Speeding vs. law enforcement discussion

[purplefreakmagnet]

I've always worked on the theory that if i speed i'll get where i'm going faster spending less time on the road, therefore reducing the chance of some idiot crashing into me.

On a scientific note i remember reading a study that found you are safer driving at a speed that you think is right for the conditions because it keeps you alert and focused. Whereas when your driving at a ridiculously low speed you tend to get bored and start focusing on other things than driving.

Speeding isn't dangerous. Driving to fast for the road conditions is dangerous.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Going 95 on some roads is perfectly safe. Going 45 on some roads is extremely dangerous.

It just depends on environmental conditions, like weather, curvatures in road, surrounding trees or building obscuring view...etc etc...


*on the assumption that your car is not a piece of shit

 

[brian-amp]

yes

The comm. was a start and a stop; text in a New Yorker or The Atlantic Monthly.....

Some vocab. should be validated and goes as follows: start/stop, intensity, concentration.

"I think the message was volume."

And the location was on the west coast in Cali.

I'm in upstate central CNY, and 400 miles to the east in Hartford CT. People do 90mph on the highways at peak times.

 

[Zzyzx]

Let me make another point.

A certain amount of death is acceptable.

Ok, perhaps my analogy wasnt perfect, and perhaps you were lucky with blowouts.

Crash your car on a rock or a light pole, ok. Crash it on a minivan full of childrens, thats unacceptable.

Just because YOU feel like you have the right to take risks doesnt mean that you have the right to put others at risk. Thats how society works

 

[Fjones]

Ok, perhaps my analogy wasnt perfect, and perhaps you were lucky with blowouts.

Crash your car on a rock or a light pole, ok. Crash it on a minivan full of childrens, thats unacceptable.

Just because YOU feel like you have the right to take risks doesnt mean that you have the right to put others at risk. Thats how society works

What risk are you talking about? The risk of Tire Blowout? Tire Blowouts are very rare. I had 3 because the tires were defective. The car company lost a class action lawsuit and I was compensated $1500 for defective wheels and tires.

properly inflated tires that are replaced when needed and that have the appropriate speed rating, generally do not blow out.

By the way, you ignored every single point I made and regurgitated some generalized crap about how speeding is dangerous. Can you please try to address some of the things I said? If you don't have any good rebuttal to anything I said, it is okay to admit it.

How about this. Let's do a fill in the blank.

"Going 80 MPH in a 65 MPH Zone puts other lives at risk because _________ "

Someone please fill in the blanks with something that makes sense and is supported by facts.

 

[alasdairm]

How many highway accidents do you really think are caused by SPEEDING ALONE, and nothing else? I would wager the answer is close to zero. Things that cause accidents --

Tailgating
Cutting people off
Driving while sleepy
Driving under the influence
Not paying attention
Skidding on Ice / Rain
Last minute decisions
Poor vision / reflexes / reaction time

I would wager that almost every accident attributed to speeding was PRIMARILY caused by one of those things.

of course speeding in and of itself isn't a cause of accidents but the outcome of the situations you describe above can be significantly worse at high speed compared to at low speed. the speed factor is not linear. stopping distance at 10mph is ~27feet, at 50mph ~229ft and at 90mph 584ft.

i tend to find this is one of these issues which is filtered through a very selfish lens: "i'm a safe driver therefore i should be able to drive faster than these unsafe drivers who can't drive properly"? to me, that's kind of nonsensical. of course the law is something of a lowest common denominator - how on earth would you suggest another system be practically enforced?

driving is a privilege not a right although some people seem to feel they are somehow entitled to drive, and drive fast.

alasdair

 

[Fjones]

Going 95 on some roads is perfectly safe. Going 45 on some roads is extremely dangerous.

It just depends on environmental conditions, like weather, curvatures in road, surrounding trees or building obscuring view...etc etc...


*on the assumption that your car is not a piece of shit

I agree. And yet, if you go 95 MPH on any road, the cops will give you a huge ticket, a stern lecture, and possible revoke your license on the spot. They might give you a ticket for reckless driving, you will face a Stern judge who will give you another lecture, you will get 5 points and a $300 fine, possibly get your license suspended, and have your insurance go up by $50 a month.

 

[alasdairm]

^ you seem really angry. i echo amorroark, instead of ranting about this on a message board, the primary subject matter of which has nothing to do with driving, why not do something substantive about it?

But we don't, because we tolerate a certain number of deaths in exchange for the benefits of driving.

right. the fact is that you would choose to draw the line in a different place than society does now. well, society has to look at a bigger picture than just you and the way you drive - it has to somehow try to take account of the way everybody drives and legislate accordingly.

alasdair

 

[Fjones]

of course speeding in and of itself isn't a cause of accidents but the outcome of the situations you describe above can be significantly worse at high speed compared to at low speed. the speed factor is not linear. stopping distance at 10mph is ~27feet, at 50mph ~229ft and at 90mph 584ft.

i tend to find this is one of these issues which is filtered through a very selfish lens: "i'm a safe driver therefore i should be able to drive faster than these unsafe drivers who can't drive properly"? to me, that's kind of nonsensical. of course the law is something of a lowest common denominator - how on earth would you suggest another system be practically enforced?

driving is a privilege not a right although some people seem to feel they are somehow entitled to drive, and drive fast.

alasdair

You also ignored all of my points.

So, when some states have speed limits of 65, and some are 75, are you saying the states with the 75 MPH are just stupid, or don't care about safety?

Or could it be that the speed limits are more or less arbitrary?

What is it about other countries that have higher speed limits? Do they have secret car technology we do not know about?

By the way, if you are going to present facts, can you please present facts that are true?

The following is RIDICULOUS -- "at 50mph ~229ft and at 90mph 584ft."

I cannot remember the last time I saw such an inacccurate statement. Did you just make that up?

The last car I drove had a stopping distance of 117 Feet at 60 MPH. Most cars are around 120 - 140 Feet. Where did you get 226 feet at 50 MPH?

 

[toa$t]

the level of danger changes with other variables. some drivers like you are perfectly competent to drive at higher speeds on the highway. many drivers are not competent to do so, or have vehicles in which it would not be safe to do so. these people should be restricted to driving more slowly. speed limits have been implemented based on this reasoning.

in an ideal world, would there be some sort of staggered speed limit system allowing people to drive at different speeds based on their skill level and vehicle? sure, probably. is such a system realistically enforceable? probably not. hence, a unilateral speed limit has been imposed.

edit: in the situation with different states having different speed limits, either one or both of them has set the wrong speed limit. speed limits have to be set based on actuarial data vs. people's need to get places within a reasonable amount of time.

 

[Fjones]

^ you seem really angry. i echo amorroark, instead of ranting about this on a message board, the primary subject matter of which has nothing to do with driving, why not do something substantive about it?
right. the fact is that you would choose to draw the line in a different place than society does now. well, society has to look at the bigger picture than just you and the way you drive - it has to somehow try to take account of the way everybody drives and legislate accordingly.

alasdair

You are very good at ignoring every point I made.

I am not angry, I am initiating a discussion, because it was suggested that I move the discussion here from a different forum, where the discussion started.

Do you really think writing a letter to congress would do anything? I find it rather insulting and obnoxious that I am being told by moderators to write to congress instead of creating a thread. If you don't like the thread, don't participate. Who is forcing you to participate in the thread?

It is pathetic how people are unable to even have a discussion. I presented a viewpoint and supported it with analysis and information and analogies. People then respond with general sweeping statements without addressing any of my points.

Most of the points I brought up were conveniently ignored.

 

[Fjones]

the level of danger changes with other variables. some drivers like you are perfectly competent to drive at higher speeds on the highway. many drivers are not competent to do so, or have vehicles in which it would not be safe to do so. these people should be restricted to driving more slowly. speed limits have been implemented based on this reasoning.

in an ideal world, would there be some sort of staggered speed limit system allowing people to drive at different speeds based on their skill level and vehicle? sure, probably. is such a system realistically enforceable? probably not. hence, a unilateral speed limit has been imposed.

edit: in the situation with different states having different speed limits, either one or both of them has set the wrong speed limit. speed limits have to be set based on actuarial data vs. people's need to get places within a reasonable amount of time.

Why are people driving around in unsafe vehicles? Why do we put unsafe cars on the road? Do people really need their Cadillac Escalade, with it's poor maneuverability, bad braking distance, and overall lack of emergency handling?

If driving is all about safety, why are so many cars designed with comfort and size in mind instead of the two most important aspects of safety -- handling and braking distance?

 

[Fjones]

So how do you feel about drink driving?

I am opposed. If you are too "drink" to drive, you shouldn't drive.

I don't know the best way to judge impairment, but people who are impaired should not drive. It should be easy to tell if you are impaired. I think most people in most situations know.

I do, however, think that driving while sleep deprived is far more dangerous than driving while mildly drunk.

Yet, sleep-deprived driving gets almost no press whatsoever.

 

[Fjones]

edit: in the situation with different states having different speed limits, either one or both of them has set the wrong speed limit. speed limits have to be set based on actuarial data vs. people's need to get places within a reasonable amount of time.

What you just said is just another way of saying what I said, that a certain amount of death is acceptable as long as people get where they are going in a reasonable amount of time and products get where they are going.

Regarding the different states, Yes, that is my point, that one or both states have set the wrong speed limit. In other words, they don't know what they are doing. With all the data they have, the states cannot even agree on what is a safe speed limit? Some 3 lane highways have 55 MPH zones and some are 75 or 80.

That doesn't make sense.

I don't see how a 55 MPH speed limit on a 3 lane highway makes any sense.

Also, why do they suddenly DROP from 65 to 55 in some places despite no obvious change in the road conditions? It seems like a good way to catch people who are now suddenly speeding despite maintaining their speed.

 

[AmorRoark]

You are very good at ignoring every point I made.

I am not angry, I am initiating a discussion, because it was suggested that I move the discussion here from a different forum, where the discussion started.

Do you really think writing a letter to congress would do anything? I find it rather insulting and obnoxious that I am being told by moderators to write to congress instead of creating a thread. If you don't like the thread, don't participate. Who is forcing you to participate in the thread?

It is pathetic how people are unable to even have a discussion. I presented a viewpoint and supported it with analysis and information and analogies. People then respond with general sweeping statements without addressing any of my points.

Most of the points I brought up were conveniently ignored.

I didn't suggest you write Congress. I suggested your State Legislature as the speed limits are set on a state-by-state basis. Yes, I do think if you put enough effort into getting not only yourself, but others (it's really not that hard) to sign a petition stating that 'so-and-so highway should be at least 60 MPH as modern realities have changed the standard of appropriate highway speed limits and here's why...' you might actually change things. How do you think speed limits ever change? Simple, people (not just state legislatures) suggest that it is time that they be changed. I simply advised to do something more constructive than type endlessly on your computer in regards to a discussion where you're clearly not likely to change your mind. TBH I feel like this is an extension of your posts in the 'pet peeve' thread (many which I surely enjoy).

I don't know statistics so I can't give you a clear answer on exactly how much more dangerous (if at all) having higher speed limits makes highways (though I doubt having all roads w/o speed limits would be 'better' in terms of safety). However, I do have another reason good reason why to have speed limits: the environment. I'm sure you're aware of the existence of the Autobahn which seemingly has less accidents than neighboring countries with speed limits. Knowing that, Germans are still fiercely divided whether they should keep a speed limit-less highway system in contrast to aiding in cleaning up air pollution.

Just some food for thought. Don't be annoyed at me. I have just as much a right to put in my .02c in regards to my opinion on your subject whether you like my post or not.

 

[Fjones]

Why can't people have a discussion without getting nasty?

People are calling me selfish, dangerous, and implying that I don't care about the welfare of anyone else.

In doing so, they are ignoring many of the issues I raised.

I wonder how many of the people attacking me ever speed themselves, or drove after having some drinks, or some pills, or any other substance? Or how many of them ever drove while sleep deprived, which has been shown to be as dangerous as drunk driving and probably more dangerous?

If I posted this thread in the wrong place, I apologize. But the appropriate response from the moderators should be to MOVE the thread, not attack me for creating it.

Maybe current events and politics would be appropriate, since this deals with the politics and laws of driving? I don't really know.



Keep in mind, I am talking specifically about speeding on Multi-lane highways on dry pavement with safe tires while NOT committing any other infractions, such as tailgating, cutting people off, etc, and while paying attention and while well rested and not sleep deprived.

I post about this because I am passionate about it. I really believe the system is all one big lie. They obviously don't care about safety, they care about money, and no one has addressed ANY of the points I made to that effect.

How many of you oppose the war on drugs? I suspect a lot of you do. Yet the same tired and hackneyed justifications for the war on drugs are being used here in response to my thread about speeding.

How would you feel if people said to you, "Stop being so selfish and putting lives at risk! You have no right to endanger others with your drug use! If you have a problem with the drug laws, stop complaining about start writing letters to your politicians!"

I don't think you would appreciate that very much at all.

This is a DISCUSSION forum, and I am trying to have a discussion.

 

[AmorRoark]

Re: writing politicians to end the "war on drugs"

A lot of bluelighters already do that. I don't think it's a ridiculous suggestion. 8)

Nobody is attacking you. They're voicing their opinions, just like you. They happen to feel driving like you do is 'dangerous'. I don't think so necessarily but I think everyone should have a right to voice their opinion as long as it isn't intentionally hurtful. I haven't seen any of that here.

 

[Fjones]

I didn't suggest you write Congress. I suggested your State Legislature as the speed limits are set on a state-by-state basis. Yes, I do think if you put enough effort into getting not only yourself, but others (it's really not that hard) to sign a petition stating that 'so-and-so highway should be at least 60 MPH as modern realities have changed the standard of appropriate highway speed limits and here's why...' you might actually change things. How do you think speed limits ever change? Simple, people (not just state legislatures) suggest that it is time that they be changed. I simply advised to do something more constructive than type endlessly on your computer in regards to a discussion where you're clearly not likely to change your mind. TBH I feel like this is an extension of your posts in the 'pet peeve' thread (many which I surely enjoy).

I don't know statistics so I can't give you a clear answer on exactly how much more dangerous (if at all) having higher speed limits makes highways (though I doubt having all roads w/o speed limits would be 'better' in terms of safety). However, I do have another reason good reason why to have speed limits: the environment. I'm sure you're aware of the existence of the Autobahn which seemingly has less accidents than neighboring countries with speed limits. Knowing that, Germans are still fiercely divided whether they should keep a speed limit-less highway system in contrast to aiding in cleaning up air pollution.

Just some food for thought. Don't be annoyed at me. I have just as much a right to put in my .02c in regards to my opinion on your subject whether you like my post or not.

Fair enough. I felt like I was under attack from a bunch of different angles.
Perhaps I will get some people to sign a petition asking the speed limit to be raised to 65 MPH aroudn here. It couldn't hurt.

Note -- I am a bit sensitive about this because I feel like people are attacking me instead of my arguments.

If a non-speeder made these same arguments, what would people do then? THey would be forced to address his points. That is all I ask for, that people address my arguments and not me. I am advocating a policy change. How does that make me selfish?

 

[Fjones]

Re: writing politicians to end the "war on drugs"

A lot of bluelighters already do that. I don't think it's a ridiculous suggestion. 8)

Nobody is attacking you. They're voicing their opinions, just like you. They happen to feel driving like you do is 'dangerous'. I don't think so necessarily but I think everyone should have a right to voice their opinion as long as it isn't intentionally hurtful. I haven't seen any of that here.

I can be stubborn and abrasive. As such, I don't feel that I would be the best person to write congress or state legislature. I would leave that to someone who has more tact than I do.

I choose to post here instead because I know that these forums are read by a great many BlueLighters. And if I generate a discussion and a bunch of them think I raise some valid points, maybe THEY will organize a petition to the state legislature.

 

[AmorRoark]

^ Good point.