Cop pulls over a convoy of Vettes.

[upnygimp]

I've gotten 0 tickets in the Avenger, even without a radar detector. Of course, I keep myself limited to 5-8 over most of the time, except for travelling to and from school.


wb RWJ.

[mbtoloczko]

Originally posted by ensteele
I drove about 15 miles the other day and the radar detector kept going off. It then got stronger and stronger. I kept looking for the car and I finally found out what it was. A boat had not turned off their radar!

You didn't see a cop peeking over the top of the boat did you? ;-)))

[Aredubjay]

Originally posted by upnygimp
wb RWJ.

ty

[newsvx]

Here in Virginia, any speeding over 20 MPH is / can be written up as "reckless driving". On the surface, that doesn't sound too bad, UNTIL you find out what the result can be - ONE YEAR in jail and suspension of your license for that year as well (racing, regardless of speed, can result in both (all) cars being conficated by the police). One judge in Fairfax County has an established policy of sending folks to jail for anything over 90 MPH. Usually it is 30 days - BTW, I actually saw a lawyer get 30 days in jail for 93 MPH (in a 55MPH zone) at 4:00 AM in the morning on the access lanes to Dulles Airport. He was driving a new Infinity, that (as he told the cop and the judge), he "wanted to see what it would do".

BTW, I guess I have to disagree that just because one has a high performance vehicle, it's okay to do excessive speeds on the highway. That's just dumb. It doesn't consider that the driver "may not" be able to control a car with that kind of high performance capability, nor the fact that there are other cars on the road doing the lawful limit. Re the latter, a 30 MPH differential in speed between cars on a highway is quite significant and begging for an accident to happen. Not many people are capable of judging well what is within eye sight at close to 100 MPH. Oh, have you ever seen a car that hit a deer at 60 MPH - especially a fiberglass Corvette? It ain't pretty!

Harry

[ensteele]

How about a car hitting a moose? That ain't pretty either! A friend was in Alaska a while back and when he was up there a woman hit a moose. It came through the front window, through the car, and out the back window part way. She broke her wrist only because she was able to duck out of the way as the moose came through. It ended up part way in and part way out of the back window and on the trunk. It was not a small moose either.

[upnygimp]

I saw pictures of that crash somewhere......it's not coming to me where.

[Royal Tiger]

I'm still trying to figure out how being stopped for 20 mph OVER the posted speed limit is "damn revenue generation"? Am I missing something?

[UberRoo]

Speeding laws really aren't important, and that opinion is strongly reflected by the fact that most people ignore them. There is no reliable data that shows a significant link between speeding and degree of injury. Moreover, there is [equally sketchy] data that shows an inverse relationship between the two. Without any positive data, with a public that broadly dismisses speed laws as mere 'suggestions,' and in Washington state at least, a Secretary of Transportation that agrees, I would agree that the primary purpose of speeding tickets is to generate revenue.

Just in case it wasn't made clear when you got your license or bought your car, driving is potentially hazardous. In the litigious days we live in, it's surprising that we don't have to sign a disclaimer upon receipt of our license.

It's all about risk management. Good drivers with better vehicles can drive more aggressively with equal or lower risk than less competent drivers with less capable vehicles. Some of us are also willing to accept greater risks, (me for example,) and others are not. Anyone who smokes for example, is willing to take huge risks, as it's virtually guaranteed to cause severe injury. Anyone who does not wear a helmet while driving their car is also willing to take huge risks, as greater than fifty percent of fatal injuries in a vehicular accident are head trauma.

I think our sense of perspective is extremely skewed.

[Royal Tiger]

UberRoo I don't know where you get your data, but I have seen volumes of crash data that corilate speed (or more correctly velocity) and injury. Significant injury occures when the body goes through a rapid loss of terminal velocity that exceeds 30 feet per sec/per second. This is refered to as "Delta-V" or change in velocity. A 30 feet per sec/ per sec deceleration or higher causes the internal organs to impact the rib cage causing internal injury as well as brain brusing as the brain matter evacs the cranial fluid and impacts the skull. I have also seen aortic disection, where the aorta peels away from the spine. More velocity to begin with, equals more velocity to bleed off at impact. That led to the creation of "crumple zones" in vehicles to allow you to "ride down" the crash, lessing the Delta-V. Those are facts. And you made be a good driver, but if you have found a way of ensuring that old ladies and drunks are not on the road when you are, let me know how you do it. I lost my Legacy wagon to an old lady who hit me head on in broad daylight, 1500hrs on a sunny Saturday afternoon in my lane!

[newsvx]

I have to respond, Uber.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by UberRoo
[B]Speeding laws really aren't important

I couldn't disagree more! There HAS to be rules of any society, highways included. I don't think you would want an incompetent driver driving on the same road as you in a beatup Ford Falcon with bald tires doing 90 MPH. Right?

There is no reliable data that shows a significant link between speeding and degree of injury.

Again, I respectfully disagree. Lob a tomato "gently against a wall, and then throw one as hard as you can. One can not change the law of physics. What I believe you are thinking about is the argument about the national 55 MPH speed limit on interstates that were designed for 65 MPH. That I agree with.

It's all about risk management. Good drivers with better vehicles can drive more aggressively with equal or lower risk than less competent drivers with less capable vehicles.

Not factored into this statement is the fact that we have LOTS of drivers on the road that think they are much better drivers than they really are and think they have better vehicles than they do!

Some of us are also willing to accept greater risks, (me for example,) and others are not.

I don't mind you accepting risks and driving at insane speeds - IF it affects you ONLY. On public roads, that is not the case. Even on race tracks where there are no speed limits set (except under yellow (oh, by the way, for safety reasons under yellow)), fellow racecar drivers will blackball a driver that overdoes it by taking more risks than he should.

Anyone who does not wear a helmet while driving their car is also willing to take huge risks, as greater than fifty percent of fatal injuries in a vehicular accident are head trauma.

I wear a helmet, but only in driving events and autocrossing - not on the road. Would I be safer in an accident on public roads? Yes, probably, but as you said, I am willing to take the risk.

I think our sense of perspective is extremely skewed.

Now with THAT I totally agree

UBER,
I am certain you are an excellent driver, but speed limits are for those that "think they are" but "aren't". And what would be safe for you on a given roadway, would not be safe for another driver, even if he believed himself to be a excellent driver. I hope you don't mind my disagreeing with you on the above points. But even with all this discussion, the picture was very funny. The thought that came to my mind was, "What were they thinking?!! Eight Corvettes (and bright, shiny colors to boot), running 90 MPH. Did they think they would not stick out like a sore thumb"??

Harry

Harry

[UberRoo]

You are both absolutely correct on one point: Degree of injury / speed.

What I meant to say, and carelessly omitted, is "degree of injury per mile," which is the best method of measuring the costs (read: rate of accidents and the severity of them) of driving per the number of miles driven. The data often shows that this "cost' of driving actually goes down when people drive faster. There are several reasons for this, many of them speculative, but foremost among them is that people are generally very good at moderating their speed, and when everybody is going the same speed there is less interaction between traffic and thus, fewer accidents and less severe ones when they do happen.

Consider that if you were parked - that is, engine off, sitting on the side of the road - the chances of a cement truck crashing into you isn't very large, but the possibility does exist. Because the miles you have traveled is zero, even if the risk is low, the degree of injury per mile is infinite. Now consider that if you could travel at the speed of light, even if you were virtually guaranteed to have an accident, as long as the odds aren't 100%, the degree of injury per mile is zero. Rush hour traffic is another example of this; The speed is very low, but the accident rate is enormous.

If people really thought speeding laws were important, why does greater than 90% of people disobey them? It's a victimless crime. No, you say? Then where's the victim? Oh, there could be potential victims, but then it's punishment for something that didn't happen and probably would not have happened. ...but it might eventually. Well I have a stick, that might poke somebody in the eye. Sure, it didn't happen, but it might.

Is a beat up Ford Falcon doing 90, safe? No. Frankly, that car is unsafe at two miles an hour, but just 'cause the speed limit is 60, then it's okay?

Old ladies and drunks had better stay outta my way! Unintelligent obstacles, such as deer and inept drivers are part of the risks of driving. I'm more worried about hitting one than being hit by one. It's those pesky pedestrians that tick me off with that "I have right-of-way" B.S.. 'It's a freakin' road you morons! It's for cars!"

Unfortunately, there's simply no way to control those drivers who really don't know their own limits. Speed laws clearly don't work, even on the intelligent drivers who most likely do know their own limits. Stupid drivers are one of the risks. On the up side, they most often only hurt themselves. I would like to encourage them to go faster so they are taken off the road sooner and are less likely to return.


Oh, and yes, I too loved the original picture. "What were they thinking?" does kinda sum it up. I think they were thinking they'd magically get away with it, and reassured themselves that they'd get out of it if they got caught. I'd love to find out what the aftermath was.

[Royal Tiger]

UberRoo, my hats off for an intelectual response that was non-inflamatory. However, a quick correction, if a pedestrain is in a labled cross walk, THEY have the right of way!!!

[UberRoo]

I will grant that exception for sidewalks with the proviso that they'd better not dally lest I get impatient. I'd just love to cream one of those twits who's just too cool for his own good, who waits for a big string of cars and then steps out blindly to force a sudden stop, sauntering slowly across the crosswalk, slightly outside of the lines as though he's craftily showing how he can get away with it. So clever. Makes me want a big spike sticking out of my grill. Go ahead Right Said Fred, tempt me.

It seems that pedestrians are often favoured even when there is no reason for them to be in the road. Reminds me of a humorous phrase, "If you don't like my driving, stay off the sidewalk!"

[newsvx]

Likewise, Uber. My hat, too, is off to you! Great response. It is so good to be able to have a "discussion / debate" without one party or the other becoming really ticked off.

That said, I still have to disagree with the basic tenet of you argument . It has been well thought out, but in my mind, still flawed. The question I pose to you is: At what speed would you draw the line and say, "Enough". I understand your point that a good driver will "know his/her limits", but as I stated before, there is always that percentage of drivers that don't know his/her limits or won't admit to them. A prime example is in Germany on the Autobaun. The tremendouse pile-ups (30 - 40 cars with multiple deaths) as a result of at least one idiot running excessive speeds "in the fog".

But bottom line: a society MUST and SHOULD have laws / rules. Including on the highway. I would hate to be on a highway or anything where there were no rules to go by.

But I suspect we will have to agree to disagree. I don't think either of us will change. And I respect your right to have your opinion.

Be safe....
Harry

[UberRoo]

I appreciate the same from you as well.

I wouldn't draw the line. Heaven forbid you should cause an accident though. If that's the case, I think you should get raked over the coals. Having a pointy stick is one thing, but poking somebody with it is something else entirely. The threat of nasty things should be enough to keep people in check. If we really thought speeding was bad, we'd have nastier consequences.

I do wonder where to draw the line regarding accountability. I think the reason for those pileups on the Autobahn is a result of people being dumbed down, personal accountability being removed, and distortion of what the consequences of our actions really are.

The NHTSA would have us believe that driving anything above the speed limit would cause instant death. I would have you believe that it'd cure cancer. Exaggerations as great as those we'd both readily admit to, but information about what the true consequences are have be mired by misinformation, primarily from the media.

If we completely remove the need for the use of personal judgement from individuals, we'd need a law for every single action of our daily lives. So what do we do? Do we repeal all the laws? Some of them? None of them? Carry on making more? I think the best we could to is relax them a little and wait for the public to smarten up, but realistically that's not going to happen.

Where to draw the line, I don't know. I just know I'd like it to be drawn where it should be drawn.