong way. When you pass through a controlled intersection, you are assured that you will not encounter cross traffic. This is what allows mediocre drivers to successfully share the hiways and byways. When people break the laws they do so unpredictably.

When you pull out into traffic (say a right turn from a parking lot driveway) you can do so safely only if you can judge the distance of approaching traffic and the speed at which they are approaching. If it's a 25 MPH zone and some turkey is doing 50, he will reach you in 1/2 the time you expect. The same problem occurs when you pass a car on a two lane road and discover the oncoming car that you thought was driving 65 is really doing 80.

But it's not just speed. Yesterday a car turned left from the center lane. He was in my blind spot. fortunately, I was following the rules and turned into the left most lane, but imagine my surprise when I realized he was inches from my fender on the right. He was driving (he thought) safely, but could easily have cause me to have an accident if I had swung wide.

One reason I don't speed anymore is the realization that I'm not an above average driver, and neither are 50% of the people around me. I'm positive that some of them are in the bottom 10% some days. 


Daniel


----------



## geepondy (Apr 29, 2006)

At or just slightly over on back roads and less then 10 mph over on the interstate. Took me six years of ticket free driving to get all of my safe driver credit points back and it does make quite a difference (like $500) on the insurance bill.


----------



## zulu45 (Apr 29, 2006)

*Personally, I usually don't go more than 5mph over the speed limit, though when not using cruise control, I try to keep it only 3 or 4 above. If I'm in a huge hurry, though, I'll go up to 9 over, keeping a good eye out for the fuzz.*


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Apr 29, 2006)

Me? Nope!

A *LOT * of others? Yep!

Everyone? Not a chance!

Most I'll generally go is 65. I've been known to hit 70 to make a pass on Freeways, maybe even 80 out on two-lanes.


----------



## Diesel_Bomber (Apr 29, 2006)

If I'm in one of my cars on the back country roads to and from my house and I'm in the mood, then oh yes I'll speed. Not in my trucks, though, just no point. Never in town no matter what vehicle, and on the freeway I go with the flow.


Cheers. :buddies:


----------



## cobb (Apr 29, 2006)

As a passenger, yes. My dad use to speed, but after he got a ticket for going 61 in a 55mph zone, he now takes his 5 mph over the limit and nothing more. 

Even the paratransit van drivers keep up with traffic hitting 80mph on the interstates in their monster f450 minibuses. 

As a new driver, I can see its hard to watch your speed, so I can understand keeping with the flow and if you keep the right cushion between you and the car in front of you, whats the worry? Sure some roads arent designed to be safe above a certain speed, or for some vehicles, but in general.


----------



## idleprocess (Apr 29, 2006)

In town, I try to stick to the speed limit, but I'm not constantly checking my speedometer either. Sometimes I find it necessary to speed just to make my exit on some of the poorly-designed freeways in Dallas. Otherwise, you can't beat the "big numbers" of light timing, congestion, and road construction consistently enough to make it worthwhile.

On the road, I'll split between keeping it on the limit and up to 5 over if there's little traffic. I'm very consciencious about keeping it at the limit or below in a town - they have speedtraps, little sympathy for outsiders, and almost always crowd the highway as though it were just another street in town and noone actually travels _through_ town...


----------



## TorchMan (Apr 29, 2006)

I try to be very concious of my speed. I will drive 5mph over many times, others right at the limit. I do find myself matching the flow if I become unaware. 

It's ironic that I almos bought a Honda Civic, but found the speedometer distracting. It's cool as heck, but being digital and mounted so high up, I tended to just stare at it. Even though it was only slightly below the windshield level, it distracted me on every test drive more than ones located more traditionally. I drove the Civic a lot, but never got used to it. Maybe I would have over time.


----------



## diddy808 (Apr 29, 2006)

Its kinda hard to speed on Maui - No freeways. I do, on occasion if I'm driving my STi like to take "twisties" kind of FAST .


----------



## scott.cr (Apr 29, 2006)

I worked in the high-performance auto industry from 1999-2004. Toward the latter end of that journey I had a '93 Honda Civic that I bought as a shell and built a custom 2.0L engine from a mixed bag of parts... engine block/crank from a CR-V, cylinder head from a Del Sol DOHC, etc. It made 307 flywheel horsepower @ 9,750 RPM, would be at around 5,000 RPM at 75 mph and I only had the nerve to get it to 130 or so because it was so "nervous" while driving in a straight line... I had the wheels aligned for track driving, so all four were in a toe-out condition... great for turn-in, awful for straight-line tracking.

Anyway I would drive it to and from work occassionally. One night I was late for dinner and in the doghouse with my fiancee, so I left my usual car at work and drove the Civic home at top flight, almost 130 mph for the entire 35 mile drive. After I got a taste of that I started driving the Civic more often and at the times I was on the highway (off-peak hours), it wasn't unusual for me to merge onto the freeway at 110 mph and never drop below 100.

I later sold the Civic to pay off the engagement ring and bought a 2001 Volkswagen GTI with the 1.8L turbo engine. After about a year of driving it I had all the bolt-on modifications, which bumped it to a not-too-stellar 250 hp, but let me tell you that GTI had all the creds of an Autobahn car and was rock solid at 140 mph. Even though technically slower than the Civic, my cruise speeds were routinely way, way higher.

If you can believe it, I drove like that for five years, never even a close call with a cop or an accident. The ONE day I drove my dad's clapped-out Mustang GT I got nailed for going 76 on the freeway...


----------



## Flying Turtle (Apr 30, 2006)

I try to keep it close to the limit on back roads. Police around here are very active. On the interstate rarely more than ten over the limit. I've got a new Civic with the big digital speedo, so you really know how fast you're going. After some adjustment period I don't find it distracting. You can dim it down so it doesn't demand your attention.

Geoff


----------



## BigTwin (Apr 30, 2006)

After a few years of the national "55" speed limit, I'm grateful for the return to 65 to 70 and it's fast enough for me.


----------



## magic79 (Apr 30, 2006)

Absolutely I deliberately speed. 7mph over if I'm concerned about being caught. If we had an autobaun, I'd be at 100 mph all the time.

"Goose...I feel the need...the need for speed."
Does everyone speed. Definitely NOT in Oregon and Washington! Like no place in the country, we have folks doing 3-5mph UNDER the speed limit in the left lane, exactly pacing the car in the right lane. Drives me nuts.


----------



## picard (Apr 30, 2006)

I only speed on the highway at 5-10km/h over the speed limit. I don't want to lose control of the car. My car is old and fragile. Its suspension isn't as sophisticated as modern cars. I am also afraid of gettin ticket which would drive up my insurance rate.


----------



## Delvance (Apr 30, 2006)

Not really no, i accelerate really fast to the speed limit or a bit over then just do the speed limit (yes i know it's pointless and a waste of fuel but that's me...i enjoy acceleration, not speed).


----------



## gnef (Apr 30, 2006)

diddy808 - i drive an STi too! 2004, what year is yours? mine is stock, have you done anything to your car?

and as i was hammered in the MPG thread, yes, i do speed. and consitently, yes. in total, i have had three speeding tickets, and now have an excellent radar detector - bel pro rx65 (and used to have an escort 8500 x50). since then, i have not had any more tickets, hopefully it will stay that way...

on average, when i speed (i don't always, but i do often), i go on average about 10-15 over. on empty stretches where i can see at least a mile ahead clearly and deem it safe, that can go up significantly.

i hope i don't get flamed here too...


----------



## metalhed (Apr 30, 2006)

Not flamed (at least not by me), but I'm curious...

How do you justify your behaviour? :thinking:

And do you complain when others break laws you hold dear?

Really, I am curious. How do you logically justify your active disregard for the law?

I'm no stranger to ignoring laws that I deem to be unjust or inherently flawed, but I normally have a logical rationale (well...hopefully) for my position. I've always wondered what's the perspective of habitual speeders.


----------



## idleprocess (Apr 30, 2006)

metalhed said:


> I'm no stranger to ignoring laws that I deem to be unjust or inherently flawed, but I normally have a logical rationale (well...hopefully) for my position. I've always wondered what's the perspective of habitual speeders.



Fundamental impatience.

In the city, I know the traffic patterns and I allocate 45-60 minutes for my ~30 minute commute to work. I think that 60 minutes is my threshhold; after that I'm going somewhere nonroutine where the waypoints are not burned into my memory and progress is more difficult to gauge. I've driven from Dallas to my parents' house in southeast Texas a dozen+ times and I still find myself feeling a tad antsy when I realize I've reched the outskirts and I'm less than 20 minutes away.

In the case of road trips, at some level I _know_ that After 3-4 hours, I cannot expect to shave more than 15-20 minutes off my trip, but I feel a bit better about the time I'm making. I feel that I'm consciencous about it and that I'm a (relatively) safe driver, but exceed the posted limit by +5 I regularly do on the highway.

I have a few friends that routinely push the speed limit by 10, 15, 20 MPH. They're all impatient drivers. It's not that they don't plan ahead (they're better at time-management than I am, in fact), they just can't stand being in traffic, being stuck behind someone, etc. I'm not sure if they feel that they need to be _passing_ other cars all the time.

I have a friend that used to drive like scott.cr ... he worked in a shop that sold and installed serious performance modifications and has a 300ZX with turbos and a number of other modifications - said the car could handle 150MPH easily. He's spoken of a number of close encounters with the cops and also had a few "understanding" cops when he was pulled over a few times testing customers' cars. He nearly lost his right arm as the passenger in a friends' car when his friend lost control at some speed way over the limit. He takes it a bit easier when driving, although he rides an R6 regularly...


----------



## Planterz (Apr 30, 2006)

I can't pedal fast enough to speed.


----------



## GhostReaction (Apr 30, 2006)

Does motobike count?
I change bikes once in a while and normally hit the highway in neighbouring country to test the machine. 
The highway is normally clear and the bunch of us will take turns to try out our bikes while the rest make sure that the stretch is totally clear from vehicles and cops. 
Did 180 Miles/hour on a honda blackbird. 
I will never speed on local roads cause the highway in Singapore sucks and the highway traffic police are driving Subaru WRX :thumbsdow:
I m also a vespa fanatic and love riding my good ol classic, nice and slow.:tinfoil:


----------



## rodfran (Apr 30, 2006)

Nope. I guess my no.1 reason is the cost of automobile insurance. For myself, I can't see that going 5 mph over the limit is worth the risk of getting ticketed and running up your car insurance(that is already ridiculously high).
My no. 2 answer is that it wastes fuel.
If you want to drive really fast, go to a drag strip or legal road race track.


----------



## alaskawolf (Apr 30, 2006)

yes i speed when i can, its usually done when there is isnt traffic around or on the back roads.


last summer i got my first speeding ticket in over 12 years after i had passed two motor homes that i had been stuck behind for over 20 miles 






car i was driving at the time


----------



## jtice (Apr 30, 2006)

I am NEVER going the speed limit..... unless a cop is behind me.

Most the speed limits are simply too damn slow.
And yes, every one speeds, I think going with the flow is better than going slower to be legal,

I used to have to drive from WV to PA alot, they speed limit is 65 there, and EVERYONE would do about 80. So, I would just get in a group and keep pace.


----------



## gnef (Apr 30, 2006)

I agree, for the most part i am flowing with the faster traffic on the highways.

i don't justify - i know it is wrong. that's why i don't make a big fuss when i get a ticket. yes, it sucks, but that is a risk of speeding. as far as insurance goes though - in texas you can do defensive driving to prevent the first ticket from going on your record, and i believe if you get another one within a year, you can do 'deferred adjudication' which you basically pay significantly higher court fees to keep it from your record. if you get another one within three months of the first ticket (get three tickets within three months), then i think it goes on your record, but you can do deferred adjudication once per three months until a year after the defensive driving, and then can do defensive driving again. that is pretty confusing actually. haha. *disclaimer* - i could be wrong, so check before you get more tickts...

i think that is the way it works here. my details could be off, but i had to do deferred adjudication when i got two tickets about 9 months aftet each other. two of my tickets were in the dark when i couldn't see the cop. that's why i have a radar detector now...

i agree with the above post that to a large extent, it is impatience - i can't stand when there is someone going slow in the left lane, so when that happens, i get somewhat irritated and will more than likely speed more than i normally would have. but there is also the smile factor. when i double clutch, blip the throttle, hear the engine growl as i downshift, and then go wide open throttle and hear the turbo spin up, i can't help but smile as my back is pressed against the seat (note - i do this when there are clear stretches and it is safe to do so). the max i've done was only about 125 mph on my way to houston, the car felt extremely stable, i just became too scared of cops on I-10 to do any more. heh.


----------



## CLHC (Apr 30, 2006)

I believe everyone speeds at some point in their driving. I know I have and tend to do so quite often. And that's not good!


----------



## ikendu (Apr 30, 2006)

I used to speed. 

When I was 19, I routinely drove at 90 mph on the way home from work (speed limit was 60).

Later, I used to limit my speeding to 9 mph over the limit.

Much later, I changed to 5 mph over the limit (always on cruise control).

Now, since Katrina, President Bush asked Americans to do their part by reducing their usage of petroleum. Since then, I set the cruise control at 1 mph over the limit. Why 1? I just want to make sure I'm not driving UNDER the limit 'cause I know some patriotic American will shoot me (literally) if I travel that slowly (even though it will have been speedometer miscalibration that enraged the other driver).

I think it is pretty funny that people are complaining about the high cost of gasoline all the while they are speeding along in their vehicles that are mostly way bigger and heavier than they need to be (and yes, I recognize that some of you need large vehicles for your employment or livlihood ...but mostly, that is not the case. I know plenty of office-worker collegues with no children that are driving big, heavy SUVs). I guess we will have to see $5 gasoline before we all begin to pay attention.


----------



## gnef (Apr 30, 2006)

actually, in some cars, they get better mileage at a higher speed. i know for others who drive the same car as i have, have done informal tests, and found that they get the best mileage at around the 75-80 mph.


----------



## Brighteyez (Apr 30, 2006)

Umm... last I heard we did have a system of limited access roads just like the German Bundesautobahn, as do many other industrialized nations. In the U.S. it's called the Interstate Highway System, often referred to as 'freeways', though it does include some toll roads as well. In the UK they're referred to as 'motorways'. 

In most of Germany, outside of the large urban centers, the autobahn roads are 4 lane (2 in each direction.) Unlike many countries, the simple rule of the road is that you drive/cruise in the right lane and pass in the left lane; it's really that simple. You don't sit in the passing (left) lane, and you do extend the courtesy of moving into the right lane if the driver behind you flashes their passing light (high beam). Contrary to the misconception that there are no speed limits, there actually are often speed limits of 120km or lower through many of the towns and cities, and then the speed limit is lifted outside of those areas. The manner of driving and the somewhat better conditions of those roads do make it safe for the average driver to drive at the higher speeds. And unlike the U.S. freeway system, people can drive safely at all sorts of different speeds, whether it be at 100km (63 MPH) or 260km (161 MPH) by just exercising reasonable caution and following the rules of the road.

I do experience a bit of apprehension with regards to driving on the autobahn roads. Everytime I return to the States from Germany and get on a US interstate, it scares the hell out of me.  I feel much safer driving at 230km in Germany than I would on a US interstate driving at 112km (70MPH) just because of the driving patterns (or lack thereof) in the US.



magic79 said:


> If we had an autobaun, I'd be at 100 mph all the time.


----------



## gadget_lover (Apr 30, 2006)

Unless the car is really, really, really badly designed, the laws of physics insist that pushing through the air at 75-80 will take more energy than it takes at 55. To do a valid test requires that you drive the same cars under identical conditions for long periods of time. A racetrack comes to mind.

An "informal test" is usually pretty flawed since you don't have any controls on speed fluctuations, energy per gallon of gas nor the exact amount of gas used. You can't control the differences in wind, turbulence heat nor air density.

It's possible to use an engine that's just too large and gearing that's just wrong to end up with poor MPG at any given speed. Most manufacturers avoid such poor combinations.

I've had several dozens of cars. I've done years and years of long distance commuting. None of those cars have gotten better milage at 70 MPH than they do at 55 or 60.

MPG is just one more good reason to stay at the speed limit.
Daniel


----------



## Brighteyez (Apr 30, 2006)

You might find that with many of the cars built after the speed limit was restored to 65, that you may get better gas mileage on roads with varying terrains (hills), cruising at the peak torque speed as it minimizes downshifting (or the need to with a manual transmission.) Generally, with most of the U.S. vehicles (regardless of the brand badging) this occurs at about 70MPH if you're in the overdrive gear. Fortunately, 70MPH is also the speed limit on roads where this may work best, like on portions of I-5.  



gadget_lover said:


> I've had several dozens of cars. I've done years and years of long distance commuting. None of those cars have gotten better milage at 70 MPH than they do at 55 or 60.
> 
> MPG is just one more good reason to stay at the speed limit.
> Daniel


----------



## Brighteyez (Apr 30, 2006)

If you're over 55, consider enrolling in the AARP Mature Driver's course. It can help make you more aware of challenges that can affect the more mature driver. It also refreshes your awareness of the uncontrollable conditions (like a defensive driving class,) that may be a challenge to negotiating the roads (especially around here.) These classes are available at many community and seniors centers at a nominal cost (around $10 for the 8 hour class), and in California, the insurance companies are mandated to give you a discount (no matter how small, it will be more than what you've invested) for taking this course. You do not have to be an AARP member, and the cost is low (probably just covers materials, at best) because it's taught by volunteers. Though if you're 55, you might feel like an infant in the class, since they're usually presented during business hours.  



gadget_lover said:


> One reason I don't speed anymore is the realization that I'm not an above average driver, and neither are 50% of the people around me. I'm positive that some of them are in the bottom 10% some days.
> 
> 
> Daniel


----------



## gadget_lover (Apr 30, 2006)

Re: the autobahn and US highways.


One of the many dangers of thinking the Interstate system is suited for high speeds is the varied *on-ramp* configurations. Some are long and straight, others are curved and short. Some are right after over passes, some are right after underpasses. Only about 1/2 of the on-ramps I see are visible enough to detect merging traffic in time if I'm driving at 100 + MPH.

Take I-5 down central California for instance. The land is fairly flat for hundreds of miles with occasional gently rolling hills. The road is fenced on both sides and access is limited. If I was assured there was no other traffic I could do 100 MPH or more safely in several parts. The problem is that there are overpasses where you cant tell if there is a truck (or car) that's just pulled onto the road till you get to the peak of the overpass. By then it may be too late. There are rolling hills where you can't see more than 500 feet ahead (and less in some cases) till you hit the crest.

I believe the general rule of thumb is that you should never drive faster than you can see nor faster than you can react. If you are bombing down the road at 80 MPH, how much clear road do you need to be able to brake to a stop if the truck ahead drops a bale of hay or a 4x4 post? There are some nice formulas that tell you how long it takes to register that there is an obstruction, and how long to get yor foot on the brake pedal and so forth. It takes a surprisingly long stretch of road to react when driving fast.

One of the safety sites gives the following formula for the stopping distance *once the driver has decided to hit the brakes*. TSD (total stopping distance (in ft.))=1.1 * speed (in mph) + ( 0.06 * speed (in mph) squared)
For 80 MPH that comes out to..... (1.1 * 80) + (.06 * 80^2) = 472 feet. 

65 takes only 325 feet but at 100 MPH you need 710 feet to stop. Can you clearly see what's on the other end of two football fields? I can't.

But those figures are for after you decide to stop. Most folks need up to 2.5 seconds to realize there is a hazard and actually apply the brakes ( http://www.webs1.uidaho.edu/niatt_l...gn/professionalpractice/BrakeReactionTime.htm ) although really alert drivers can locate a hazard and decide to react in only 1 second.

What I get out of all of this: To safely drive 100 MPH on an interstate, you have to be able to see at least 800 feet down the road clearly enough to tell if the blur in the road is a stalled car, a railroad tie or a pothole. If you can take evasive action you can shorten that to about 1/2 of that. You'll still need that first 250 feet to realize it's a dead deer, then another few hundred feet to change lanes.

I don't know of anywhere around here that has 1000 feet of visibility for more than a mile or two. It's been 15 years since I drove anywhere in the SF bay area and did not have at least one car in sight at all times. 

I don't believe (my opinion) that there is a safe public road for sustained high speed driving in cental coastal Calif no matter how good you are.

Daniel


----------



## gnef (Apr 30, 2006)

i think your numbers are a bit off, or maybe your stopping distances is for 'average' vehicles. my car stops from 60-0 in a tested 114 ft (http://www.modernracer.com/subaruimprezawrxsti.html), and from 70-0 in about 160 ft (http://www.cars101.com/subaru/impreza/wrxsti2004.html#stats). i don't know about the 100-0 though, though i would assume the numbers for my car would be significantly less. i understand not everyone's cars have the brake system that my car has (brembo 4 piston in the front, 2 piston in the back), but i do think that adds to the safety of my car along with the excellent all wheel drive and handling abilities of the car.

i agree though, that generally highways won't be good enough for sustained high speed travel, but i would definitely say that there are long stretches that are safe to drive at high speeds if the car can maintain it well and safely and the driver is alert.


----------



## greenlight (Apr 30, 2006)

Speed kills....


----------



## thesurefire (Apr 30, 2006)

greenlight said:


> Speed kills....



So does meth and crack 

I tend to drive with the flow. If theres no one around I try to drive 3ish over the speed limit.


----------



## PhotonWrangler (Apr 30, 2006)

I tend to follow the flow of traffic also - unless the flow is insane, as in lots of people trying to get to the stadium before the game or concert starts. I have no desire to wrap myself around a tree.

Oh, I've broken the speed limit by a significant amount during a few emergencies, such as when my father was in the hospital, only a few hours away from his final moments.
In cases like that I'll drive as carefully and quickly as I can while trying to strike a good balance.

I do take special note of school zones and try to stay within the limits whenever I find myself passing through one while school is in session.


----------



## Brighteyez (Apr 30, 2006)

You'll encounter the same onramps and off-ramps on the autobahns as well as cloverleaf patterns in the urban areas and highway intersections. Common sense would dictate that a driver would use a reasonable speed when negotiating these.

There's are stretches on I-5 north of the Grapevine where speeds in excess of 100 MPH often do occur. Exercising reasonable caution for visability and awareness of road and weather conditions is essential.

Aside from the speed limits, common sense is not only common sense but also the law, as outlined in the Basic Speed Law (22350 CVC)
"No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property." Which would include driving at speeds below the speed limit if the road and weather conditions (or your driving abilities) deem it unsafe to do so. And for those who are not aware, a conviction for Reckless Driving (CVC 23103/23104) will have a similar impact on one's insurance as a conviction for DUI (CVC 23152)

High driving speeds are generally only attained for short periods of driving regardless of where you are. No one cruises at the 100+ mph speeds for any length of time on the autobahn roads either. The average travelling speeds for sustained driving in the remote sections would not really differ from what you might encounter on I-5 outside of the urban areas, around 75 to 80 MPH



gadget_lover said:


> Re: the autobahn and US highways.
> 
> 
> One of the many dangers of thinking the Interstate system is suited for high speeds is the varied *on-ramp* configurations.
> ...


----------



## Brighteyez (Apr 30, 2006)

Around here in such a scenario, the flow of traffic for all vehicles is generally limited and controlled by the number of vehicles around you (usually evidenced by the number of pedestrians passing you as they walk to the venue.  )



PhotonWrangler said:


> I tend to follow the flow of traffic also - unless the flow is insane, as in lots of people trying to get to the stadium before the game or concert starts.


----------



## gadget_lover (Apr 30, 2006)

Good one Brighteyez *LOL* 


My wife and I were stuck in a traffic jam on 405 in LA one weekend. We were 4 hours into what should be a 7 hour trip from San Diego to SF area. As we crawled along a pedestrian calmly walked by with a gas can, dissapearing into the distance.

I wonder if they include rush hour in the 'average speed' statistics?

Daniel


----------



## Brighteyez (Apr 30, 2006)

"Rush Hour" traffic as we know it, is pretty much the norm on the 405 during most of the daylight hours and a good portion of the night. It can be (or at least seem like it) the portion of road that makes for the majority of the travel time between the Bay Area and LA. It takes less than 5 hours (with breaks) to get to the San Fernando Valley, and it seems to take almost as long to get from the Valley to any point on the southwest side of LA, even with the HOV lane!  



gadget_lover said:


> Good one Brighteyez *LOL*
> 
> 
> My wife and I were stuck in a traffic jam on 405 in LA one weekend. We were 4 hours into what should be a 7 hour trip from San Diego to SF area. As we crawled along a pedestrian calmly walked by with a gas can, dissapearing into the distance.
> ...


----------



## LowBat (Apr 30, 2006)

On a highway with light traffic and clear weather I tend to drive about 5 mph over the limit and cruise comfortably at 70. If traffic is moderate or weather conditions are a factor I'll be at or under the limit.


----------



## ikendu (Apr 30, 2006)

When President Carter lowered the national speed limit to 55 to save energy, there were all sorts of people (and many truckers) that would swear their vehicles were designed to get the best mileage at 70 mph.

Sorry folks, it just ain't so.

Anyone that understands wind resistance will tell you that the laws of physics dictate that higher speeds mean lower mileage.


----------



## metalhed (Apr 30, 2006)

I think there's another factor to excessive driving speed that's being ignored...physics.

The faster you make a body go, the more energy it has. If and when it collides with something else, be it another car, a pedestrian, a head of cattle or a bridge abuttment, it must release that energy. 

Two cars hitting head on at 50 is bad enough, but at 100? You're dead. Period.

And lets forget for a moment the driver, who in a perfect world could harm no one but him or herself. What about the other poor slob? What about the pedestrian who's hit by flying debris? Debris that probably wouldn't even reach them if the vehicles were traveling at a lower speed.

No, the notion that one fully accepts responsibility for excessive speeding by paying a traffic ticket or higher insurance premiums is not logical, IMHO, in view of the fact that there may be ramifications from your behaviour (like an accident) that you can't rectify with money.


BTW, I'm talking about high speed drivers here, not the occasional couple of mph over (or even 'going with the flow'.) I'm guilty of that...I don't like it, but I'll admit to it.


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Apr 30, 2006)

The Freeway system around Houston has some perfect examples of "EFFed up" on-ramps!

On three or more lane stretches I'll be at least one lane over from the right.

But that ain't NOTHING! On country roads you can top a hill and find a slow vehicle, even tractors. And when Ma Kettle slows to turn into a driveway we often come to a complete stop. ARGH!

But I've said it before and I say it again. I RARELY go over 65, even where the road is long, visibiliy great etc. I'll stay out of the left lane as much as I possibly can, even slowing down to 55 to let a bunch of fast traffic by when a short blast up to 80ish would make my trip shorter.

My truck gets the best mileage at 55. It's still peachy at 60. But 65 is the speed where I don't loose too much "smash" going downhill to need a lot of throttle to go up the next one.

Aerodynamics mean more to my truck then loaded or towed weight. But empty or nearly so at 65 on level road will get me over 21mpg. And that beats a speeding ticket or a poke in the eye by a long shot!


----------



## gnef (Apr 30, 2006)

metalhed, i think you are forgetting that anyone can get into an accident... even people going the speed limit... and they can get into fatal accidents as well. by your argument, we should not drive at all, and just walk with huge bumpers around us to prevent us from hurting each other... any accident is dangerous regardless of the speed. and regardless of the speed, if you kill someone else in an accident, you will feel bad, i think it's called survivor's remorse, but i could be wrong.

this whole time, i have not been trying to justify my actions, merely telling the way things are. we understand the ramifications of speeding and of driving in general, and aren't going to feel more guilty about it... at least i won't.

i believe that if you are an observant and alert driver, then speeding should not be a problem. this doesn't mean you speed all the time or recklessly, because that wouldn't be observant of the road conditions including weather, time of day, visibility, other drivers around. when i drive, i observe as much as i can, everything i just listed. i believe i can speed safer than many can drive the speed limit. believe me, i've seen too many unobservant drivers, and when i am around them, i feel very nervous. that's one reason i speed - to get in front of anyone i feel can be a danger in front of me on the road, if they are behind me, they can't really cause me any problems. if they are in front...

also, if you are observant, that helps alleviate tickets except for the best speed traps - that's where the radar detector comes in handy.

yes, i speed, i am guilty of that.

i'm tired of being forced to justify my speeding... i don't think that was the original intent of this thread.


----------



## metalhed (Apr 30, 2006)

gnef -- I'm sorry, I didn't mean my comments to make you defensive about your driving style. You don't really have to justify your actions to anyone but yourself (or, if you're like me, yourself and your wife  )


My point about the physics of speed wasn't meant to indict all risky activities, but instead to point out that speed increases the possible destructive force of an accident, on top of making the likelihood of such an accident greater (as gadget_lover pointed out earlier.) And I suppose my real problem might not be with some of the more capable drivers here, but instead with the multi-tasking grandfather who just bought a Ferrari to prove to himself he's still 'with it'. But the problem is, when I see somebody approaching fast in my rear view mirror, I don't know if it's 'Gramps', or one of you guys. And you wonder why it bugs me...


I guess I just have some jealousy regarding speeders, as I don't have the deep pockets nor the taste for speed, to be able to justify speeding myself.


----------



## idleprocess (Apr 30, 2006)

gnef said:


> actually, in some cars, they get better mileage at a higher speed. i know for others who drive the same car as i have, have done informal tests, and found that they get the best mileage at around the 75-80 mph.



All engines have efficiency sweet spots, and ignoring wind resistance, grade, traction conditions, mass, etc, you would be most efficient at a given RPM in the highest gear ... which might calculate out to be 75 MPH for a given vehicle. Throw in all other factors, and your most efficient speed probably ends up being the lowest RPMs in your highest gear so long as the engine isn't lugging.

At highway speeds, wind resistance is _the_ major factor. I seem to remember that wind resistance losses are equal to your velocity squared or some nonlinear relationship. What's trivial at 20-30MPH on a residential street is signifigant at 60MPH on the highway and downright punishing at 90MPH.


----------



## gadget_lover (May 1, 2006)

I used to think it was OK to speed when I was the only car on the road. I figured that I was a safer than average driver, especially when driving to work at 4 AM. Yes, I was a habitual speeder when I was young. My bubble burst when a cop pulled me over for doing 52 in a 35 zone. I tried to explain that I was doing nothing wrong, and that I was the only motorcycle on the road, so I was inherently safe. 


"You're not alone. I'm here too." was all he said as he went back to writing the ticket.

In the decades since then I've realized that I can't ever garantee that I'll be the only one on the road. 

Daniel


----------



## jhereg (May 1, 2006)

gadget_lover said:


> A lot of people justify their speeding by stating that everyone speeds. There are a lot of other claims that go with it. I guess it's only fair to ask the question....
> 
> Do you habitually (and deliberatly) speed? Do you think everyone does?
> 
> Daniel



I know that not everyone speeds, but I think most people a little. I run 3 - 4 MPH over the posted limit almost all of the time. One reason is to get where I'm going slightly faster. The other reason is that I've found I am less likely to be pulled over if I am doing 3 over than if I was doing 3 under or exactly the speed limit. The speed I choose seems to be less suspicious. I've had LEOs tell me the same thing, and since it agrees with my experience I set my cruise control & drive.


----------



## Silviron (May 1, 2006)

In my younger days, I used to brag that I spent more time over 100 MPH than under... Kind of a fib, but not by as much as most people would think. But I was a pretty notorious speeder; did a lot of illegal street and road racing.

Nowdays I don't often go over the speed limit unless there is a really good reason to do so.

I now find taking my time to be quite pleasurable. About the only time I get to really relax and think or just mellow out is on a long road trip. Enjoying the view beats the adrenaline rush of REAL speed, at least for a lot of us old guys.


----------



## WNG (May 1, 2006)

I speed. Depending on the road and weather conditions, traffic, vehicle, and distance to destination.
I use a V-1 too lessen my odds of receiving a speeding ticket. Also keep a watchful eye for police cruisers.

I often must drive 4-6 hr. trips on highways that are usually low on traffic.
Therefore, I cruise at 70-85mph in a 65mph limit zone.
I'm usually 10mph over on B-roads.
And drive at the limit on streets. 
I don't usually speed when I have passengers in my car, maybe 5mph over the posted limit.

I was caught speeding while coasting down a hill commuting to work, over 20 years ago. A county mounty was hiding in a driveway radar clocked me at 57mph in a 45mph rural 2-lane highway at 11:30pm. The only thing I was a danger to, were raccoons darting across the road.
I just started work in the area and wasn't aware that spot was a favorite speed trap due to us workers changing shifts.
Fortunately, I never had to pay that ticket. So, never been convicted yet.

Speed limits and their enforcement can be and has become hypocritical in most areas. They use it to fill their municipal treasury with our ever-shrinking income, instead of preventing real crime. That wouldn't be cost effective.

I also have a clean driving record for the past 20 years.
One needs to use common sense, know oneself's and their car's limits, and determine if the speeding is warranted, before driving over the posted limit.
On a desolate highway, sure, on a street, never.


----------



## JimH (May 1, 2006)

What exactly do you mean by "speed"? Do you mean going faster than is posted on those recommended guideline signs on the side of the road? 

I think everyone speeds at some point or another. I personally feel safer on the road with people who speed all the time, as apposed to those who only speed when they are in a hurry. 

People who speed all the time (me) usually speed just for the sake of speeding. People who speed only when they are in a hurry are the really dangerous ones. Just by the fact that they are in a hurry means they are already distracted (by what made them be in a hurry in the first place) and not paying full attention to their driving. Second, because they are speeding only because they are in a hurry means they are not comfortable speeding, and this is causing them additional stress.

Unknown to most people is that there are actually laws on the books in many places that allow you to be given a ticket for going the speed limit, and I'm not talking about the "too fast for conditions" laws. If, say the speed limit is 55, but the normal flow of traffic is 65 or higher, and you are doing 55, you could be given a ticket for impeding the flow of traffic and creating a traffic hazard.


----------



## Brighteyez (May 1, 2006)

Could you be a bit more specific? It doesn't sound quite right that you can be cited for failing to exceed the prima facie speed limit.

It sounds a little bit like you're trying to reference 22400 CVC, but that's not exactly how that portion of the Vehicle Code is used for enforcement. And while 22400 is often referred to by some as the Minimum Speed Law, that's not really what it is and there is nothing in the wording of that section that would make that appplicable.



JimH said:


> Unknown to most people is that there are actually laws on the books in many places that allow you to be given a ticket for going the speed limit, and I'm not talking about the "too fast for conditions" laws. If, say the speed limit is 55, but the normal flow of traffic is 65 or higher, and you are doing 55, you could be given a ticket for impeding the flow of traffic and creating a traffic hazard.


----------



## greenLED (May 1, 2006)

JimH said:


> People who speed all the time (me) usually speed just for the sake of speeding.


That explains it! I still have nightmares from the rides at Vegas. :nana: (just kidding)



JimH said:


> Unknown to most people is that there are actually laws on the books in many places that allow you to be given a ticket for going the speed limit, and I'm not talking about the "too fast for conditions" laws. If, say the speed limit is 55, but the normal flow of traffic is 65 or higher, and you are doing 55, you could be given a ticket for impeding the flow of traffic and creating a traffic hazard.


That's true where I live, but it depends on the driving conditions. It would make sense to have a minimum speed limit as well (which is posted in some highways, now that I think about it).


----------



## Brighteyez (May 1, 2006)

I seem to remember that Florida had minimum speed limits posted on many of their interstates.



greenLED said:


> It would make sense to have a minimum speed limit as well (which is posted in some highways, now that I think about it).


----------



## winny (May 1, 2006)

JimH said:


> People who speed all the time (me) usually speed just for the sake of speeding.



+1 on that. If someone in his/her office thought he/she could decide what speed I should be running at better than me, I have to go at least 91+ km/h when the limit is 90 km/h. Although I do speed, that was a joke on all motorists cost because most of us thinks we can driver better than the rest.  

I do respect lower speed limits though because being hit by a car at even 20 km/h will injury someone more than enough so I want to have the margins on my side. If a moose jumps out on the road (happens quite often here) when I'm going 100 km/h on a 90 km/h road, I would be killed either way so I might just as well minimize the time spent on the road...


----------



## JimH (May 1, 2006)

Brighteyez said:


> Could you be a bit more specific?


Georgia vehicle code
*
California vehicle code

*22400. (a) No person shall drive upon a highway at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, unless the reduced speed is necessary for safe operation, because of a grade, or in compliance with law.

21654. (a) Notwithstanding the prima facie speed limits, any vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall be driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

21753. Except when passing on the right is permitted, the driver of an overtaken vehicle shall safely move to the right-hand side of the highway in favor of the overtaking vehicle after an audible signal or a momentary flash of headlights by the overtaking vehicle, and shall not increase the speed of his or her vehicle until completely passed by the overtaking vehicle. This section does not require the driver of an overtaken vehicle to drive on the shoulder of the highway in order to allow the overtaking vehicle to pass.


Utah court case

StatesmanJournal 
Excerpt: 
*Salem, OR:* My friend claims she got a ticket for impeding the flow of traffic because she was going the speed limit in the far left lane of I-5. Is this really possible? Thanks. 

*Officer Mitch Mason:* All violation citations are issued at the discretion of the officer. The definition for "Impeding Traffic" is, driving in a manner which impedes or blocks the normal movement of traffic.

Colorado Law - point by point arguments and commentary


----------



## greenLED (May 1, 2006)

JimH said:


> Salem, OR: My friend claims she got a ticket for impeding the flow of traffic because she was going the speed limit in the far left lane of I-5. Is this really possible? Thanks.


Isn't the rule "if you're going slower than others keep to the right"? I can see how she was impending flow of traffic. I actually have seen people doing 50 on the left lane of I-5 (at least the section of it I drive on). In a stretch where it seems nobody does less than 68MPH, I can see how a slow moving vehicle on the left lane can be a problem. Not that I condone people driving at 85, though...


----------



## magic79 (May 1, 2006)

JimH said:


> *Salem, OR:* My friend claims she got a ticket for impeding the flow of traffic because she was going the speed limit in the far left lane of I-5. Is this really possible? Thanks.
> 
> *Officer Mitch Mason:* All violation citations are issued at the discretion of the officer. The definition for "Impeding Traffic" is, driving in a manner which impedes or blocks the normal movement of traffic.


 
When I lived in California, a woman ahead of me at traffic court had received a ticket for this. She said "I was doing 55! Those other cars were trying to speed." The judge said "Let me see your badge! You're not a cop and the law says slower traffic keep right." 

I wish they'd give more in Oregon and Washington. Not only do they run below the speed limit in the left lane on I-5, but they usually are pacing the car in the right, creating huge (and dangerous) traffic bottlenecks. Last week, I was following a car going 70 (in a 65 zone), but when he would pass a truck, he'd suddenly slow to 60, almost creating two accidents that I saw.


----------



## Donovan (May 1, 2006)

magic79 said:


> When I lived in California, a woman ahead of me at traffic court had received a ticket for this. She said "I was doing 55! Those other cars were trying to speed." The judge said "Let me see your badge! You're not a cop and the law says slower traffic keep right."
> 
> I wish they'd give more in Oregon and Washington. Not only do they run below the speed limit in the left lane on I-5, but they usually are pacing the car in the right, creating huge (and dangerous) traffic bottlenecks. Last week, I was following a car going 70 (in a 65 zone), but when he would pass a truck, he'd suddenly slow to 60, almost creating two accidents that I saw.


AMEN!!!!

I say ticket everyone who drives slow in the left lane!


----------



## Brighteyez (May 1, 2006)

Yup those would be the ones. The applicable sections would be 22400 and 21654. And I don't doubt that citations have been issued exactly as some of the web stories describe. Not being there, it would be difficult for anyone to have the whole story, but my best guess would be that the driver used the same argument that they used in court about driving at the speed limit; otherwise they probably would have just been told to move over to the right or that they should keep to the right when driving at a lower rate of speed. Seems that the best way to seal one's fate is to give the officer an argument or try to engage them into a legal debate, regardless of how well you think you know the law (that includes lawyers.) Unless it was something terribly blatent, like someone driving 45 MPH in Lane 1 on I-5 and staying in that lane for many miles, impeding traffic, until the CHP pulled them over.

If someone were to be travelling at 70MPH on I-5 in Lane 1, my guess would be that they would more likely be admonished for failing to yield (the 21753 section that you cited), rather than cited. As being cited would be all but an encouragement/inducement for a driver whose skills may already be challenged to drive even faster, increasing the potential that someone will eventually be harmed. 

And I've yet to see anyone around here being pulled over for going 65 in the HOV lane or Lane 2 (or Lane 1 w/o HOV). Much as it would seem criminal to impede traffic in that manner (and more so if I'm behind them,  ) but then it is a discretionary citation. And I could probably come up with more arguments than most for not going beyond 65 in the HOV even if one could, just because of the merging traffic.



JimH said:


> California vehicle code
> 
> [/b]22400. (a) No person shall drive upon a highway at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, unless the reduced speed is necessary for safe operation, because of a grade, or in compliance with law.
> 
> ...


----------



## gadget_lover (May 1, 2006)

I went looking for the california code, and know what I found?

First was that passing is allowed on the right on multi lane roads, so on freeways section 21753 (get out of the way) does not really matter since one can almost always pass on the right.

Second, The section 21654 (slow traffic stay right) is obviously written with very slow moving traffic (and probably single lane roads) in mind, since it also says you should hug the shoulder. Now why would the law suggest that anyone not doing 70 should all be in the right hand lane hugging the shoulder? That would leave the center lane un-occupied since the speeders are "passing" the slower and should therefor be only in the left lane.

Somewhere, I saw that (in California) you are no longer allowed to flash your lights at the car ahead of you. I think it went into effect this year. I'll have to find it again, but haven't found it yet.

Of course, the intent of the law makes little difference if you get a ticket. You still have to waste time and money fighting it, with no assurance that the judge will interpret the law your way.

Daniel


----------



## metalhed (May 2, 2006)

The way I see it, if I am going the maximum legal speed on a multi-lane highway, and someone comes up on me at a high rate of speed and expects me to yield, they can forget it. Fine or no fine...I don't care.

I'll sit in front of them for as long as I like, since I have no intention of aiding and abetting the commission of a motor vehicle infraction. The fact is, in no other situation in life would I be expected to yield my 'space in line', so to speak.

Do you suppose, when I'm in line at the bank and some one else is really in a hurry and cuts in front of me, that I'm not going to call them out? I don't see speeding as any different, and it gets the same reaction from me...hostility.

I'm sorry, but by the legal logic expressed here, I should hold the door for the bank robber when he leaves the bank too...after all, I wouldn't want to illegally obstruct someone's travels, dont ya' know. :laughing:


----------



## gnef (May 2, 2006)

haha. this is quickly degenerating into what happened in the MPG thread. i think speeders were being compared to muggers and something else extreme... and i just can't buy that logic either. the hyperbole is just too extreme.

i would say if you are doing the speed limit in the rightmost lanes, then you are correct and shouldn't have to yield. BUT - if you are talking about being in the left passing lane, then i have issue with that. it is called a passing lane for a reason, and your hostility turns into other people's hostility, and that creates an unsafe driving environment, not just for you and the other driver that you just made disgruntled, but also the other drivers on the road that may be collateral damage if anything were to happen.

sometimes i don't speed, and i'll be in the middle lane of three lanes. if i see someone coming up quickly, i usually go into the right lane to let them pass even though i am in the middle lane. i would just rather not make other people mad on the road, it just isn't smart. i do this especially for semi's - they shouldn't be speeding, yes, but they do a lot for us that we don't see, i say if they need to get somewhere fast, i should let them do that, their job is tiring enough without having to worry about people in their way... but that's just me.

maybe i am a heretic. haha. i don't speed all the time, and i'm sure most of the people here speaking about speeding are the same. just because it is habitual doesn't mean it is a guarantee.

i would say that if i am in line... lets say for the bathroom, and some guy is running towards the line holding his crotch with pain contorted on his face, i think i would let him cut in front of me. i don't think many of us would just point to the end of the line and say 'suckkkaaaaaaa'. at least i wouldn't (maybe i would for a second as a joke... but then i would let him in line).

you could also compare it to the emergency room and waiting. most people have to wait a long time to see a doctor. lets say you've been waiting for 8 hours, and you are up next, but then an emergency comes in with gunshot wounds and bleeding profusely. would you seriously stand in the way of the door and demand that you be next? i don't think so...

see how the analogies can go both ways... that's mostly why i don't like to use analogies. people can make analogies fit however they like...


----------



## JimH (May 2, 2006)

metalhed said:


> The way I see it, if I am going the maximum legal speed on a multi-lane highway, and someone comes up on me at a high rate of speed and expects me to yield, they can forget it. Fine or no fine...I don't care.
> 
> I'll sit in front of them for as long as I like,


With an attitude like that, and all the road rage that is prevalent these days, your reign of speed limit vigilantism, and your life, could be short lived. I know way too many people who are more than willing to put you in grave harm's way. Be careful what you ask for, you're just liable to get it in the form of a bullet or being run off the road by a vehicle much larger than yours.

I'm not saying that's my opinion, but just a word to the wise. We'd hate to be having a raffle to cover your funeral expenses.


----------



## gnef (May 2, 2006)

i looked through the mpg thread, and found the post that i was referring to about the analogies: speeders were compared to muggers and drunkards, and also found out that the writer was none other than the OP... who also declared that he would not post again about 'interfering with speeders' for at least a month or two... 

heh. it appears this thread was started with pre-judgement in mind already... so i suppose the attacks on speeders was warranted, and we are supposed to justify to gadget lover why we speed are are considered in his eyes to be the mugger and drunk driver (from the other thread)... as well as the apparent bank robber (from metalhed)... perhaps terrorists next?


----------



## yellow1 (May 2, 2006)

metalhed said:


> The way I see it, if I am going the maximum legal speed on a multi-lane highway, and someone comes up on me at a high rate of speed and expects me to yield, they can forget it. Fine or no fine...I don't care.
> 
> I'll sit in front of them for as long as I like, since I have no intention of aiding and abetting the commission of a motor vehicle infraction. The fact is, in no other situation in life would I be expected to yield my 'space in line', so to speak.



i've held out as long as i can. but please. if you're insisting about being righteous about this... think about it this way. if you're driving at the "legal" speed limit, in the #1 lane of a multi lane highway, and a speeder comes up behind you, do you think that your single car will stop them from speeding? NO! the guy (or girl) will simply go around you, and more often than not, cut others off, while passing you. 

is it so important for you to prove your point? it's not like moving to the side is going to impede your progress. in the future PLEASE MOVE ASIDE. as you're not just endangering yourself, but possibly me, and other travellers behind you.

unless you're an on-duty police officer, PLEASE LET THOSE WHO HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO HANDLE THESE LEGAL MATTERS DO THEIR JOB. conversely, you can perform a citizen's complaint, and still let the authorities do their job.

and no, i don't speed. i drive with the flow of traffic. when that flow happens to be above my comfort zone, i move to the right.


----------



## raggie33 (May 2, 2006)

i dont drive any more but i drove pretty fast when i did id say i never ever had a person behind me.i sure liked to drive i feel so happy when i drive and listen to tunes man i sure used to get lost lol.i have no sence a direction


----------



## gadget_lover (May 2, 2006)

FIrst, I'm pretty sure that I've NOT lambasted those that prefer to speed. I've pointed out why I don't, and I've point out what I think are a few logic errors.

I still find it strange that people post messages that indicate that a persone driving leagally is somehow at fault if they impede someone who is deficient in self control and respect for society's laws. There are repeated posts that legal drivers are "causing dangerous conditions" by failing to speed or yield to those that do. One test to determine if something is a true 'cause' is to ask yourself what happens if you remove that element. Do people still pass recklessly? Do they stay in a nice, orderly single file with proper spacing or do they still tailgate and still weave through traffic as they see fit.

I posted this thread because so many folks were posting "everyone speeds" and suggesting that you can;t drive without speeding. Now we know that many of us don't speed. Without a radar gun and the time to tour the US it's hard to quantify it any better.

Yes, I was hoping that some of the younger folks who believe that every one speeds would take a closer look for themselves. Good habits established when young stick better.

Daniel


----------



## gnef (May 2, 2006)

First, please get off your self-righteous soapbox tirade.

you may not have 'lambasted' speeders (you again speak in hyperbole...), but you have compared them to muggers and drunkards, which to me that comparison/analogy is a logic error and way too extreme...

and you make a lot of assumptions about speeders. we are not necessarily deficient in self-control, but then i suppose that is your personal view that is presented as fact...

speeding is not a 'cause' that we are rioting for... it is merely something we do. and from what i have read, something that most of us have posted on as doing with regard to environmental concerns (inclement weather), number of other drivers on the road, visibility, road conditions, etc. that to me is representative of self-control... but again, maybe that is just me...

just because you are following the letter of the law doesn't necessarily negate you from ethical and moral considerations. ignorance of the consequences of your actions on other drivers or disregard for the same consequences just isn't safe. if you want to make someone mad on the road, then go for it... but as for me with tons of steel flying at at least 55 or 65 (if you are not speeding) that is pretty dangerous to play around with, and even more dangerous if you are ‘playing’ with a speeder…

again, people have posted about people being ticketed that were driving un-safely while going the speed limit... it isn't just our opinions, it is also in some laws, and is also part of common courtesy on the road. we don't all have a prius trying to get the most MPG on the highway in the left lane with no regard to other drivers... we all SHARE the road, and if you want to be able to make it to your destination safely, then please respect and have common courtesy for other drivers on the road, please don't enrage them. that is just simply not a safe situation. maybe if you took your eyes off your real-time MPG readout and observed the traffic around you, you would be able to see your affect and effect on traffic and drivers around you. (and yes, i am speaking in slight analogy, but may not be too much of a stretch for you...)

the entire time i have been posting about this subject, my goal was not to justify speeding. people speed on the roads. that is just a fact. now if we can interact with the speeders in a safe way, i think that would be a beneficial situation. if we are dead set in our ways, that makes for once again, an inherently unsafe situation.

i feel like i am beating a dead horse. or maybe people are just that stubborn and set in their ways of enraging other (drivers).


----------



## raggie33 (May 2, 2006)

hey come on guys quit fighting.just cause ya dont agree with someone it dont mean there wrong or ya are right hect i acccpt im wrong most of the time so please quit fighting .ok? gives everyone a non gay hug


----------



## gnef (May 2, 2006)

my primary concern is not about being 'right' or 'wrong' (it may be a secondary concern though... heh.)

my primary concern is for safety. and from the responses i have been reading about people stubbornly staying relatively slow in the left lane, etc. i feel that they are not safe drivers. i feel compelled to let them know that. i already 'let them win' in the other MPG thread since that was not the aim of that thread, but i do feel it is more suited here, and reading their responses has only increased my nervousness of meeting them someday on the road, or other people like them. i feel if they can realize that their actions influence others, and to have their future actions show this cognisance of the consequences of their behavior, then i feel continuing this dialogue is worth it, even if it seems repetitive.

edit - i do appreciate your thought in regards to making peace though. i have tried to be as civil as i can be.


----------



## gadget_lover (May 2, 2006)

Gnef, I hope you don't take this negatively, but you really need to try reading the posts as if they were not attacking you. Almost all of them take on a different meaning if you don't presume that they are meant to goad or provoke ire.

On the positive side, when you "meet" us someday on the road you'll find it very disapointing. We are the ones who just poke along predictably, making it real easy to judge when you pass us. We don't swerve from lane to lane, and since that's when most accidents happen (lane changes) you should be able to pass us safely. We don't flip you off and some of us even smile at others as we drive. Nothing to be worried about, that's for sure. 

As for lack of self control, I'm pretty sure that it's gnef who has stated multiple times that if I'm not going fast enough to suit you that it will make you so frustrated that you will perform unsafe acts in order to pass. Jim went so far as to say one might get shot! If that's not lack of self control I'm not sure what is.

When push comes to shove, it's really easy to avoid having an accident when everyone follows the same rules. Traffic becomes predictable, the movements almost a ballet. 

Daniel


----------



## gnef (May 2, 2006)

as far as self-control: using your words, i feel that you are goading and provoking other drivers since they are speeding, seems like you almost want them to do something 'bad'.

and yes, if everyone didn't speed and followed all of the laws, that would be nice and ideal. but realistically speaking, that is not really what happens, and to be dead set on the ideal makes you blind in some ways to what is actually happening in life - you may not be able to accept reality for what it really is. people speed. learn how to drive safely with speeders.

what if the 'same rules' that we use are common courtesy? if i am in the left or middle lane (of three lanes or more) and i see someone coming up fairly quickly in my rearview, i change lanes if i can (i usually can, but there are sometimes when there are too many cars). the impression i am getting from some of you is that you will routinely stay in your lane (even if it is the left, or passing lane) regardless of the other vehicles on the road. my concern is for safety. if you are in the right lane, or single lane with no shoulder, and the person is still riding your rear bumper, then i would have to agree with you about the lack of self-control. but i take that to be the exception, not the norm. i think you'll also find speeders to be polite and courteous if you are polite and courteous to them as well. when i am speeding along in the left lane and people change lanes when i am coming up on them, i actually say 'thank you' in my mind. i don't really want to do anything more - if i were to wave, they might take that as offensive, or if i were to blink my brights or something... so i don't actually do anything. that is a much better response than if they were to intentionally block me, or ignorantly block me. that would just make me frustrated at why there are such unobservant or stubborn drivers who only see themselves on the road...

how am i supposed to not take the posts as attacking when they say: 'how do you justify...' so then i feel compelled to justify even if i don't desire to... granted, your last post has a much more uplifted tone than the previous posts, and some of metalhed's posts are civil, but some are downright asking for a heated response.


----------



## ikendu (May 2, 2006)

Today, I see a lot of Americans on the news saying that immigrants should come here legally. I wonder how many of those that are stressing the importance of the "rule of law" routinely speed?

Is it OK to break laws we find inconvenient?


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (May 2, 2006)

I drive with fuel economy as my main goal. I don't do anything "about" those that speed by me except say "Idiot!"

In this day at this time with gas near or over 3 bucks, why not conserve it as much as possible? It just doesn't make any sense!

If you ever come up on me, it'll be in the right lane if two or center if three. It won't be MY problem if you can't boogy on.

As I have said, I'll be in the left lane going slower than many people like at two places. Coming into Shepherd I will be at 55 in a 55 zone for half a mile or so to turn left. And coming into my neighborhood where I'll be doing 60 or 65 in a 70 zone for a short time until my left turn. Yesterday I even slowed down further in the right until a truck got passed me just before my left.

I don't try to "F" with you. So don't "F" with me. Kapesh?


----------



## gadget_lover (May 3, 2006)

gnef said:


> how am i supposed to not take the posts as attacking when they say: 'how do you justify...'



It's kind of easy. Start by assuming that the query is conversational, as in the following exchange between friends....

I justify an extra scoop of ice cream because I need calcium. How do you justify an extra scoop? (listening) ... Oh, that's an interesting idea!


When I talk to folks, I try to always find the interpretation that puts them in the best light. It does not always work, but usually you find that folks don't want confrontation nor do they want to insult anyone. The same works for posts.

As I said in other posts.... there's a big difference between people trying to impede your progress and people who are indifferent to you. You should never get mad about people who don't intentionally harm you. It just wrecks your day and they never even know it.


Daniel

I


----------



## gnef (May 3, 2006)

haha.............

i hope your last line was facetious.

but hey, what you stated in the majority of your post, i agree with. as long as you are safe and observant of other drivers and don't intentionally attempt to enrage them, that's all i want to hear.

i said it before, i have complete respect for those drivers that drive slowly in the leftmost lanes. in fact, i am one of those people sometimes. regardless of where i am driving though, i try to stay as alert and observant as i can in order to be as safe as i can, whether it be speeding or not.

my priorities when driving are quite simple:
1) get to destination safely
2) have fun if i can safely

i am one of those guys that cares a lot about his car, and if i already dislike paint swirls, then i would definitely dislike getting into an accident. that is why i am careful regardless if i speed or not. i also try to stay as safe as i can.


----------



## gnef (May 3, 2006)

gadget_lover said:


> It's kind of easy. Start by assuming that the query is conversational, as in the following exchange between friends....
> 
> I justify an extra scoop of ice cream because I need calcium. How do you justify an extra scoop? (listening) ... Oh, that's an interesting idea!



i appreciate you trying to use more positive analogies when describing your side... but again, there is a flaw in your analogy. you are assuming no preformed opinions on the side of the person asking, with no prejudgement in mind. whereas with the quote below:



gadget_lover said:


> I posted this thread because so many folks were posting "everyone speeds" and suggesting that you can;t drive without speeding. Now we know that many of us don't speed. Without a radar gun and the time to tour the US it's hard to quantify it any better.
> 
> Yes, I was hoping that some of the younger folks who believe that every one speeds would take a closer look for themselves. Good habits established when young stick better.



you already had an end goal in mind, and tried to form this thread around your unspoken (until later posts...) goals for this thread. i don't quite think that is the same as asking why someone eats ice cream... maybe the question would be more similar to your question in this thread if it was worded: "justify why you eat that fatty fat fat ice cream?" *while thinking they are fat, and want them to realize they are fat, and for the people around you to realize that ice cream makes you fat*

<disclaimer> i have nothing against overweight people or ice cream. i personally like vanilla. :]

also, my previous post with the 'haha....' was directed at PlayboyJoeShmoe. apparently i am a slow typist. heh.


----------



## gadget_lover (May 3, 2006)

One of the BEST uses for a forum is to evoke thought. I'd say that's pretty good goal.

The only person who can read MY mind and tell me what MY motivations are is my wife. She seems to have special dispensation. Everyone else can only guess, and guesses are not often valid in this area.

Just for GNEF; you don't seem to have a mindset that allows you to read my posts in the way they are meant, so it's probably better if you just add me to your ignore list, OK? I'd hate to continue being an unintentional irritant.

Daniel


----------



## gnef (May 3, 2006)

if the implication was that i was trying to read your mind... i'm not. i'm reading your posts. i am also quoting your own words. it seems you don't like that so much when it is evidence of your written contradictions and logical fallacies... same as in the other thread.

good day.


----------



## JimH (May 3, 2006)

Daniel, as much as I consider you a good friend, I'm afraid I have to the go the other way on this one.

If I had the time I would have chimed in much more than I did on this thread. However, whenever I checked in on this thread, I felt that gnef was doing a yeoman's job of standing up for the spirit and letter of the law, not to mention sticking up for common sense, good judgement.

Gnef, keep up the good fight. There are more of us than you can imagine that are in your court, especially the many that hardly ever speed, but just use common coutesy on the road.


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (May 3, 2006)

Oh DARN!

While doing 65 in a 65 and passing a car doing 60ish I held up 4 people in more of a hurry than me for almost 30 seconds!

In my defense, the leader of the pack was a bright yellow truck that was pretty far back when I came over to the left.

Oh I feel so awful.... NOT!

I'll do my best, but not to the exclustion of everything....


----------



## JimH (May 3, 2006)

PlayboyJoeShmoe said:


> Oh DARN!
> 
> While doing 65 in a 65 and passing a car doing 60ish I held up 4 people in more of a hurry than me for almost 30 seconds!



I don't have a problem with anything you did. You were *passing* and not forming a barricade by pacing the car next to you.


PlayboyJoeShmoe said:


> I'll do my best, but not to the exclustion of everything....


A very admirable attitude.


----------



## markdi (May 3, 2006)

Ok I will be honest - show my stupidity - I am a tiny bit smarter now.

untill about a year ago I would go over 100 mph at least once every other day.

I drive slower now.


----------



## Wingerr (May 3, 2006)

Problem is that everyone has a different picture of "speeding" because there are vastly different conditions from one area to the next-
I think if it's being pictured as weaving in and out of traffic, high beaming anyone who dares get in the way, it's safe to say most of us would say like Mr. Mackey, "It's baaad, m'kay?" 
If it's on a highway with good road conditions, clear visibility, there's really not much risk in moving along at a more rapid clip.
Things are not black and white in real life, as much as we'd like to neatly categorize them as such- my problem is that speed limits are very rarely tailored to specific roads, but instead just set with expediency with a lowest common denominator goal in mind, which conveniently enough allows revenue to be harvested as deemed necessary. There are probably roads where the speed limit are a hazard due to the poor road conditions, and others where it's just much lower than necessary, like 30mph in what's essentially highway conditions with no cross traffic or pedestrians. NYC is making good use of that stretch, and with a little known "Driver Responsibility Assessment" program to surcharge the unwary, they can net an additional $450 for the ticket. Speeding is good in that way; helps the budget shortfall.

The safest speed is probably what the 85th percentile of motorists travel at, for the road conditions and traffic; above and below that range, it'll introduce more risk because of the greater amount of passing going on.
Around the area where I am, +10 is routine on the highway during low traffic times, (and 10mph the norm during rush hour...)

Speeding as defined by the established speed limits is not inherently unsafe; it depends a great deal on a lot of factors, like road conditions, weather, other traffic, vehicle being driven, etc. Trying to pin it down to good or bad isn't really possible, in real life.


----------



## raggie33 (May 3, 2006)

in atll on 285 if ya drive the speed limet ya will get ran overmost people drive around 80 miles per hour or faster


----------



## Diesel_Bomber (May 3, 2006)

JimH said:


> Gnef, keep up the good fight. There are more of us than you can imagine that are in your court, especially the many that hardly ever speed, but just use common coutesy on the road.



:rock::rock::rock:


----------



## jashhash (May 3, 2006)

I used to be one of those crazy fast drivers. I remember 4 years ago going 100+ on a road trip from CA to MN. I was stopped by an officer going around 105 mph... I was prety lucky and he let me go... said he ran out of speeding tickets. But i was 20 at the time and a bit head strong I guess. Now 5 years later I try my best to keep it under the speed limit.


----------



## gadget_lover (May 4, 2006)

JimH said:


> I don't have a problem with anything you did. You were passing and not forming a barricade by pacing the car next to you.



I don't think the thread's addressed the situation where there's enough traffic for a group of cars to form a barricade. It seems to be implied by some of the posts (such as those suggesting that fast driver's are frustrated to the point of violence) and yet.... Is that the source of the animosity towards drivers who observe the limits?

Of course, that would bring up the question "if there are anough cars to form a plug, can the speeding drivers still claim to be the defacto 'flow of traffic'?" or does the plugg become the standard?



Daniel


----------



## Wingerr (May 4, 2006)

gadget_lover said:


> "if there are anough cars to form a plug, can the speeding drivers still claim to be the defacto 'flow of traffic'?" or does the plugg become the standard?
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel



If it's rush hour, and it's wall to wall cars, then that'd be the norm that should be the guideline.

Although it only takes as many cars as there are lanes to form a plug, so if that's the plug, then that'd probably not be 'flow of traffic', and there'll probably be someone coming up from behind that'd want to go all Drano on them-


----------



## gnef (May 4, 2006)

i think you are trying to make this more difficult than it needs to be. we won't be able to address each and every situation. this thread would take entirely too long to be that comprehensive to be able to outline what is correct in every scenario.

i would say the source of animosity would be motivations or ignorant/unobservant drivers. how do i know this? i think that would be your next question. and i would say that we've all been driving long enough to be able to discern other drivers somewhat, and if you can't, i would say that you aren't being observant enough on the road. it isn't full proof, you are right, but it does hold up the vast majority of the time. a significant amount.

i'm not quite sure i understand your whol defacto plugg thing. but i'll try to interpret for myself: are you saying that if there is enough traffic to impede the flow of traffic by itself, then can speeding drivers claim to still go fast and call it the flow of traffic, or does the actual flow of traffic become 'the flow of traffic'.

is that right? if so, then i would agree with your presupposition (the implied answer to your own question, which i feel you've been doing this whole time, but that has already been covered a bit...) that the actual flow of traffic becomes the true flow of traffic. for example, rush hour - there really isn't any way to speed safely. you'd have to be going on the shoulder or off-roading. and i would completely agree that anyone who does that is not being safe, except for special circumstances. but i don't think that what you are saying is what we've been trying to dialogue about. at least it isn't what i've been dialoguing about. and if that is what you have, then i would say we have not been talking about the same thing. i would agree with Wingerr, that what i and most others in this thread, have been talking about overall good conditions conducive to speeding. i don't like being dangerous on the road, and i don't like it when others around me are dangerous on the road. that could mean they are speeding, or impeding the true flow of traffic, or doing their makeup, shaving, grabbing something from the back of the car, consumed in their phone conversation, etc. and yes, when i see those people, i try to get in front of them (unless they are speeding and see it as a competition...), because i feel i am safer in front of them than behind.

what i've been trying to focus on in our banter (read: argument) is safety on the road. you generally can't get away from speeders regardless if you yourself are speeding or not. being as safe as you can be with speeders (and other drivers on the road in general) will be more conducive to everyone getting to their destination safely and without much headache. i don't want a disgruntled driver on my rear bumper, and i don't want a stubborn or oblivious driver slowing me down either. both cases are less than ideal and safe.

i hope this clarifies any misunderstandings. i do not condone wild driving, which i believe you are equating with speeding, which if you are, i would say is a false assumption.


----------



## gadget_lover (May 4, 2006)

Hmmmm. The old software had an 'ignore' feature, but I can't seem to locate it with the new software. Does it still exist? You used to be able to click on someone's post and set all future posts to 'ignore'.

But back on topic....


wingerr said:


> If it's rush hour, and it's wall to wall cars, then that'd be the norm that should be the guideline.
> 
> Although it only takes as many cars as there are lanes to form a plug, so if that's the plug, then that'd probably not be 'flow of traffic',



What came to mind as I wrote that was the transitory nature of the fatser moving cars. Picture this: A group of say 50 cars traveling 65 down the freeway, evenly spread out and following at prescribed distances. Given a 4 lane highway that's about 12 cars from front to back, far enough that the leaders will not see faster moving traffic approach. As a matter of fact only the most rearward will have a chance to see the traffic aproaching from the rear.

Now add to that a group of faster moving cars quickly aproaching at 10 to 15 MPH over the limit.

When the rear group meets the front group, they'd like the front group to move out of their way. But the front group is alraedy at a stable speed and formation, so the rearmost car has to slow down to move out of the way. Now the first car of the faster group is blocking the next slower car, so it can't slow to change lanes safely if they realize that the car behind them was originally going faster. It seems like there is little chance that the faster traffic can be accomodated.

It's also evident in these scenarios that there need be no ill will at all for one block of cars to seemingly create a block that impedes faster traffic. No malice, no anger, no inattention.

I suggest that the modern roads don't have the capacity to allow one lane to remain perpetualy empty, reserved for those that go extraordinarily fast. Well, except when the traffic is so light that maneuvering between the few cars is no real obstacle.

The second point is that the "flow of traffic" will vary from moment to moment and place to place. A single 10 mile stretch of road can have several groups traveling at different speeds. When they eventually catch up they often exchange members as some join the faster moving convoy and others macth speed with the slower.

Like I said, it's almost like a ballet.

Daniel


----------



## Donovan (May 4, 2006)

Lets get off of this "speeding" is the same as driving unsafe bs... 

Speeding defined as going even 1mph over some posted limit (with a large percentage of these posted limits set artificially low so more tickets, I mean road tax, can be obtained) has absolutely nothing to do with driving at a safe and reasonable speed for conditions. 

Highway facts:
Fact: Most people drive at a safe and reasonable speed. 
Fact: If posted limits are changed (higher or lower) the median speed of motorists changes very little. Studies have shown that changing the sign does very little except produce more tickets.
Fact: Highway agencies have a tendancy to set speed limits slightly below the average speed of traffic. Meaning they are set below the recommended 85th percentile speed. 
Fact: After the repeal of the national 55mph speed limit, The average fatality rate fell in the states that raised their speed limits.
Fact: Driving in the left lane (passing lane) at or below the speed limit is illegal in most states if you are impeding or blocking normal traffic flow. If you do this it your are making it more dangerous for both you and the all the drivers around you. Slower traffic keep right!
Fact: Studies have shown that the more you depart from the traffic speed, faster or slower, the greater your chances are of having or causing an accident

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-346es.html

http://www.speedtrap.org/speedlimits/fhwa_report.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit

http://www.motorists.org/issues/speed/index.html


So in answer to the original question: yes of couse I do!


----------



## gnef (May 4, 2006)

i'm becoming quite tired finding logical errors in your arguments...

gadget_lover - I have to say, your level of dialogue in this thread has been, in my opinion, quite immature.

you consistently make instigating comments, false pretense questions, ignore points of your logical fallacies, and are in an analogous pouting bout. when a logical problem is found in one of your arguments, instead of addressing it, you just try to distract our attention by creating another scenario or analogy, which again, when logical problems arise, you go on to another one... it is an endless cycle.

i think by now we all know you have a prius, and from my perspective, the point of this whole thread has been more for you to massage the reasons why you bought the car and justify to yourself your own driving habits at the cost of abrading and alienating other people's opinion here on this board. i find this unacceptable and inexcusable. Hello... we can see through your facade, false ignorance and deceiving pretenses. i have tried to be logical and patient, but you consistently seek to provoke a reaction. i feel you are trying to hide your weak logic by attacking others and redirecting attention to new analogies... please dispense with your nascent arguments, and actually start to read and understand other people's posts.


----------



## idleprocess (May 4, 2006)

This is getting out of hand. This discussion has nearly dropped below Underground standards.

Egad. Follow common courtesy and you'll probably make out fine. Pass on the left. allow adequate clearance. Keep up with the flow of traffic. Always be aware of local conditions. Yield right of way. Plan ahead. And most importantly : don't be a jerk.

I've said it before, but perhaps it bears repeating - drive outside of normal traffic conditions by a signifigant margin and you're quite likely making a nuisance out of yourself. As opposed to a mostly-static group of "peers" on the road, your "peer group" will be highly dynamic since your velocity relative to others is signifigant.

The consistently slow driver creates a standing bottleneck and incoveniences everyone behind them, assuming enough traffic on the road to impede convenient passing. The consistently fast driver is presented with an nonstop series of bottlenecks and obstacles; not realizing that their speed is often difficult to judge from a rearview mirror or glance over the shoulder and frequently imposing themselves on fellow drivers because of perceptions of "priority" simply because they're driving faster. Self-righteousness from either is tiresome because they typically fail to understand - let alone acknowledge - the flaws in their own argument.

I'm about to completely discount the rants from both slow and fast drivers against the other because they're both superficially right yet fundamentally wrong. It's like listening to the rantings of someone on the political fringe; they don't understand the huge "parallax error" inherent in their perspective and it's almost pointless to explain it to them or have them perform simple thought experiments to illustrate their perspective problem.

After this post, I'm unsubscribing from this thread.


----------



## JonSidneyB (May 4, 2006)

I have been accused of driving like someones grandmother all of my driving life.

I rarely speed. The few times that I do, I tend to get pulled over.


----------



## turbodog (May 5, 2006)

It's just fun.

Speed? Me? Whenever I like, more often when the weather's nice.




metalhed said:


> ... I've always wondered what's the perspective of habitual speeders.


----------



## magic79 (May 5, 2006)

:mecry: 

I'm on the wagon. BUSTED yesterday!

In Washington, if I'm a good boy for a year, it's not reported to insurance. If not, it is.

You'll recognize me in the right lane...


----------



## Alin10123 (May 5, 2006)

I try really hard to stay within 5-10 over the speed limit. I usually do ok with staying within that range unless i'm in a real hurry. But even then i dont go THAT much over. I guess i'm a conservative driver except when i'm in the twisties.


----------



## gnef (May 5, 2006)

sorta off topic - but do you guys who speed also like to have the windows down? mostly when you are driving by yourself, but i know i do. i just like the rushing wind (even at 80 mph... haha. it is quite a roar, but still very refreshing)


----------



## JimH (May 5, 2006)

gnef said:


> sorta off topic - but do you guys who speed also like to have the windows down? mostly when you are driving by yourself, but i know i do. i just like the rushing wind (even at 80 mph... haha. it is quite a roar, but still very refreshing)


If I'm going less than about 55 mph, I have the windows open so the dogs can stick their heads out and feel like they are going really fast.

Other than that, it's generally more fuel efficient to have all the windows up and just run the A/C.


----------



## diddy808 (May 5, 2006)

gnef said:


> diddy808 - i drive an STi too! 2004, what year is yours? mine is stock, have you done anything to your car?
> 
> and as i was hammered in the MPG thread, yes, i do speed. and consitently, yes. in total, i have had three speeding tickets, and now have an excellent radar detector - bel pro rx65 (and used to have an escort 8500 x50). since then, i have not had any more tickets, hopefully it will stay that way...
> 
> ...



Nice! I have a 06' Scooby. All stock right now, all I really want for the car would be just exterior stuffs. Like rims, STi V-Limited front lip, Rally Armor Mudflaps, and JDM rain guards. I'm leaving the motor alone.

For the most part I drive around the speed limit, cannot afford a speeding ticket. One of the good things about living on a small island is radio stations let you know about all the speed traps. :devil: 

Here's a pic:


----------



## Lee1959 (May 5, 2006)

I sometimes have a tendency to speed, but I do try not to unless it is to keep up with the flow of traffic on the highway. Why? 

Simple because I got a 5 mile over ticket a few months back and it cost me $85 !!!

I dont care to find out what 10 over costs...


----------



## Donovan (May 5, 2006)

Alin10123 said:


> I guess i'm a conservative driver except when i'm in the twisties.


Twisties are fun! 

Nice Sti's! I have a lot of respect for both the STi and the Evo. As I do any car that offers real performance as opposed to *those who think the folgers can fart exhaust, silly wings and R stickers actually do, LOL!

Having fun here in an E36 M3!
"Happiness isn't around the corner, it IS the Corner!"




*ricer [rice 'er] Any person who spends more money to make their car look like it goes fast than they spend on actually making it go fast.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricer
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Ricer
http://www.ricecop.com/


----------



## gnef (May 5, 2006)

Very nice. i have a WRB. i think one of the aesthetics you should do is get an 04-05 hood scoop. :] i don't know why exactly, but i just like how it is a little bit larger. heh.

you could also go with a rally roof vent. heh. (if you do though, be careful, because i've heard they leak like no other)

it would be nice if we had a system similar to what they have in the UK. i forgot the name of the site and software, but it is a community effort, and they have software for certain GPS units that show the common area for cops... anyone know about that?

also - radar detectors do help. they aren't full proof, but they definitely give additional warning time.

-Melvin





diddy808 said:


> Nice! I have a 06' Scooby. All stock right now, all I really want for the car would be just exterior stuffs. Like rims, STi V-Limited front lip, Rally Armor Mudflaps, and JDM rain guards. I'm leaving the motor alone.
> 
> For the most part I drive around the speed limit, cannot afford a speeding ticket. One of the good things about living on a small island is radio stations let you know about all the speed traps. :devil:
> 
> Here's a pic:


----------



## metalhed (May 5, 2006)

One more question (well, actually more than one) for you 'recreational' speeders...

Do you have the same tolerance for others law-bending behaviours? 

How do feel about those who break other minor laws; like marijuana users or other 'recreationa' drug users?

How do you feel about illegal immigration? Is it Ok in your book, too?

Cheating on your taxes...can't that be justified in the same way speeding is?



Now don't jump and accuse me of saying speeders are completely comparable to the above crimes, because that's not my intent. But I do see a similarity that deserves exploring.

If it's alright to ignore posted speed limits, what other laws do you think are silly and ignorable (or nearly so)? 

BTW, I'm asking the voluntary excessive speeders here....not everybody.


----------



## gnef (May 5, 2006)

metalhed said:


> BTW, I'm talking about high speed drivers here, not the occasional couple of mph over (or even 'going with the flow'.) I'm guilty of that...I don't like it, but I'll admit to it.



why don't you start by answering your questions yourself?


----------



## gadget_lover (May 5, 2006)

I'll start the ball rolling....

I can't speak for any of the folks here, but I can relate what my friends have said over the years.

Those that were "recreational speeders" were all (100%) of the mindset that some laws just don't apply to them. They tended to justify whatever they wanted. They rationalized that there was something unique about them, or that they were owed or that something was their birth-right. These folks were all in their twenties. I don't hang around with anyone who speeds for fun anymore.

As for myself, I disapprove of grass, I generally obey all the laws (even littering) and pay all my taxes. I feel people who break the law to come here are likely to break other laws too; not the kind of folks I'd like to take into my home.

Daniel


----------



## gnef (May 5, 2006)

excellent... hearsay...

i would ask questions related to yours: what about medicinal use of addicting substances? this would cover marijuana, and opiate derived medications, etc. i don't think heroine or cocaine would fall in to this. for some people marijuana is their only relief from pain, and are actually afforded it by the state in certain cases(i don't believe this is true on the national level).

hmmm, illegal immigration, big issue here in Tejas. i would say that yes, they are wrong, but i feel that they are doing what they feel is necessary for their family. generally speaking, they do the jobs that most 'americans' feel too prideful to do (yes, this is a generalization). would you be willing to break a law if it were to literally save your child's life and future? i think these are the decisions that those illegal immigrants have to face and contend with.

what is your position on the underground railroad and those that helped slaves escape when slavery was legal? how about the japanese internment camps... mcarthy and the red scare? do you feel it was right to use the nuclear bomb on hiroshima and nagasaki? how do you feel about the cold war? how do you feel we have treated the native indians that used to live on the lands we live on now, but were forcefully taken from them by our 'forefathers'? do you always believe the law to be right?

cheating on taxes. i agree that it is bad, there really aren't any exceptions to this. i don't really see the similarity to speeding though.

actually, i don't really see the link in many of these cases to speeding. we could talk about all manners of laws. do you think homosexuals should be allowed to marry? do you think we should fund schools on property tax? etc. this just gets more in to politics... which i hope is not another ulterior motive for this thread... maybe gadget_lover can elucidate that for us...


----------



## metalhed (May 6, 2006)

I think the important difference, gnef, is that none of the other examples you mention directly threaten the safety of others...like speeding does.

Marijuana and other recreational drugs -- I don't see the harm, provided the substances are used by adults in private, and I do support stiff penalties for allowing a drug habit to become the excuse for hurting others. I basically believe it is not proper for government to regulate anything when no harm to others involved. Get high and hurt someone...you deserve to be punished.

Illegal immigration, slavery -- the groups fleeing in these cases are (were) trying to escape injustice. In one it's economic, on the other it was basic human rights. I do firmly believe that laws sometimes fail to reflect good ethical reasoning...like slavery laws. And again, harm is the key. The Underground Railroad participants were ethically correct because they tried not to inflict harm, but to alleviate it. John Brown was wrong...same cause, wrong tactics. 

In the above instances, I believe civil disobediance may be justified. But only if doing so inflicts no real harms on others.

( I feel guilty for what happened to Native Americans, and for Hiroshima/Nagasaki; and I hated McCarthyism and its effects on America. But we can talk about those issues on CPFU sometime.)

Cheating on taxes is usually a selfish act. The act of cheating benefits the cheater(s) alone. I will exclude the desperate taxpayer who commits fraud out of fear of other consequences (like not being able to pay the rent). Their acts are as wrong as the typical tax cheat, but they may be understandable on a human level. Poverty (or the threat thereof) can make people do desperate things. 

But the tax cheat doesn't commit the offense in a vacuum. Their refusal to pay their fair share costs the rest of us, and is nothing less than a form of theft...that's how we treat it judicially, after all. Bottom line...it harms others.

Now let's turn to speeding. 

If one excepts the father-to-be who is rushing his pregnant wife to the hospital and similar examples, speeding is a selfish act. It benefits no one but the speeder(s). Yet it is proven to endanger others. It adds many risks (as outlined by others earlier) and increases the physical damage caused when a car collides with another or a driver loses control (as I pointed out earlier.) I would add to the 'real world' arguments the fact that reaction times are shortened at high speeds, and the roads are loaded with idiots that do unpredictable things....this seems to support the argument that speeding adds risk to the driving environment. The reality is that speeding has the potential to harm others. And it can't be, almost by defintion, a 'private' act. It's not like the pot smoker who confines his habit (and its potential harms)to his home. The roads are public, they aren't (and can't be) anyone's private playground. Ever.


The point of these comparisons is that there is a profound difference between civil disobediance and selfish lawbreaking. The two are not the same thing ethically.

Civil disobediance seeks to right a wrong in a non-violent, hopefully constructive manner. Selfish lawbreaking is merely a demonstration of narcissistic self-involvement and unbridled ego.




JimH -- While I appreciate your 'warning' posted earlier, it's not needed.

I've been driving in California for over thirty years now (cars, vans, trucks, motorcycles)...probably have nearly a million road miles when I take commercial driving into account (my first job in LA at age 18 was delivering for Xerox...all of three weeks in LA; they gave me a map book and a list of deliveries and sent me on my way)...I can take care of myself on the road, thank you.

Besides, there are worse ways to go than standing up for what you believe. :laughing:


----------



## gnef (May 6, 2006)

first. i would like to thank you for your well thought out answer and calm reflection on my own post, it is much appreciated at this point as i have felt many of my previous posts have simply been disregarded.

i would tend to agree with the majority of your points given certain circumstances. i think this is just a matter of where we differ in opinion. i get the feeling that you believe any speeding is inherently dangerous. i believe that 'smart' speeding, i.e. being alert and observant to the surroundings and other cars, is safe.

the paragraph about the outdated laws that we now know are 'wrong' wasn't to spark a guilt war or political battle, it was to point that many times our government is incorrect, and antiquated, even for it's time. i feel speeding is similar, as many have previously stated. for many roads, the speed limit is artificially too slow, statistically speaking, slower than the 85 percent rule (if you google it, you can find more about those studies). yes, the speed limits have been gradually increasing, at least where i live (in texas), but i feel that even so, there are many roads that are still 'too slow' and the raised speed limits could go even higher if going by the 85 percent statistic.

i feel that sometimes we feel that the current laws are end-alls to everything, and to abide by them without question. i would have to say that just going by this thread, that the speed limits are too slow, and directly speaking, so are the changes to the laws regarding the speed limit. technically speaking, i think some of us would not be speeding if the speed limits were higher (reasonably). there will always be those (including myself sometimes) that will go 5-10 over the limit (again, within reason given proper consderations to factors).

i understand what you are saying how speeding and the other things can influence others now, thanks for clarifying. i hope my point of view is also clarified. yes, speeding can be dangerous, but it doesn't have to be.


----------



## Wingerr (May 6, 2006)

Since there's always a desire to categorize things neatly, we could distinguish it with two boxes, dangerous speeding and technical speeding- (ignore the grey area in between)
Dangerous speeding is 100% bad, and technical speeding is good in that it generates revenues, at the expense of erosion of respect for laws.
Unlikely as it is to happen, if speed limits were set realistically based on road conditions, it would reduce the number of evil law-breakers, but the budget would likely just find another avenue for replenishment, in some other form of taxation.


----------



## gadget_lover (May 6, 2006)

As I talked to my 75 year old mother last night, I was reminded why you don't really want to raise the speed limits.

She drives a Cadillac. She always drives 5- 10 MPH or so over the speed limit (much to my chagrin) on the highway. She can't see well at night and her reaction time stinks. She cuts others off and seldom uses her turn signals. She tailgates. Except for her vision, she's not changed much in the last 30 years,


She shares the road with you.

There are millions like her.


Nuff said.

Daniel ( I hope she doesn't read this. SHE thinks she's a fairly good driver.)


----------



## gadget_lover (May 6, 2006)

I think Wingerr's idea is interesting. There are differences between those that pass every car in sight and those that are (more or less) staying within the flow of traffic in their lane.

Without a doubt, a car that is weaving through traffic at a significantly higher speed are dangerous to those around them. So are those that blast up from behind and tailgate until the slower car moves. They create a situation where the driver's actions are not predictable.

I was trying to find the study that shows that a large percentage of traffic accidents (not involving alcohol) are related to changing lanes. I did not find it but I did find a fairly well documented paper at the Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center's web site. The paper is at http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/speed/speed.htm which shows fairly well that accidents go up as you deviate from the speed of surrounding traffic. It's unclear (in my quick reading) how they characterize a 4 lane freeway where each lane is maintaining a steady but different speed. Maybe someone wih more time can give us a synopsis.

I tend to discount web sites that are dedicated to a specific subject or that are somewhat fanatical. Speedtrap.org might just be biased, as might be the Cato institute. Wikipedia is just a blog with little to no fact checking, so I (presonally) don't take that as fact until I look at the supporting sources. Wikii cna be a nice starting point. It sounds Motorists.org was founded to overturn the 55 MPH speed limit, so there may be some bias there too. 

But back on track...

In California there is a "reckless driving" charge that can be applied on top of the speeding charge. It appears the charge can be added any time the cop thinks you were driving without regard to other's safety. It's automatic at 100 MPH. You get the bonus of "excessive speed" charge if you exceed the speed limit by 15 MPH in Calif.

I've been ticketed (in my youth) for both excessive speed and reckless. It hurts to pay $1000 a year for insurance when you are making $8,000 (1970's) .

Hmmm. Rambling. Sorry. The stidy I linked to is worth reading, BTW.



Daniel


----------



## gnef (May 6, 2006)

this may be a bit off the cuff, but i think there should be harsher guidelines for those people in the extremes, both young and old. like, younger should have to pass a stringent test, and until then, have to drive with an adult. and for the older folks above a certain age, they should have to renew their license on at least an annual basis with a test that focuses on the issues that come with age, just like you said about reaction time, vision, physical ability to control a car, etc.

i remember reading a thread, may have been this one, may not have been, may not have even been this forum, but it talked about the 85th percentile of drivers, and how there is a commission or something that statistically determines what 85 percent of the drivers are capable of driving. generally speaking, speed limits are set significantly lower than that 85th percentile. there have been cases of having fewer fatal accidents with a higher speed limit. i can't recall the exact circumstance, but you can google if you like. heh. (google is amazing). i'll try to find the links to the studies that were done.


----------



## gadget_lover (May 6, 2006)

The only study I know of that correlates significantly higher speed with fewer accidents is the one that looked at the timeframe where, coincidentally, airbags became mandatory. I think it was in Wyoming. There was nothing in the study to account for changes in tires, weather patterns, etc. They study attributed the change in accident rates to the speed alone.

A tightly controlled study really should be done, one where all the variables are the same except the speed. They have the capability now to sort of do that. Here's how it works...

Many places are using transponders to provide instant electronic toll payments. Each transponder simply broadcasts a serial number. In some places, they have set up extra transponder readers so they can detect traffic patterns such as average speeds, traffic jams, etc. They even put electonic signs aloing the road such as "30 minutes to Downtown SF. 15 minutes to Toll plaza."

So they have a number of cars that they can track. It's not a great sample since they are cars that are driven by commuters, who are not represntative of the average population, but that can still give a general idea.

Unlike other studies, you could use the transponder data to establish the rate of speed for each car. You could then look at DMV accident data to to determine which cars have reported accidents. Unlike other studies, you would be able t o definitively say "1% of drivers moving at X speed had accidents, but at speed Y 3% of drivers had accidents." Most beneficial is that you could tell that 100% of drivers in a particular group did not have accidents." That statistic is not available in current studies.

It does not matter if people hide their transponder from the readers. They would not be counted in any column.

Daniel


----------



## ikendu (May 6, 2006)

It may be impolite to be blunt here, but really, if you speed you are breaking the law.

There it is. Simple.

After all the talk, the ideas, the rationalizations... simple.


----------



## gnef (May 6, 2006)

hmmm, all i can find right now is hearsay, i'm sorry, but i'll post what i can find. these are all from a thread on www.nasioc.com. one example of a guy talking about milwaukee county in WI: "The speed limit was 65, but to increase revenue, they lowered it to 55. There was such a large increase in the number of accidents that after 18 months, they raised it back to 65."

another poster: "BTW the federal speed limit (highest to be legally set by a state and still get federal funding) is 75mph.

Montana, North Dakota, and Utah all have their interstates set to 75mph for cars for sure. Those are the only states out west whose highways I've personally driven on. East of ND it drops to 65mph. (MN might be 75, but I'm pretty sure it's 65.)"

here was a video that someone linked: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5366552067462745475

it is about a group of people in atlanta where the speed limit is 55. you'll see how dangerous it can be to do the speed limit sometimes...

this was also posted in the same thread from a study done in british columbia (yes, i know it may not be directly applicable, but the principals may be): http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/publications/eng_publications/speed_review/Speed_Review_Report.pdf

but most of it is hearsay, not direct evidence. i'll try looking more though.

edit: if you don't mind reading something completely biased... http://www.americanautobahn.com/

and yes, we know that speeding is against the law, we've already established that, but thanks for reiterating it.


----------



## metalhed (May 6, 2006)

In another twenty or thirty years, this discussion wil probably take care of itself...maybe sooner.

GM exec: Driving is Dead


I guess we should all enjoy the act of *safe* driving as much as we can, before it disappears for good. :laughing:


----------



## gadget_lover (May 6, 2006)

Was anyone able to make sense of the video Gnef posted? The video was jerky and the audio hard to discern. All I got was that a group deliberately created a moving block on the freeway, deliberately antagonized the other drivers and were suprised at the result. 

It's interesting to note that some people appeared to be so desperate to speed past that they risked an accident. 

The Canadian study was also interesting. They concluded that ther was a drop in accidents on two specific stretches of road when the limit was raised 8 MPH. I noted that they were talking about raising the speed limit to 100 kph, which is about 63 mph. I also noted that one paragraph said that people were driving about the same speed before and after the speed was changed. I'm not sure how to account for the change in accident rate.

Table 11 of that study points to multiple stdies worldwide that show fatal accidents go up when the speed limit changes.

Wait! driving is DEAD? Darn.


Daniel


----------



## Wingerr (May 6, 2006)

Yep, for those truly interested in safety, a retest process implemented for the elderly definitely would help keep the roads safer. I've had encounters with them myself, one that proceeded across a red light as I was crossing with the green- sent me up a curb to avoid getting my leg clipped off. Another gent lost control in a parking lot and rammed 5 cars in the process; luckily all parked. Mine actually got the bumper ripped off indirectly by one of the cars he hit, to give an indication of the amount of speed he managed to develop. Guess he was braking for all he was worth using the accelerator pedal.
But, that's off topic, since this is about speeding, not safety. 
A testing program is unlikely to come about anyway, since the older folks are pretty active politically, and wouldn't stand for it. 
And, most people know they're going to end up in the same boat eventually (except for all the speeding scofflaws, who won't make it there), so it's something of a disincentive to bring it about, since it'll end up affecting them. 

Keeping the limits down to levels where all of our elderly drivers are able to drive safely (as opposed to taking their keys away), is certainly expedient and requires less thought in determining realistic limits- coupled with the ability to generate revenue at will, it's not going to change, so no one need worry much about that. Speed limits based on road conditions probably would be information overload for the already marginal drivers as well; we wouldn't want I-90 to be misinterpreted, after all-


----------



## gnef (May 6, 2006)

the video was about the roadways in atlanta. i forgot the highway names, but maybe someone from atlanta can pipe in? the speed limits in atlanta are 55, when i visited, everyone (clarify as vast majority) was going at least 70-80. what the video was documenting was the rediculous nature of the speed limit at 55 when everyone goes faster. the cops generally don't give tickets, but when they do, it is for at least 20+ mph generally. so what they did is take up all lanes going the speed limit. this is sorta the ideal world you were speaking about, gadget_lover, where everyone goes the speed limit, correct? you can see the repercussions for their actions. so this goes to show that the laws need revising, that people will speed in general, and that people going slower than the expected rate of flow are dangerous. the utopic ideal that everyone not speed is not realistic, and other solutions need to be found rather than just blaming speeders for everything.

at least that is the way i interpret the video. does that clarify the purpose of the video a bit? i tried my best.

the study is also a proponent of removing speed limits, i believe.


----------



## gadget_lover (May 6, 2006)

Thanks for the clarification.

I'd wager that the only ones who were disturbed by the Atlanta prank were those that could see the mostly clear highway ahead of the mlockade. The rest of the folks would have simply thought it was heavy traffic. Just a guess, based on having experienced a similar blockade when the CHP escorted a bomb disposal vehicle down the freeway. Why they had to take it down the freeway is anyone's guess. My guess is that we were only 5 miles from Lawrance Livermore National Labs at the time, and the truck was headed that direction. Maybe they had some special tools at the lab.



gnef said:


> this is sorta the ideal world you were speaking about, gadget_lover, where everyone goes the speed limit, correct?



No, it isn't really. If everyone was obeying the law and going the speed limit they would not have bunched up like that and would not be tailgating each other. What you see in the video is indicative of faster moving traffic encountering an unexpected obstacle, same as if there were a traffic accident. They all bunch up with inadequate space cushion for the speed. At that point only one person has to make a mistake to cause a chain reaction accident. I've seen that many times in rush hour traffic where too many people are tailgating at once.

My utopia? When you merg on the freeway every car is doing the exact same speed. An automated system syncs all the cars. All lanes trvel the same speed, so it does not matter which lane you choose. Without changing speed you travel for miles, finally dropping off at the proper spot. Your travel time could be significantly shorter, since it's safer to trvel faster if 100% of the cars are traveling a safe distance apart at exactly the same speed.

It will happen some day. There will be 'automated only' lanes similar to carpool lanes where the car determines the optimal speed. They will be limited access lanes so cars will only join in a choreographed merging of traffic.


Yeah. 

Daniel

Daniel


----------



## Wingerr (May 7, 2006)

I don't think there's any disagreement that speed limits are needed, but part of the issue is the arbitrary setting of limits without much input from traffic engineers.
If the goal is to maintain a uniform flow of traffic, raising limits in _some areas_ will help, because it'll allow the ones that need to stick to the letter of the law to bring their speed to be more consistent with the other traffic. 
If they can't drive safely at the limit,


----------

