Teen clocked going 142mph in Indiana...

[newsvx]

Originally Posted by b3lha

In the interest of good conversation, somebody has to take the contrary view:

Inappropriate speed is certainly dangerous and stupid, but on the basis of the information given, are we so sure that his speed was inappropriate? I don't believe that high speed on public roads is necessarily unsafe. I would certainly do it if I found myself on a German autobahn. Wouldn't you?

The road in question is described as a four lane divided highway. I presume that means it is a wide fairly straight road with a good surface and crash barriers. Not too different from an autobahn. He was not far from home, so presumably he knows the road quite well. In a rural area in the middle of the night there would (presumably) be little or no other traffic around. The car is a very capable machine and being only two years old is likely to be in good roadworthy condition.

Would it be different if it had been a more experienced driver, perhaps a cop or medic driving at 142mph on their way to save somebody's life? What do you consider to the be maximum safe speed in these circumstances? I would say it's a good deal higher than 55 mph.

In 2005 the premise that high speed equals dangerous driving was put to the test in a British court. The judge decided that PC Mark Milton was not driving dangerously despite doing 159mph in circumstances similar to those above. This link gives a good explanation: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/milton.html

Also in the interest of a good "discussion" I have to disagree.

A couple of factors:
- a 17 year old, while having probably excellent reflex action (greater than me, anyway), the lack of experience in driving is a major item to consider. There was no mention that he was experienced as a race car driver (karts or anything else), so one has to assume he had very little (driving) experience at his age. Your UK example was an experienced cop that had probably had a degree of high speed driver training. So yes, this would be a different situation. Quite the opposite situation.
- Also, here in the States there is great debate about even the police in high speed pusuit being banned due to the danger to "others" other than the one being pusued. As one poster mentioned, one can never depend on what someone else is going to do on the highway - changing lanes when NEVER thinking the car behind you is closing at a very high rate of speed, as an example.
- And the Interstates were designed for only 75 MPH speeds. 140 MPH greatly exceeds that. And this was apparently not an interstate highway. Reference the mention of the lack of protective barriers in the appropriate places, as is the case on Interstate highways.
- Bottom line, excessive speed on a public high way is just plain dumb and shows a total lack of respect for others. Driving that fast on a track with vehicles capable of similar speeds (okay, I know, as example, some of the Grand AM series run ALL classes together, which makes for very interesting racing and which sometimes results in huge crashes due to the large differential in speeds) and drivers keenly aware of what to expect is quite different from public highways.

The other bottom line is that 99% of 17 year old kids don't know how to handle a car at that kind of speed - heck, 90% of adults don't!!

Harry

[Electrophil]

No one drives well at 142mph. No car is safe at 142mph.

Not even on a track.

Heck, they go boom on the track all the time. That's why we watch. To see which redneck is gonna go boom.

If some kid/adult/alien/rat with remote control/soccer mom goes out and is clocked at 142mph, take their license. It was no accident, there is no excuse, and that person should not be allowed to drive for a while. Say a year.

I was 17 once, and I don't think I have ever been over 90. And I should have had my ass kicked for that.

[newsvx]

Agreed!

BTW, I forgot to mention in my post earlier: Here in Virginia, if you are 20 MPH over the speed limit, it is reckless driving, and you can go to jail for a YEAR!! Oh yeah, and loss your license too.

Harry

[benebob]

Originally Posted by newsvx

Agreed!

BTW, I forgot to mention in my post earlier: Here in Virginia, if you are 20 MPH over the speed limit, it is reckless driving, and you can go to jail for a YEAR!! Oh yeah, and loss your license too.

Harry

Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's only for Virgina residents though who are only slightly better than your average Philly driver. Kinda like NC was and maybe still is.

[newsvx]

A Philly driver? I didn't know there was such a thing!!

Harry

[sicksubie]

We have a road here in MA that was designed for 90mph traffic. It is only about 25 miles long and runs from Worcester to Fitchburg. It is basically straight with the only 3 or 4 slight turns (that are banked slightly) occurring over at least 1/2-1 mile minimum distance. It has been paved three times in my lifetime that I remember (we drive it to church every sunday so I know when the repaving has happened). So, it is in excellent condition. If you go out on this road at 12:30AM you could drive the entire 25 mile length and see probably 5 cars total going in either direction. BTW it is 2 lanes each way with a very wide median strip in the middle and even though it is only 2 lanes each way it is wider than the mass pike ( a 4 lane road) in some areas. Not to condone this kid, BUT technically he could have been on a road like the one I described (theoretically) and been in a STi (they just say impreza) and could have been not endangering anyone. I think this could be the sort of thing that if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there does it still make noise? Same thing for this kid. If a kid speeds and nobody is around to harm (except himself) is it dangerous?

[newsvx]

Good points, however, who is to know ahead of time if no one will be there to endanger?
Harry

[Electrophil]

Well, just putting it in perspective. 142mph = 749,760ft per hour = 208.3 ft per second = 69.4yards in a second.

7/10ths of a football field.... in a second.

The guy would never have the chance to touch the brake. He'd never respond in time. 3 seconds from eye to reaction to brake would be perfection. But that was over 2 football fields ago when the emergency was noticed. His stopping distance wouldn't even come into play on this one.

Nope.... lock his azz up.

[svxistentialist]

I agree with the gist of what you are saying Eric, all common sense.

I have always been a proponent of Active safety in cars, rather than Passive safety, like what Volvo do, with a hundred airbags and crumple zones and what have you.

Give a person the notion the car they are driving is a tank, and that's how they will drive.

Much better training to use a car that has good roadholding and brakes and driver control.

My only regret is the cars with the best dynamic abilities, such as our Subarus, they also have a high top speed. Regardless what Phil says about high speed being OK on an empty road [which I agree, BTW], a teenager doing 140 has very little margin for error if something he is not expecting arises, and that is the main reason teenagers lose control in single vehicle accidents.

Maybe we parents have a duty to give the kids a safely controllable vehicle, but also realise if you give them a 150 mph car, they WILL do 150.

On the parents heads be the consequences.

Joe

[RSVX]

Originally Posted by newsvx

The other bottom line is that 99% of 17 year old kids don't know how to handle a car at that kind of speed - heck, 90% of adults don't!!

Harry

98.35% of all Stats are made up... but who's counting...

[dcarrb]

And on the subject of statistics, has anyone mentioned the number one cause of teenage deaths?

Traffic accidents.

dcb

[alohanjv]

I would like to know:
how did the police catch up with him to pull him over?
how many of you have a worse driving record than him?
why are all you people complaining about someonone that got caught speeding? I'm sure many other people were killed by drunk drivers that day. Why not complain about them? they actually killed people.
I'm really very disappointed in the criticism of this driver.
I would much rather be on the road with a speeding young driver than an old person.

[b3lha]

Originally Posted by newsvx

- a 17 year old, while having probably excellent reflex action (greater than me, anyway), the lack of experience in driving is a major item to consider. There was no mention that he was experienced as a race car driver (karts or anything else), so one has to assume he had very little (driving) experience at his age. Your UK example was an experienced cop that had probably had a degree of high speed driver training. So yes, this would be a different situation. Quite the opposite situation.

Agreed. Experience counts for a lot. However, despite his high speed, the kid did not have or cause any accident, so clearly he's not entirely without skill.

Originally Posted by newsvx

- Also, here in the States there is great debate about even the police in high speed pusuit being banned due to the danger to "others" other than the one being pusued. As one poster mentioned, one can never depend on what someone else is going to do on the highway - changing lanes when NEVER thinking the car behind you is closing at a very high rate of speed, as an example.

High speed pursuits are inherently dangerous but we are not discussing a desparate pursuit, just high-speed driving on an empty road, which is not the same thing. Equally, your point about danger to other traffic is only relevant if there was other traffic on the road at the time.

Originally Posted by newsvx

- And the Interstates were designed for only 75 MPH speeds. 140 MPH greatly exceeds that. And this was apparently not an interstate highway. Reference the mention of the lack of protective barriers in the appropriate places, as is the case on Interstate highways.

Are you suggesting that it is not possible to drive safely on an interstate at more than 75mph? There are some drivers who routinely negotiate narrow muddy forest tracks at speeds greater than that. Surely higher speeds are safely possible on a wide level asphalt road? Also, the article does not mention whether the kid was driving at a sustained 142mph for many miles, or whether it was a brief burst of speed on a particularly suitable stretch of road.

Originally Posted by newsvx

- Bottom line, excessive speed on a public high way is just plain dumb and shows a total lack of respect for others. Driving that fast on a track with vehicles capable of similar speeds (okay, I know, as example, some of the Grand AM series run ALL classes together, which makes for very interesting racing and which sometimes results in huge crashes due to the large differential in speeds) and drivers keenly aware of what to expect is quite different from public highways.

Agreed. But the argument centres on what you define as excessive. I am all for penalising dangerous drivers, but I don't see why safe driving should be a crime. The maximum safe speed depends on lots of different factors, none of which is the legal speed limit. The real bottom line is that none of us can say for sure whether the kid was driving dangerously or not.

[RSVX]

Originally Posted by dcarrb

And on the subject of statistics, has anyone mentioned the number one cause of teenage deaths?

Traffic accidents.

dcb

And what percentage of those were Alcohol related?

[benebob]

Originally Posted by RSVX

And what percentage of those were Alcohol related?

What you want a stat now huh?

It is around 45% which is nearly exactly where the rate is for those of a legal drinking age so what exactly is the point you're trying to make with this one.