What is "My quotes"?
Re: Need advice on reckless driving...
Hello Guest		   
  • Login
• Register…
• Start blog		   • Who, Where, When
• What is interesting here?
• Duels		   • Polls
• Avatars
• Interests		   • Cities and Countries
• Random blog
• Users search		   • Search
• Games
• Tests
• CarGuru		   • Ñîîáùåñòâà
• Talxy Chat
• Horoscope
• Online		  
Register!
CarGuru > Driving > Re: Need advice on reckless driving... 4 March 2005 18:33:38
  Recent blog posts: 
95 mirage
I have a 95 mirage and this is the second time the injector in number 3 cylinder has gone bad. Anything…

1988 Ford F-150 Truck
I would like to remove the pollution control system from my 1988 F-150, 4.9L I6 300 4x4. Can anyone…

my 99 M chrysler has started to…
my 99 M chrysler has started to cool and then starts to give off heat in the ac vents and then cool…

dodge 2000 intrepid
bought this car right off the show room floor in Bartow fl to this date I have not had any work done on…

starting issue, 2002 dodge…
My 2002 Dodge Caravan wouldn't crank. I tested some things, replaced the battery. After installing the…

stereo pin
I put a new battery in my girl friends 94 900 and it wants a code for the radio. There is nothing in the…

Coolant temp on Saturn Sky
I just purchased a 2007 Saturn Sky Redline. As I was driving yesterday I happen to have the info set on…

Que pour la place trange
Que pour la place trange

ha ha ha... loh mlya....da…
ha ha ha... loh mlya.... da, da... imenno you!!!!

da da da.....
da da da.....

  They have birthday today: 
YJlady
  Forums:   
    topic feeds

• CarGuru  all topics, blogs and comments

• Driving

• Formula-1

• Indycar

• Nascar

• Other sport

• Technology

• 4 x 4

• Volkswagen

• Mercedes

• Acura

• Alfa-romeo

• Audi

• BMW

• Chrysler

• Dodge

• Ford

• General Motors

• Jeep Willys

• Honda

• Hyundai

• Mazda

• Nissan

• Peugeot

• Pontiac

• Porsche

• Saab

• Saturn

• Toyota

• Volvo

• Buy / Sell

• Open discussion

• Anonymous
  Discuss: 
Re: Road test - DMV is cracked
On 28 Oct 2005 02:52:39 -0700, littleboyblu87@yaho­o.com wrote: What state is that? In TX, I…

Happy New Year!
Hi Viatologists, The Worldwide Highway Library would like to wish all viatologists a warm, happy New…

ETHANOL: HOW BRAZIL BEATS THE…
I guess America is so involved in fighting terrorism that forgets to prepare herself for a fuel crisis…
  Recent forum topics: 
...96 Accord tranny issue
I have a 1996 honda accord ex automatic. on a cold start the car shits gears realitively fine. however…

i just want to find out how…
i just want to find out how much it will cost to change an ignition to a 2001 pontiac grand am and can i…

What is causing my 97 Toyota…
What is causing my 97 Toyota Camry to hesitate like it is about to stall?

94 Dodge Intrepid
How do I go about finding and unsticking or replacing the gas float on a 94 Dodge Intrepid. I ran out of…
  Recent forum comments:
RE: stuck hatchback
on the rear gate that is

RE: stuck hatchback
just my latch is stuck and the door wont close on my 2000 sub outback limited

RE: 1999 Chrysler T&C - Speed…
I am reading all of this and am amazed at how bad I am getting ripped off by my Chrysler dealership....4…

RE: How to duplicate Navtech CD’s
where can i buy nav cd's for a 2003 s class mercedes also the latest version for a 2005 sl?

RE: Mitsubishi Diamante ECU faults…
how did you read the codes

RE: Re: Road test - DMV is cracked
Well, I passed on the 4th roadtest. The examiner said I should have passed it the first time. I have…

RE: turn signal problams
Try a new flasher because it's cheaper. If that doesn't work then you probably need a new turn signal…

RE: Chevy 305 Timing Chain…
Sprucing up a low mileage 305 chev. Crank sprocket has one keyway. Looking at the front end how many…

RE: 95 maxmia
my 95 Nissian Quest jerks A Lot:-?­ when it warms up and I push on the accelerator, I was told…

RE: 4x4 usefulness
I live in the mountains of colorado, and most of the time I am able to get by with my very powerful…
  Ìîäåðàòîð:
 Administrator

Re: Need advice on reckless driving...

Random Waftings Of Bunker Blasts 3 March 2005 03:29:03
 On 2 Mar 2005 14:54:49 -0800, "Sherman Cahal" <sherman@cahaltech.­com>
said:
What else can I state to knock it through their heads, or should I give>it up because they are all idiots?

They sound like exactly the type of idiots and spoiled brats who I've
been writing about in my book.

Rules don't apply to them. To them, there's no right or wrong, and
therefore no consequences. They've had everything handed to them on a
silver platter their whole lives, so they think it's their birthright to
not be governed by the laws and regulations that apply to everyone else.

Add comment
Sherman Cahal 3 March 2005 02:54:49 [ permanent link ]
 Need some additional info or advice on this topic at another forum. I
explained my position several times on another thread within that forum
but these kids think that they own the road:

Original post:
"seems these days we have kids that think that the road we drive on
everday is a race track which in no way or form is it a dragstrip. I've
grew up at the dragstrip i know what it's like to go 6.30s in the 1/8th
what people dont think about when racing is they can danger other
peoples life also its ok if they make the choice to take there life but
its not to take other peoples think of the dads and moms etc if people
though just a little more and just waited to go to the track we may
just save lifes and yeah you can call me this and that but im just
telling the facts."

Reply:
"I agree with you there part of the way. But it there is no traffic on
the roads (late at night) then i don't see how it can be any different.
The biggest difference would be the concrete barriers on the sides at
the strip. Other than that everything else is pretty equal."

Reply:

"Those are not the facts but your opinion....And I respect your
opinions and beliefs no matter how wrong they may be."

My reply to all that:
"No, actually he is restating fact here. Whether the highway is empty
or not, let's give a hypothetical situation: What if a deer were to
jump out in front of you? Or, if you were from my hometown, an elk?
That would likely total your car and cause you some serious injuries.
Or what if a vehicle pulled out in front of you because that driver
misjudged your speed? You would not have enough reaction time:

80 MPH braking distance would require 400 feet, not nearly enough to
avoid a collision.

100 MPH would require 600 feet alone.

If you were involved in an accident like the ones I described above,
then it would be all over your hands, for reckless endangerment, and if
the other person was seriously injured or killed, that is manslaughter.
Take it from me, a person from my high school graduating class was
convicted of just that...

There is no justification for excessive speeding in uncontrolled
sitatuions. You have many variables to which an accident could *easily*
occur, which I only listed a few of above, and with no way to avoid
them, you are taking a risk not just onto yourselves, but others."

I used the forumula for braking distance: X^2/20+X where X is speed.

What else can I state to knock it through their heads, or should I give
it up because they are all idiots?

FYI, this is at lexistreets.com

Add comment
Steve 3 March 2005 03:00:45 [ permanent link ]
 Sherman Cahal wrote:
Need some additional info or advice on this topic at another forum. I> explained my position several times on another thread within that forum> but these kids think that they own the road:>
Speed alone doesn't make driving reckless. There are a whole host of
factors, empty road being just one. I can safely drive at 90 MPH on a
fairly empty Interstate during the day, while under the exact same
conditions at night I'd drive 75-80 unless the roadway was very well lit
(urban area, say). This is the idea behind Reasonable and Prudent -
safe speed is a fuzzy concept with no true upper bound.

--
Steve
Civil Engineering (Course 1) at MIT

Add comment
Nate Nagel 3 March 2005 04:42:06 [ permanent link ]
 Sherman Cahal wrote:
Need some additional info or advice on this topic at another forum. I> explained my position several times on another thread within that forum> but these kids think that they own the road:>
Original post:> "seems these days we have kids that think that the road we drive on> everday is a race track which in no way or form is it a dragstrip. I've> grew up at the dragstrip i know what it's like to go 6.30s in the 1/8th> what people dont think about when racing is they can danger other> peoples life also its ok if they make the choice to take there life but> its not to take other peoples think of the dads and moms etc if people> though just a little more and just waited to go to the track we may> just save lifes and yeah you can call me this and that but im just> telling the facts.">
Reply:> "I agree with you there part of the way. But it there is no traffic on> the roads (late at night) then i don't see how it can be any different.> The biggest difference would be the concrete barriers on the sides at> the strip. Other than that everything else is pretty equal.">
Reply:>
"Those are not the facts but your opinion....And I respect your> opinions and beliefs no matter how wrong they may be.">
My reply to all that:> "No, actually he is restating fact here. Whether the highway is empty> or not, let's give a hypothetical situation: What if a deer were to> jump out in front of you? Or, if you were from my hometown, an elk?> That would likely total your car and cause you some serious injuries.> Or what if a vehicle pulled out in front of you because that driver> misjudged your speed? You would not have enough reaction time:>
80 MPH braking distance would require 400 feet, not nearly enough to> avoid a collision.>
100 MPH would require 600 feet alone.>
If you were involved in an accident like the ones I described above,> then it would be all over your hands, for reckless endangerment, and if> the other person was seriously injured or killed, that is manslaughter.> Take it from me, a person from my high school graduating class was> convicted of just that...>
There is no justification for excessive speeding in uncontrolled> sitatuions. You have many variables to which an accident could *easily*> occur, which I only listed a few of above, and with no way to avoid> them, you are taking a risk not just onto yourselves, but others.">
I used the forumula for braking distance: X^2/20+X where X is speed.>
What else can I state to knock it through their heads, or should I give> it up because they are all idiots?>
FYI, this is at lexistreets.com>

A better approximation for braking would be v^2 = 2ax (v = initial
speed, a = acceleration (deceleration, in this case) and x is distance -
solve for x, a should be some reasonable number for the car in question
- 1G is close enough for a good sports car on dry asphalt with a skilled
driver - 9.81m/s^2 or 32.2ft/s^2) then add on an initial half second or
so at initial speed for reaction time.

So let's say I spot a hazard at 80 MPH or 117-1/3 ft/s. I'm not
unuaually alert at the moment so it takes me a full half second to react
- I will travel 53-2/3 feet before I start to decelerate. Then I brake
at 1G so it will take me about another 214 feet to stop for a hair under
270 feet total.

At 100 MPH or 146-2/3 ft/s that would be 73-1/3 feet plus 334 feet or a
little under 410 feet total. Of course that assumes that your brakes
don't fade... not a big deal for a modern sports car but I don't know
that I would trust the brakes of the average car at those speeds.
Technology has come a long way, but a lot of mfgrs. seem to sell cars
with brakes that are good enough for average use - but no more.

If one were so inclined, one could probably reverse-calculate the
average decel of any given car by using published road-test stopping
distances from one of the enthusiast magazines. It'd probably be safe
to ignore reaction time as they generally set up their tests so that the
driver applies the brakes at a predetermined point - this will probably
make "a" a little lower than it is in real life as the driver probably
actually hits the brakes a tick after he passes the cone, but that also
makes the calculation more conservative. I'm a little bored at the
moment, but not *so* bored that I'll actually dig out a copy of C&D and
start crunching numbers <G>

I don't really know why I'm posting this as I agree with you that street
racing is probably not the cleverest thing one could do on a friday
night... but inaccurate formulas are a pet peeve of mine.

If the "kids" were paying attention in physics, they probably know all
the above formulas... (but if you quote me, they'll be all like "who's
the old guy who still thinks in those funny units?" <G>)

Seriously, I wonder if they still teach mechanics in english units... I
know it was very archaic when I was in school, and it took me a while to
get the hang of pounds force, pounds mass, and worst of all slugs...

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast­.net/~njnagel
Add comment
Mike Tantillo 3 March 2005 05:34:02 [ permanent link ]
 
Random Waftings Of Bunker Blasts wrote:> On 2 Mar 2005 14:54:49 -0800, "Sherman Cahal" <sherman@cahaltech.­com>> said:>
What else can I state to knock it through their heads, or should I
give> >it up because they are all idiots?>
They sound like exactly the type of idiots and spoiled brats who I've> been writing about in my book.>
Rules don't apply to them. To them, there's no right or wrong, and> therefore no consequences. They've had everything handed to them on a> silver platter their whole lives, so they think it's their birthright
not be governed by the laws and regulations that apply to everyone
else.


You know Tim, this is one of the few times when I have to say, I agree
completely with what you say.

Add comment
Steve 3 March 2005 05:37:10 [ permanent link ]
 Nate Nagel wrote:
If one were so inclined, one could probably reverse-calculate the > average decel of any given car by using published road-test stopping > distances from one of the enthusiast magazines. It'd probably be safe > to ignore reaction time as they generally set up their tests so that the > driver applies the brakes at a predetermined point - this will probably > make "a" a little lower than it is in real life as the driver probably > actually hits the brakes a tick after he passes the cone, but that also > makes the calculation more conservative. I'm a little bored at the > moment, but not *so* bored that I'll actually dig out a copy of C&D and > start crunching numbers <G>

C&D only does 70-MPH stopping. Road and Track I believe did 60 and 80,
or maybe Motor Trend did. I'm not sure if either still does. Anyway,
an average car can stop in 180-185 ft from 70 MPH. A sports car can do
it in 160, and an SUV takes more like 200. Pickups, with rear drums and
terrible unladen weight balances, take 215+. You give a very careful
analysis, Nate, so I'll just say that 1G is indeed aggressive, and out
of the capability of most cars. If you want to reverse the calculations
for 180' from 70 MPH and figure out G's, be my guest, but 214 from 80 is
definitely sports-car territory.


--
Steve
Civil Engineering (Course 1) at MIT

Add comment
Nate Nagel 3 March 2005 06:59:11 [ permanent link ]
 Steve wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote:>
If one were so inclined, one could probably reverse-calculate the >> average decel of any given car by using published road-test stopping >> distances from one of the enthusiast magazines. It'd probably be safe >> to ignore reaction time as they generally set up their tests so that >> the driver applies the brakes at a predetermined point - this will >> probably make "a" a little lower than it is in real life as the driver >> probably actually hits the brakes a tick after he passes the cone, but >> that also makes the calculation more conservative. I'm a little bored >> at the moment, but not *so* bored that I'll actually dig out a copy of >> C&D and start crunching numbers <G>>
C&D only does 70-MPH stopping. Road and Track I believe did 60 and 80, > or maybe Motor Trend did. I'm not sure if either still does. Anyway, > an average car can stop in 180-185 ft from 70 MPH. A sports car can do > it in 160, and an SUV takes more like 200. Pickups, with rear drums and > terrible unladen weight balances, take 215+. You give a very careful > analysis, Nate, so I'll just say that 1G is indeed aggressive, and out > of the capability of most cars. If you want to reverse the calculations > for 180' from 70 MPH and figure out G's, be my guest, but 214 from 80 is > definitely sports-car territory.>

oh, that's easy... 180 feet from 70 MPH or 102-2/3 ft/s would work out
to 29.3 ft/s^2 or about 0.91G - 160 feet would be just a tick over 1G.
Your hypothetical pickup truck still pulls over 0.76G.

I feel better about my hand-waving math now :)­ (I *did* say sports car,
didn't I?) Thanks for looking some numbers up for me so I didn't have
to be bothered...

IMHO the real limiting factor to the stopping distance of a vehicle on a
good pavement surface with good tires is really the comfort level of the
driver. I spent a fun six months theoretically working at developing
ABS software before I got laid off from that job (the sad truth is at
the time I got laid off, I'd just started to really get a handle on how
to do it, although I have to admit to almost immediately on starting the
job, I realized that the customers - i.e. major auto mfgrs. - had
radically different ideas about how a "good" ABS system should work than
I did. But that's another discussion for another time.) and one thing
that I remember from that was that the number 0.3G was thrown about as
the highest acceleration that the average driver was likely to feel
comfortable with in any direction (braking, cornering, or acceleration)
- despite the fact that most vehicles are capable of at least twice that
in all directions. I do remember being amazed at how quickly some
really unwieldy trucks could be made to stop by a driver who wasn't
afraid of testing its limits - far quicker than I imagine that the
average driver has ever experienced, in *any* car. Now while we can
discuss back and forth all day about the relative merits and
disadvantages of ABS, the one thing that it really has going for it is
that if you stand on the brake pedal hard enough, you *will* get fairly
close to the theoretical max decel for a vehicle, regardless of how
skilled (or not) you are. Since most modern vehicles have it,
theoretically most drivers should be able to execute fairly high-G stops
- should they keep their foot in it and not get scared. To be fair, it
is fairly disconcerting the first time you experience a truly
full-effort stop and you realize that your full body weight is being
held by the shoulder harness...

So, all that said, perhaps a more conservative figure for "a" *is*
appropriate, although it's not a function of the car - but the driver.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast­.net/~njnagel
Add comment
Richard 3 March 2005 08:28:31 [ permanent link ]
 On 2 Mar 2005 14:54:49 -0800 Sherman Cahal wrote:
Need some additional info or advice on this topic at another forum. I> explained my position several times on another thread within that forum> but these kids think that they own the road:>


Your theory on braking distance is a bit off.
The stopping distance for a fully loaded 80,000 pound semi at 65mph is 625
feet.
I have put it to the test.
At 65 mph for a standard vehicle is roughly 130 to 160 feet depending on the
car once you apply pressure to the pedal.

Reaction time is the big thing more so than braking.
If it takes you 3 to 4 seconds to react, and you have only 2 seconds to
stop, you're screwed.
60mph=88ft per second.
So a 4 second safety margin gives us 350ft to work in.

So 90mph would be roughly 130 ft per second.
You wold require a 10th of a mile to stop safely in.

The only thing that can knock sense into these wannabe daredevils is to put
them behind the wheel on a closed course and throw everything at them.
Nothing will phase these daredevils until they've hit and killed a living
human being.

I see it all the time in Chicago practically every weeknight.
Young wannabes running lose in their souped up four bangers think they can
do it all.




Add comment
Sherman Cahal 3 March 2005 11:16:17 [ permanent link ]
 Random Waftings Of Bunker Blasts wrote:> On 2 Mar 2005 14:54:49 -0800, "Sherman Cahal" <sherman@cahaltech.­com>> said:>
What else can I state to knock it through their heads, or should I
give> >it up because they are all idiots?>
They sound like exactly the type of idiots and spoiled brats who I've> been writing about in my book.>
Rules don't apply to them. To them, there's no right or wrong, and> therefore no consequences. They've had everything handed to them on a> silver platter their whole lives, so they think it's their birthright
not be governed by the laws and regulations that apply to everyone
else.

I agree with you there Tim. They think that it is too far to drive to
Clay City, which in reality is not _that_ far, so they will take it to
a multilane highway and hopefully *not* endanger anyone out driving.

They dump all that money into their car to get XXX amount of horsepower
out of it, they should take it for a dyno run or to a track, not on a
public highway. For that, they should have their car crushed by a
wrecker...

Add comment
Sherman Cahal 3 March 2005 11:22:30 [ permanent link ]
 Steve wrote:> Sherman Cahal wrote:>
Need some additional info or advice on this topic at another forum.
explained my position several times on another thread within that
forum> > but these kids think that they own the road:> >
Speed alone doesn't make driving reckless.

Speeding on a non-interstate highway going 90 to 100 MPH is reckless.
When the maximum speed limit on a non-interstate highway in Kentucky is
55 MPH, you can bet that if I see someone going 90-100 MPH, I will
report them to the police ASAP and ruin their "fun". These are not
"reasonable" and "prudent" speeds, they endanger other people lives
beacuse it is not just exceeding the speed limit by 10 MPH and matching
the 85th percentile in some cases, but exceeding it excessively and
without a care for other traffic. In other posts, they believe,
*seriously* believe that all other cars should yield and if they don't,
then it wouldn't be their fault.

But what if it wasn't a car? What if it was a deer? Or an elk?

Even on an interstate, 100 MPH is a fairly unrealistic speed,
considering that the 85th percentile on Kentucky's interstates fall
within the 69-75 MPH range. Going 100 MPH would entail you hitting
throngs of vehicles around every corner who aren't going to be
traveling at 100 MPH, and the chance for rear-end collisions is great.
Note that these posters range from 16 to 35 even... they just don't
have the mental capacities to see their consequences.

Why do it on a public highway when there are drag strips all around?
Just because they aren't open 24/7 or, as one poster puts it, "whenever
I want to drag race", does not make it right or acceptable or safe to
do it on public highways.

I remember a case in northeastern Kentucky where a kid was drag racing,
slammed into another vehicle and killed them. The kid got vehicular
manslaughter and is serving 30 years in prison. IMO, that kid deserves
to rot in there for doing what he did.

There are a whole host of> factors, empty road being just one. I can safely drive at 90 MPH on
fairly empty Interstate during the day, while under the exact same> conditions at night I'd drive 75-80 unless the roadway was very well
(urban area, say). This is the idea behind Reasonable and Prudent -> safe speed is a fuzzy concept with no true upper bound.

Add comment
Arif Khokar 3 March 2005 11:36:31 [ permanent link ]
 Sherman Cahal wrote:
Steve wrote:
Speed alone doesn't make driving reckless.
Speeding on a non-interstate highway going 90 to 100 MPH is reckless.

I've driven those speeds on non interstate highways (i.e., 4 lane
divided ARC routes). One-half mile visibility is more than enough for
100 mph speeds.
Even on an interstate, 100 MPH is a fairly unrealistic speed,

You obviously lack experience at those speeds.
considering that the 85th percentile on Kentucky's interstates fall> within the 69-75 MPH range. Going 100 MPH would entail you hitting> throngs of vehicles around every corner who aren't going to be> traveling at 100 MPH,

It depends on how much traffic there is. A 25 mph differential isn't
that much and can easily be handled.
and the chance for rear-end collisions is great.

So you're saying that if you're driving down a suburban street with
parked cars at 25 mph, you'd end up rear ending one if one pulled out in
front of you?
Note that these posters range from 16 to 35 even... they just don't> have the mental capacities to see their consequences.

I'd only agree with you if they were driving at those speeds on city
streets (which neither have the sight lines or necessary clearance).
Add comment
Nate Nagel 3 March 2005 13:47:24 [ permanent link ]
 Sherman Cahal wrote:
Steve wrote:>
Sherman Cahal wrote:>>
Need some additional info or advice on this topic at another forum.>
explained my position several times on another thread within that>
forum>
but these kids think that they own the road:>>>
Speed alone doesn't make driving reckless.>
Speeding on a non-interstate highway going 90 to 100 MPH is reckless.> When the maximum speed limit on a non-interstate highway in Kentucky is> 55 MPH, you can bet that if I see someone going 90-100 MPH, I will> report them to the police ASAP and ruin their "fun". These are not> "reasonable" and "prudent" speeds, they endanger other people lives> beacuse it is not just exceeding the speed limit by 10 MPH and matching> the 85th percentile in some cases, but exceeding it excessively and> without a care for other traffic. In other posts, they believe,> *seriously* believe that all other cars should yield and if they don't,> then it wouldn't be their fault.>
But what if it wasn't a car? What if it was a deer? Or an elk?>
Even on an interstate, 100 MPH is a fairly unrealistic speed,> considering that the 85th percentile on Kentucky's interstates fall> within the 69-75 MPH range. Going 100 MPH would entail you hitting> throngs of vehicles around every corner who aren't going to be> traveling at 100 MPH, and the chance for rear-end collisions is great.> Note that these posters range from 16 to 35 even... they just don't> have the mental capacities to see their consequences.

There's a big difference between racing and simply driving fast. I'm
not going to say that I cruise at 100 MPH, but traffic regularly flows
at 80+ on 65 MPH (posted) Interstates at least around here. Thus 90 MPH
wouldn't be that far outside the norm, certainly not enough to make the
speed differential in and of itself dangerous. Perhaps the roads in KY
are less amenable to such, I don't know, but the one time I drove
through KY I didn't notice that much obvious difference. What it really
boils down to is can you see far enough ahead of you to react in time to
any hazards, including a reasonable distance for reaction time. A
realistic assessment of one's car and one's ability to react is key.
Why do it on a public highway when there are drag strips all around?> Just because they aren't open 24/7 or, as one poster puts it, "whenever> I want to drag race", does not make it right or acceptable or safe to> do it on public highways.

Agreed!
I remember a case in northeastern Kentucky where a kid was drag racing,> slammed into another vehicle and killed them. The kid got vehicular> manslaughter and is serving 30 years in prison. IMO, that kid deserves> to rot in there for doing what he did.

Sure!

nate


--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast­.net/~njnagel
Add comment
John Lansford 3 March 2005 14:34:25 [ permanent link ]
 "Sherman Cahal" <sherman@cahaltech.­com> wrote:
Need some additional info or advice on this topic at another forum. I>explained my position several times on another thread within that forum>but these kids think that they own the road:>
Original post:>"seems these days we have kids that think that the road we drive on>everday is a race track which in no way or form is it a dragstrip. I've>grew up at the dragstrip i know what it's like to go 6.30s in the 1/8th>what people dont think about when racing is they can danger other>peoples life also its ok if they make the choice to take there life but>its not to take other peoples think of the dads and moms etc if people>though just a little more and just waited to go to the track we may>just save lifes and yeah you can call me this and that but im just>telling the facts.">
Reply:>"I agree with you there part of the way. But it there is no traffic on>the roads (late at night) then i don't see how it can be any different.>The biggest difference would be the concrete barriers on the sides at>the strip. Other than that everything else is pretty equal.">
Reply:>
"Those are not the facts but your opinion....And I respect your>opinions and beliefs no matter how wrong they may be.">
My reply to all that:>"No, actually he is restating fact here. Whether the highway is empty>or not, let's give a hypothetical situation: What if a deer were to>jump out in front of you? Or, if you were from my hometown, an elk?>That would likely total your car and cause you some serious injuries.>Or what if a vehicle pulled out in front of you because that driver>misjudged your speed? You would not have enough reaction time:>
80 MPH braking distance would require 400 feet, not nearly enough to>avoid a collision.>
100 MPH would require 600 feet alone.>
If you were involved in an accident like the ones I described above,>then it would be all over your hands, for reckless endangerment, and if>the other person was seriously injured or killed, that is manslaughter.>Take it from me, a person from my high school graduating class was>convicted of just that...>
There is no justification for excessive speeding in uncontrolled>sitatu­ions. You have many variables to which an accident could *easily*>occur, which I only listed a few of above, and with no way to avoid>them, you are taking a risk not just onto yourselves, but others.">
I used the forumula for braking distance: X^2/20+X where X is speed.>
What else can I state to knock it through their heads, or should I give>it up because they are all idiots?>
FYI, this is at lexistreets.com

Sherman,

You're wasting your time. They have the same attitude as the highway
speeders; that, since they've not had a crash, they aren't going to
have one, so they aren't doing anything dangerous.

I've tried explaining how reaction distances increase at higher
speeds, how kinetic energy is higher at high speeds, how safety
features aren't designed for very high speeds, etc, etc. Nothing gets
through to them.

Not until they see one of their friends (and unfortunately, someone
else all too often) splattered all over the road will they realize
what you are talking about.

John Lansford, PE
--
The unofficial I-26 Construction Webpage:
http://users.vnet.n­et/lansford/a10/
Add comment
John Lansford 3 March 2005 14:40:41 [ permanent link ]
 Nate Nagel <njnagel@flycast.ne­t> wrote:
There's a big difference between racing and simply driving fast. I'm >not going to say that I cruise at 100 MPH, but traffic regularly flows >at 80+ on 65 MPH (posted) Interstates at least around here. Thus 90 MPH >wouldn't be that far outside the norm, certainly not enough to make the >speed differential in and of itself dangerous.

I love this attitude. You're rationalizing a 90mph speed because
traffic is already exceeding the posted speed limit by 15mph, making
the even higher speed "only" 10mph over the 'regular' speed.

Thanks for making a point I've expressed many times previously.
Speeders will rationalize higher and yet higher speeds by saying they
are "only a few miles higher" than the current already-high speeds.

Meanwhile, there are motorists on that same highway that ARE
travelling the speed limit, making those 90mph speeders nearly 30mph
faster than them. Throw in the few vehicles actually travelling slower
than the speed limit, and you've got a potentially dangerous mix
speeders conveniently ignore as they repeat their holy mantra of "85th
percentile".

John Lansford, PE
--
The unofficial I-26 Construction Webpage:
http://users.vnet.n­et/lansford/a10/
Add comment
Nate Nagel 3 March 2005 15:11:35 [ permanent link ]
 John Lansford wrote:
Nate Nagel <njnagel@flycast.ne­t> wrote:>
There's a big difference between racing and simply driving fast. I'm >>not going to say that I cruise at 100 MPH, but traffic regularly flows >>at 80+ on 65 MPH (posted) Interstates at least around here. Thus 90 MPH >>wouldn't be that far outside the norm, certainly not enough to make the >>speed differential in and of itself dangerous.>
I love this attitude. You're rationalizing a 90mph speed because> traffic is already exceeding the posted speed limit by 15mph, making> the even higher speed "only" 10mph over the 'regular' speed.

Sounds about right. A 10 MPH speed differential is trivial for a
competent driver.
Thanks for making a point I've expressed many times previously.> Speeders will rationalize higher and yet higher speeds by saying they> are "only a few miles higher" than the current already-high speeds.>

Not really, most drivers find their comfort zone around 85ish or so, at
least here.
Meanwhile, there are motorists on that same highway that ARE> travelling the speed limit, making those 90mph speeders nearly 30mph> faster than them. Throw in the few vehicles actually travelling slower> than the speed limit, and you've got a potentially dangerous mix> speeders conveniently ignore as they repeat their holy mantra of "85th> percentile".>

No, there aren't any drivers following the speed limit, except for maybe
the occasional overloaded semi truck. You use this argument over and
over, and it makes me wonder if you ever get out and drive. The only
time I see any drivers following the speed limit is when traffic is
congested and artificially slowed.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast­.net/~njnagel
Add comment
Scott M. Kozel 3 March 2005 16:12:44 [ permanent link ]
 Nate Nagel <njnagel@flycast.ne­t> wrote:>
John Lansford wrote:>
Nate Nagel <njnagel@flycast.ne­t> wrote:> >
There's a big difference between racing and simply driving fast. I'm> >>not going to say that I cruise at 100 MPH, but traffic regularly flows> >>at 80+ on 65 MPH (posted) Interstates at least around here. Thus 90 MPH> >>wouldn't be that far outside the norm, certainly not enough to make the> >>speed differential in and of itself dangerous.> >
I love this attitude. You're rationalizing a 90mph speed because> > traffic is already exceeding the posted speed limit by 15mph, making> > the even higher speed "only" 10mph over the 'regular' speed.>
Sounds about right. A 10 MPH speed differential is trivial for a> competent driver.>
Thanks for making a point I've expressed many times previously.> > Speeders will rationalize higher and yet higher speeds by saying they> > are "only a few miles higher" than the current already-high speeds.> >
Not really, most drivers find their comfort zone around 85ish or so, at> least here.

Baloney, any way you slice it.

You say that you live in Maryland. Your speed numerical comments above
are way over exaggerated.

Another speeder myth; "everybody goes xx mph".

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/W­ashington, D.C. http://www.roadstot­hefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways­.com
Add comment
N8n 3 March 2005 16:18:29 [ permanent link ]
 
Scott M. Kozel wrote:> Nate Nagel <njnagel@flycast.ne­t> wrote:> >
John Lansford wrote:> >
Nate Nagel <njnagel@flycast.ne­t> wrote:> > >
There's a big difference between racing and simply driving fast.
I'm> > >>not going to say that I cruise at 100 MPH, but traffic regularly
flows> > >>at 80+ on 65 MPH (posted) Interstates at least around here. Thus
90 MPH> > >>wouldn't be that far outside the norm, certainly not enough to
make the> > >>speed differential in and of itself dangerous.> > >
I love this attitude. You're rationalizing a 90mph speed because> > > traffic is already exceeding the posted speed limit by 15mph,
making> > > the even higher speed "only" 10mph over the 'regular' speed.> >
Sounds about right. A 10 MPH speed differential is trivial for a> > competent driver.> >
Thanks for making a point I've expressed many times previously.> > > Speeders will rationalize higher and yet higher speeds by saying
they> > > are "only a few miles higher" than the current already-high
speeds.> > >
Not really, most drivers find their comfort zone around 85ish or
so, at> > least here.>
Baloney, any way you slice it.>
You say that you live in Maryland. Your speed numerical comments
above> are way over exaggerated.

No, they're accurate. I drive between DC and Annapolis on a regular
basis. I know my speedometer is accurate within 2-3 MPH. I usually
cruise about 85, which is slightly but not significantly faster than
the main flow of traffic, and I am NEVER the fastest car on the road.
I would say that on any given day I see at least a couple drivers doing
an honest 90-95 MPH.

Once, in response to a similar comment in a thread on RAD, I actually
tried driving the speed limit for a couple of days. One day I passed
one vehicle, a heavily loaded truck merging onto the freeway. The
remainder of the time I tried this "experiment" I didn't pass one
single vehicle nor did I ever leave the rightmost lane.
Another speeder myth; "everybody goes xx mph".

Please explain, why do you call verifiable fact a myth?

nate
--> Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites> Virginia/Maryland/W­ashington, D.C. http://www.roadstot­hefuture.com> Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways­.com

Add comment
Scott M. Kozel 3 March 2005 16:24:27 [ permanent link ]
 "N8N" <njnagel@hotmail.co­m> wrote:>
Scott M. Kozel wrote:>
You say that you live in Maryland. Your speed numerical comments above> > are way over exaggerated.>
No, they're accurate. I drive between DC and Annapolis on a regular> basis. I know my speedometer is accurate within 2-3 MPH. I usually> cruise about 85, which is slightly but not significantly faster than> the main flow of traffic, and I am NEVER the fastest car on the road.> I would say that on any given day I see at least a couple drivers doing> an honest 90-95 MPH.

B A L O N E Y !

i drive that highway regularly, and the typical "main flow of traffic"
is about 65 to 70.
Another speeder myth; "everybody goes xx mph".>
Please explain, why do you call verifiable fact a myth?

What you said was not a "fact", it was an excuse to go 85, by claiming
that it is the "main flow of traffic".

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/W­ashington, D.C. http://www.roadstot­hefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways­.com
Add comment
N8n 3 March 2005 16:34:28 [ permanent link ]
 
Scott M. Kozel wrote:> "N8N" <njnagel@hotmail.co­m> wrote:> >
Scott M. Kozel wrote:> >
You say that you live in Maryland. Your speed numerical comments
above> > > are way over exaggerated.> >
No, they're accurate. I drive between DC and Annapolis on a
regular> > basis. I know my speedometer is accurate within 2-3 MPH. I
usually> > cruise about 85, which is slightly but not significantly faster
than> > the main flow of traffic, and I am NEVER the fastest car on the
road.> > I would say that on any given day I see at least a couple drivers
doing> > an honest 90-95 MPH.>
B A L O N E Y !>
i drive that highway regularly, and the typical "main flow of
traffic"> is about 65 to 70.

You must be driving during rush hour then. Try it sometime when
traffic is truly free flowing, like a Saturday or Sunday morning. As I
stated before, the only times I see traffic moving that slowly are when
it's congested and therefore artificially slowed.

The fact remains that the road *itself* would be safe at speeds far
higher than anyone's driving, having minimal curves and mile-long (or
more) sightlines for the most part.

Another speeder myth; "everybody goes xx mph".> >
Please explain, why do you call verifiable fact a myth?>
What you said was not a "fact", it was an excuse to go 85, by
claiming> that it is the "main flow of traffic".

It *is* the main flow of traffic.

IMHO discussions like this are part of the reason why there are so many
"reckless" drivers - "experts" preach death and mutilation upon
exceeding a certain speed that the "expert" has decided is "reckless" -
which of course is usually a lower speed than most people are already
driving. Thus anyone that might glean anything from the discussion is
immediately turned off, because the "expert" has already lost all
credibility.

If you want to educate young and/or irresponsible drivers about proper
driving and selecting a proper speed, you're going to have to not
insult their intelligence by stating that something that they see the
majority of people doing every day is "reckless." That is
counterproductive and makes it less likely that any good points that
you may have will be heeded. Ironically, their statement that they
know better than you just might be true!

nate

ObDisclaimer: even though I'm disagreeing with Scott, I'm still in no
way advocating actual reckless driving or street racing... (no <G>
'cause it's not funny.)
--> Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites> Virginia/Maryland/W­ashington, D.C. http://www.roadstot­hefuture.com> Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways­.com

Add comment
Sherman Cahal 3 March 2005 21:57:09 [ permanent link ]
 John Lansford wrote:> "Sherman Cahal" <sherman@cahaltech.­com> wrote:>
Need some additional info or advice on this topic at another forum.
explained my position several times on another thread within that
forum> >but these kids think that they own the road:> >
Original post:> >"seems these days we have kids that think that the road we drive on> >everday is a race track which in no way or form is it a dragstrip.
I've> >grew up at the dragstrip i know what it's like to go 6.30s in the
1/8th> >what people dont think about when racing is they can danger other> >peoples life also its ok if they make the choice to take there life
its not to take other peoples think of the dads and moms etc if
people> >though just a little more and just waited to go to the track we may> >just save lifes and yeah you can call me this and that but im just> >telling the facts."> >
Reply:> >"I agree with you there part of the way. But it there is no traffic
the roads (late at night) then i don't see how it can be any
different.> >The biggest difference would be the concrete barriers on the sides
the strip. Other than that everything else is pretty equal."> >
Reply:> >
"Those are not the facts but your opinion....And I respect your> >opinions and beliefs no matter how wrong they may be."> >
My reply to all that:> >"No, actually he is restating fact here. Whether the highway is
empty> >or not, let's give a hypothetical situation: What if a deer were to> >jump out in front of you? Or, if you were from my hometown, an elk?> >That would likely total your car and cause you some serious
injuries.> >Or what if a vehicle pulled out in front of you because that driver> >misjudged your speed? You would not have enough reaction time:> >
80 MPH braking distance would require 400 feet, not nearly enough to> >avoid a collision.> >
100 MPH would require 600 feet alone.> >
If you were involved in an accident like the ones I described above,> >then it would be all over your hands, for reckless endangerment, and
the other person was seriously injured or killed, that is
manslaughter.> >Take it from me, a person from my high school graduating class was> >convicted of just that...> >
There is no justification for excessive speeding in uncontrolled> >sitatuions. You have many variables to which an accident could
*easily*> >occur, which I only listed a few of above, and with no way to avoid> >them, you are taking a risk not just onto yourselves, but others."> >
I used the forumula for braking distance: X^2/20+X where X is speed.> >
What else can I state to knock it through their heads, or should I
give> >it up because they are all idiots?> >
FYI, this is at lexistreets.com>
Sherman,>
You're wasting your time. They have the same attitude as the highway> speeders; that, since they've not had a crash, they aren't going to> have one, so they aren't doing anything dangerous.>
I've tried explaining how reaction distances increase at higher> speeds, how kinetic energy is higher at high speeds, how safety> features aren't designed for very high speeds, etc, etc. Nothing gets> through to them.>
Not until they see one of their friends (and unfortunately, someone> else all too often) splattered all over the road will they realize> what you are talking about.>
John Lansford, PE

Probably am. One poster believes I should be "banned" from the forum
for speaking the facts and not the myths and for trying to "ruin"
everybody else's "fun." Wow. It sure is fun until they ram head on onto
another car or plow into another vehicle. I was hoping for some
official documentation but I cannot find that online.

Add comment
Jay Maynard 3 March 2005 23:01:17 [ permanent link ]
 On 2005-03-03, Sherman Cahal <sherman@cahaltech.­com> wrote:> parents, I would take his license and set it on fire and watch it melt.> He stated it was the "other drivers fault" because he was not driving a> fast enough speed (i.e. was going the proper speed limit or the 85th> percentile) and was "obstructing traffic." For this ignorance and sheer> stupidity, I'm suprised the kid has not wrecked his other car already.> Oh well, if the kid does die with such reckless thoughts like that,> it's darwinism playing its effect...

As Larry Niven said, "Think of it as evolution in action."

I agree with John Landsford: You're wasting your time. DIG drivers like Arif
Khokar and the rest of the rec.autos.driving crowd aren't interested in
hearing about how their speed will kill people, and this board sound like
more of the same.

Add comment


Sherman Cahal 3 March 2005 23:17:59 [ permanent link ]
 Jay Maynard wrote:> On 2005-03-03, Sherman Cahal <sherman@cahaltech.­com> wrote:> > parents, I would take his license and set it on fire and watch it
melt.> > He stated it was the "other drivers fault" because he was not
driving a> > fast enough speed (i.e. was going the proper speed limit or the
85th> > percentile) and was "obstructing traffic." For this ignorance and
sheer> > stupidity, I'm suprised the kid has not wrecked his other car
already.> > Oh well, if the kid does die with such reckless thoughts like that,> > it's darwinism playing its effect...>
As Larry Niven said, "Think of it as evolution in action.">
I agree with John Landsford: You're wasting your time. DIG drivers
like Arif> Khokar and the rest of the rec.autos.driving crowd aren't interested
hearing about how their speed will kill people, and this board sound
like> more of the same.

Some from the RAD newsgroup have posted some valid opinions, however,
and have cited some facts, and I've learned much about the 85th
percentile speeds and so forth. But what these maniacs at the other
forum board are talking about are speeds well in excess of any safe
design speed or any 85th percentile. I am talking 85 MPH+ on four-lane
arterial highways that are not designed nor can handle traffic speeds
of that magnitude.

Add comment
John David Galt 4 March 2005 03:05:10 [ permanent link ]
 Sherman Cahal wrote:> Traveling the 85th percentile is not reckless unless everyone is going> to the extremes in driving. For example, driving 70 to 75 MPH on a> Kentucky interstate (they are signed at a max. 65 MPH) is not dangerous> because the highway was designed for 70 MPH speeds, that and the 85th> percentile falls within that range. However, traveling at 90 MPH to 100> MPH (as others in another forum have stated) IS reckless and endangers> other motorists and well exceeds any safe speed for any highway.

If you'd said "any highway in a populated area" I'd agree, but this is
just too broad a generalization. The empty parts of Nevada, Utah, and
Wyoming are full of roads where 100 is safe under some conditions.
I'd want to have at least 2 miles clear visibility, and no other
traffic or habitation within a mile in either direction -- but there
are still places you can find those conditions.
Add comment


John David Galt 4 March 2005 03:14:18 [ permanent link ]
 Sherman Cahal wrote:> Probably am. One poster believes I should be "banned" from the forum> for speaking the facts and not the myths and for trying to "ruin"> everybody else's "fun." Wow. It sure is fun until they ram head on onto> another car or plow into another vehicle. I was hoping for some> official documentation but I cannot find that online.

Most (all?) state governments have plenty of official stuff online
if you want to build a case for believing scare-stories. There's
also www.nhtsa.dot.gov. But a lot of it is BS. In particular, the
federal government classifies a wreck as "alcohol related" if
anyone involved -- even a passenger or pedestrian -- has had a drink.

For a more realistic view, I suggest www.motorists.org.
Add comment
Scott M. Kozel 4 March 2005 03:35:46 [ permanent link ]
 "N8N" <njnagel@hotmail.co­m> wrote:>
Scott M. Kozel wrote:> > "N8N" wrote:> > > Scott M. Kozel wrote:> > >
Another speeder myth; "everybody goes xx mph".> > >
Please explain, why do you call verifiable fact a myth?> >
What you said was not a "fact", it was an excuse to go 85, by claiming> > that it is the "main flow of traffic".>
It *is* the main flow of traffic.

Only in your advocacy-driven imagination.

Traffic on the MD US-50 John Hanson Highway has a typical "main flow of
traffic" of about 65 to 70 during times of free-flowing traffic, and
there are plenty of hours in the week when the traffic is too dense to
average that fast.

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/W­ashington, D.C. http://www.roadstot­hefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways­.com
Add comment


Arif Khokar 4 March 2005 03:54:04 [ permanent link ]
 Jay Maynard wrote:
I agree with John Landsford:

Hey, at least try to spell his name correctly :)­
You're wasting your time. DIG drivers like Arif> Khokar and the rest of the rec.autos.driving crowd aren't interested in> hearing about how their speed will kill people, and this board sound like> more of the same.

Gee, after 15 years, you think I would have ended up killing more than 0
people at the speeds I drive.
Add comment
Steve 4 March 2005 04:17:42 [ permanent link ]
 Arif Khokar wrote:> Jay Maynard wrote:>
I agree with John Landsford:>
Hey, at least try to spell his name correctly :)­>
You're wasting your time. DIG drivers like Arif>> Khokar and the rest of the rec.autos.driving crowd aren't interested in>> hearing about how their speed will kill people, and this board sound like>> more of the same.>
Gee, after 15 years, you think I would have ended up killing more than 0 > people at the speeds I drive.

Because no one who thinks they're a good driver could possibly BE a good
driver. That's where the acronym came from. I happen to know I'm a
good driver, and I don't care what names you call me, I've had 0
accidents and don't ever plan to have one.

--
Steve
Civil Engineering (Course 1) at MIT

Add comment
Nate Nagel 4 March 2005 04:17:43 [ permanent link ]
 Scott M. Kozel wrote:
"N8N" <njnagel@hotmail.co­m> wrote:>
Scott M. Kozel wrote:>>
"N8N" wrote:>>>
Scott M. Kozel wrote:>>>>
Another speeder myth; "everybody goes xx mph".>>>>
Please explain, why do you call verifiable fact a myth?>>>
What you said was not a "fact", it was an excuse to go 85, by claiming>>>that it is the "main flow of traffic".>>
It *is* the main flow of traffic.>
Only in your advocacy-driven imagination.>
Traffic on the MD US-50 John Hanson Highway has a typical "main flow of> traffic" of about 65 to 70 during times of free-flowing traffic, and> there are plenty of hours in the week when the traffic is too dense to> average that fast.>

Quite simply incorrect. Early any weekend morning traffic is moving
anywhere from 70 to 90+. The only time I've seen *any* drivers at all
traveling 65 under free flowing conditions is after dark and even then
that's a minority. I don't care what your paperwork says, real life
trumps paper any day.

As I've stated before, when I used to commute on that highway, one week
I tried driving at exactly 65 MPH - during normal commuting hours. I
passed *one truck* in one week, not counting the usual Maryland "sloth
mergers." That was enough; I was a danger to other traffic driving that
slowly, and I was unable to pass the "sloth mergers" due to my inability
to enter any but the rightmost lane (of course, once they were on the
highway they sped up to 70+ and left me behind.) I abandoned the
experiment, having proved my point to my satisfaction.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast­.net/~njnagel
Add comment
Arif Khokar 4 March 2005 04:43:50 [ permanent link ]
 Steve wrote:
Because no one who thinks they're a good driver could possibly BE a good > driver. <snip> I happen to know I'm a good driver,

Are you not contradicting yourself?

I subscribe to the notion that the vast majority of drivers are able to
choose the appropriate speed for conditions. I do not subscribe to the
notion that any one person on this group has a better idea as to what
constitutes a safe speed as compared to anyone else.
Add comment
Scott M. Kozel 4 March 2005 04:44:07 [ permanent link ]
 Nate Nagel <njnagel@flycast.ne­t> wrote:>
Scott M. Kozel wrote:> > "N8N" wrote:> >> Scott M. Kozel wrote:> >>> "N8N" wrote:> >>>> Scott M. Kozel wrote:> >>>>
Another speeder myth; "everybody goes xx mph".> >>>>
Please explain, why do you call verifiable fact a myth?> >>>
What you said was not a "fact", it was an excuse to go 85, by claiming> >>>that it is the "main flow of traffic".> >>
It *is* the main flow of traffic.> >
Only in your advocacy-driven imagination.> >
Traffic on the MD US-50 John Hanson Highway has a typical "main flow of> > traffic" of about 65 to 70 during times of free-flowing traffic, and> > there are plenty of hours in the week when the traffic is too dense to> > average that fast.>
Quite simply incorrect. Early any weekend morning traffic is moving> anywhere from 70 to 90+. The only time I've seen *any* drivers at all> traveling 65 under free flowing conditions is after dark and even then> that's a minority. I don't care what your paperwork says, real life> trumps paper any day.

I base my comments on having driven the highway many times and at
various times of day and night.

You're in denial. Look, you're the one who likes to talk about how you
go 85 mph and above. Why can't you just leave it at that and not make
these bogus claims that you're doing what most everybody else is doing?

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/W­ashington, D.C. http://www.roadstot­hefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways­.com
Add comment
Arif Khokar 4 March 2005 04:56:11 [ permanent link ]
 Scott M. Kozel wrote:
I base my comments on having driven the highway many times and at> various times of day and night.

As has been pointed out in the past, one cannot accurately determine
traffic speed from a single moving vehicle. The best way to measure
traffic speeds is from a stationary point with a discreet method of
obtaining speed data. Then process the data to get percentile rankings
for various speeds.
Add comment
Scott M. Kozel 4 March 2005 05:03:58 [ permanent link ]
 Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.ed­u> wrote:>
Scott M. Kozel wrote:>
I base my comments on having driven the highway many times and at> > various times of day and night.>
As has been pointed out in the past, one cannot accurately determine> traffic speed from a single moving vehicle. The best way to measure> traffic speeds is from a stationary point with a discreet method of> obtaining speed data. Then process the data to get percentile rankings> for various speeds.

Okay. Your comments apply equally to Nate.

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/W­ashington, D.C. http://www.roadstot­hefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways­.com
Add comment
Nate Nagel 4 March 2005 05:36:17 [ permanent link ]
 Scott M. Kozel wrote:
Nate Nagel <njnagel@flycast.ne­t> wrote:>
Scott M. Kozel wrote:>>
"N8N" wrote:>>>
Scott M. Kozel wrote:>>>>
"N8N" wrote:>>>>>
Scott M. Kozel wrote:>>>>>>
Another speeder myth; "everybody goes xx mph".>>>>>>
Please explain, why do you call verifiable fact a myth?>>>>>
What you said was not a "fact", it was an excuse to go 85, by claiming>>>>>that it is the "main flow of traffic".>>>>
It *is* the main flow of traffic.>>>
Only in your advocacy-driven imagination.>>>
Traffic on the MD US-50 John Hanson Highway has a typical "main flow of>>>traffic" of about 65 to 70 during times of free-flowing traffic, and>>>there are plenty of hours in the week when the traffic is too dense to>>>average that fast.>>
Quite simply incorrect. Early any weekend morning traffic is moving>>anywhere from 70 to 90+. The only time I've seen *any* drivers at all>>traveling 65 under free flowing conditions is after dark and even then>>that's a minority. I don't care what your paperwork says, real life>>trumps paper any day.>
I base my comments on having driven the highway many times and at> various times of day and night.

Obviously not at the same times I have!
You're in denial. Look, you're the one who likes to talk about how you> go 85 mph and above. Why can't you just leave it at that and not make> these bogus claims that you're doing what most everybody else is doing?

If everyone else *isn't* doing it, why are cars passing me? Why am I
not the fastest vehicle on the road? Why am I not rocketing past all
the slower traffic to my right? IME, the median speed of that road
under the conditions that I've described is somewhere around 80 MPH,
maybe a tick higher.

There's several options here.

1) My speedometer, which appears to be nearly dead nuts accurate at 60
MPH both by stopwatch and radar trailer, suddenly becomes wildly
inaccurate at higher speeds. At the same time, my tachometer is also
inaccurate as well. (3500 RPM with a 0.82 5th gear, 3.89 final drive and
P215/60R15 tires - theoretically 25.2" tall - calculates to about 84
MPH, which jives with what I see on the speedo. Yes, I have a FSM on my
bookshelf so I could look up the gears.)

2) I'm lying.

3) I'm right.

This whole discussion is getting way off track here anyway. The claim
was made that driving 90 MPH was by definition unsafe. I disagree. The
fact that people are or are not driving at those speeds is irrelevant to
the original point. Now, let's say for the sake of argument that I hit
the road some Saturday morning in the summer, just after the sun comes
up - early enough that there's virtually no other traffic. On what
basis would you say that *any* speed my car could achieve would be
unsafe? None whatsoever - I will run out of power before I will run out
of sightlines. (car is a Porsche 944, so handling and brake fade are
not issues. See previous post regarding extrapolating stopping
distances with basic Newtonian physics equations. Now there are speeds
at which there simply isn't time to react, and I *have* seen people
operating motor vehicles at those speeds on that road - if you count
motorcycles. Very few cars can go that fast, however.) Now that said,
there's very good reasons *not* to do that - first and foremost, the
risk of a ticket; secondly, the amount of focused attention required to
go that fast safely; third, the liability involved something *should*
happen - even if in reality it was due to someone else's boneheaded
actions, anyone driving 120+ on a public highway is going to
automatically be found at fault. But to flat out state that there is
some arbitrary speed that above which every driver, in every car, on
every road is automatically "unsafe" is naive at best.

In actual, real life, I would feel safer on US-50 under the conditions I
normally drive (maybe 8-9AM on a weekend morning) at 90 MPH than I would
the speed limit of 65, simply due to a) the lesser speed differential
between myself and other traffic and b) the fact that it's both
statistically safer and easier to keep track of other traffic around you
when you're going slightly faster than, as opposed to slower than or the
exact same speed as other traffic.

Yes, street racing is bad. Yes, traffic weaving is bad. (for that
matter, so is LLBing.) Yes, driving too far above or below the speed of
the main flow of traffic is bad. But you simply can't assign an
arbitrary cutoff speed between "safe" and "unsafe" that is valid under
all conditions.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast­.net/~njnagel
Add comment
Nate Nagel 4 March 2005 05:38:24 [ permanent link ]
 Scott M. Kozel wrote:
Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.ed­u> wrote:>
Scott M. Kozel wrote:>>
I base my comments on having driven the highway many times and at>>>various times of day and night.>>
As has been pointed out in the past, one cannot accurately determine>>traffic speed from a single moving vehicle. The best way to measure>>traffic speeds is from a stationary point with a discreet method of>>obtaining speed data. Then process the data to get percentile rankings>>for various speeds.>
Okay. Your comments apply equally to Nate. >

I never claimed that my numbers were anything more than estimates.
However, I can claim with 100% confidence that the median speed is
higher than 65 MPH, for reasons I've already stated. IME, it's
*significantly* higher. How much, exactly, is a bit of a guess, but it
is higher.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast­.net/~njnagel
Add comment
Scott M. Kozel 4 March 2005 06:00:47 [ permanent link ]
 Nate Nagel <njnagel@flycast.ne­t> wrote:>
Scott M. Kozel wrote:> > Arif Khokar wrote:> >> Scott M. Kozel wrote:> >>
I base my comments on having driven the highway many times and at> >>> various times of day and night.> >>
As has been pointed out in the past, one cannot accurately determine> >>traffic speed from a single moving vehicle. The best way to measure> >>traffic speeds is from a stationary point with a discreet method of> >>obtaining speed data. Then process the data to get percentile rankings> >>for various speeds.> >
Okay. Your comments apply equally to Nate.>
I never claimed that my numbers were anything more than estimates.

Nor do I.
However, I can claim with 100% confidence that the median speed is> higher than 65 MPH, for reasons I've already stated. IME, it's> *significantly* higher. How much, exactly, is a bit of a guess, but it> is higher.

Like I said, 65 to 70 mph. If your ASSertion was correct, I'd usually
see all kinds of traffic zooming by me when I go 70; and since my speed
looks slightly faster than average, your claim is obviously bogus.

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/W­ashington, D.C. http://www.roadstot­hefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways­.com
Add comment
Nate Nagel 4 March 2005 06:10:02 [ permanent link ]
 Scott M. Kozel wrote:
Nate Nagel <njnagel@flycast.ne­t> wrote:>
Scott M. Kozel wrote:>>
Arif Khokar wrote:>>>
Scott M. Kozel wrote:>>>>
I base my comments on having driven the highway many times and at>>>>>various times of day and night.>>>>
As has been pointed out in the past, one cannot accurately determine>>>>traffi­c speed from a single moving vehicle. The best way to measure>>>>traffic speeds is from a stationary point with a discreet method of>>>>obtaining speed data. Then process the data to get percentile rankings>>>>for various speeds.>>>
Okay. Your comments apply equally to Nate.>>
I never claimed that my numbers were anything more than estimates.>
Nor do I.>
However, I can claim with 100% confidence that the median speed is>>higher than 65 MPH, for reasons I've already stated. IME, it's>>*significantl­y* higher. How much, exactly, is a bit of a guess, but it>>is higher.>
Like I said, 65 to 70 mph. If your ASSertion was correct, I'd usually> see all kinds of traffic zooming by me when I go 70; and since my speed> looks slightly faster than average, your claim is obviously bogus.>

When I go 70 MPH, I *do* see "all kinds of traffic zooming by me." At
75-80 MPH, I can't really tell whether I'm faster or slower than the
median. At 85, I'm definitely faster than the median, but most of the
cars I pass are at a rather low speed differential and there's still
some people that are flat haulin' butt past me.

Is your speedometer accurate? Seriously, your posts do not correspond
AT ALL to my observations. It seems rather odd, as well, because the
vast majority of speedos read *low.*

nate


--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast­.net/~njnagel
Add comment
Nate Nagel 4 March 2005 06:10:54 [ permanent link ]
 Nate Nagel wrote:
Scott M. Kozel wrote:>
Nate Nagel <njnagel@flycast.ne­t> wrote:>>
Scott M. Kozel wrote:>>>
Arif Khokar wrote:>>>>
Scott M. Kozel wrote:>>>>>
I base my comments on having driven the highway many times and at>>>>>> various times of day and night.>>>>>
As has been pointed out in the past, one cannot accurately determine>>>>> traffic speed from a single moving vehicle. The best way to measure>>>>> traffic speeds is from a stationary point with a discreet method of>>>>> obtaining speed data. Then process the data to get percentile >>>>> rankings>>>>> for various speeds.>>>>
Okay. Your comments apply equally to Nate.>>>
I never claimed that my numbers were anything more than estimates.>>
Nor do I.>>
However, I can claim with 100% confidence that the median speed is>>> higher than 65 MPH, for reasons I've already stated. IME, it's>>> *significantly* higher. How much, exactly, is a bit of a guess, but it>>> is higher.>>
Like I said, 65 to 70 mph. If your ASSertion was correct, I'd usually>> see all kinds of traffic zooming by me when I go 70; and since my speed>> looks slightly faster than average, your claim is obviously bogus.>>
When I go 70 MPH, I *do* see "all kinds of traffic zooming by me." At > 75-80 MPH, I can't really tell whether I'm faster or slower than the > median. At 85, I'm definitely faster than the median, but most of the > cars I pass are at a rather low speed differential and there's still > some people that are flat haulin' butt past me.>
Is your speedometer accurate? Seriously, your posts do not correspond > AT ALL to my observations. It seems rather odd, as well, because the > vast majority of speedos read *low.*>
nate>

Ack. I meant, of course, read *high.* For liability as well as legal
(in other countries) reasons.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast­.net/~njnagel
Add comment
Scott M. Kozel 4 March 2005 06:22:44 [ permanent link ]
 Nate Nagel <njnagel@flycast.ne­t> wrote:>
Scott M. Kozel wrote:> > Nate Nagel <njnagel@flycast.ne­t> wrote:> >
However, I can claim with 100% confidence that the median speed is> >>higher than 65 MPH, for reasons I've already stated. IME, it's> >>*significantly* higher. How much, exactly, is a bit of a guess, but it> >>is higher.> >
Like I said, 65 to 70 mph. If your ASSertion was correct, I'd usually> > see all kinds of traffic zooming by me when I go 70; and since my speed> > looks slightly faster than average, your claim is obviously bogus.>
When I go 70 MPH, I *do* see "all kinds of traffic zooming by me." At> 75-80 MPH, I can't really tell whether I'm faster or slower than the> median. At 85, I'm definitely faster than the median, but most of the> cars I pass are at a rather low speed differential and there's still> some people that are flat haulin' butt past me.>
Is your speedometer accurate? Seriously, your posts do not correspond> AT ALL to my observations. It seems rather odd, as well, because the> vast majority of speedos read *low.*

Yes, my speedometer is right on at 70 mph. A mile in 51.4 seconds, and
tested on a highway with mileposts that were set to the inch by survey
parties, and tested over many miles.

Give it up, Nate.

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/W­ashington, D.C. http://www.roadstot­hefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways­.com
Add comment
Nate Nagel 4 March 2005 13:07:42 [ permanent link ]
 Scott M. Kozel wrote:
Nate Nagel <njnagel@flycast.ne­t> wrote:>
Scott M. Kozel wrote:>>
Nate Nagel <njnagel@flycast.ne­t> wrote:>>>
However, I can claim with 100% confidence that the median speed is>>>>higher than 65 MPH, for reasons I've already stated. IME, it's>>>>*significan­tly* higher. How much, exactly, is a bit of a guess, but it>>>>is higher.>>>
Like I said, 65 to 70 mph. If your ASSertion was correct, I'd usually>>>see all kinds of traffic zooming by me when I go 70; and since my speed>>>looks slightly faster than average, your claim is obviously bogus.>>
When I go 70 MPH, I *do* see "all kinds of traffic zooming by me." At>>75-80 MPH, I can't really tell whether I'm faster or slower than the>>median. At 85, I'm definitely faster than the median, but most of the>>cars I pass are at a rather low speed differential and there's still>>some people that are flat haulin' butt past me.>>
Is your speedometer accurate? Seriously, your posts do not correspond>>AT ALL to my observations. It seems rather odd, as well, because the>>vast majority of speedos read *low.*>
Yes, my speedometer is right on at 70 mph. A mile in 51.4 seconds, and> tested on a highway with mileposts that were set to the inch by survey> parties, and tested over many miles.>

OK then, our observations just don't correspond.
Give it up, Nate.>

Give up what? I'm merely sharing what my observations are on traffic
speeds. The fact that you disagree isn't going to change my
recollection of what I see every week.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast­.net/~njnagel
Add comment
John Lansford 4 March 2005 14:38:26 [ permanent link ]
 John David Galt <jdg@diogenes.sacra­mento.ca.us> wrote:
Sherman Cahal wrote:>> Probably am. One poster believes I should be "banned" from the forum>> for speaking the facts and not the myths and for trying to "ruin">> everybody else's "fun." Wow. It sure is fun until they ram head on onto>> another car or plow into another vehicle. I was hoping for some>> official documentation but I cannot find that online.>
Most (all?) state governments have plenty of official stuff online>if you want to build a case for believing scare-stories. There's>also www.nhtsa.dot.gov. But a lot of it is BS. In particular, the>federal government classifies a wreck as "alcohol related" if>anyone involved -- even a passenger or pedestrian -- has had a drink.>
For a more realistic view, I suggest www.motorists.org.

Not hardly. The NMA is the poster-child for speeders. I'll stick with
the FHWA and NHTSB for my data.

John Lansford, PE
--
The unofficial I-26 Construction Webpage:
http://users.vnet.n­et/lansford/a10/
Add comment
Arif Khokar 4 March 2005 18:24:24 [ permanent link ]
 John Lansford wrote:
Just as I've said, if rural interstate speeds were universally raised> to 75mph, the speeders would be pushing for 80 or 85mph speed limits,> and claiming that 100mph wouldn't be that bad either.

I don't see why not. Those speeds are not out of the ordinary for the
rest of the industrialized world.

Why spend all the extra time you have driving when you can be doing
other things.
Such high speeds as being mentioned here are inappropriate for all but> the most rural and unused of interstates. In the eastern half of the> US, even at night

Night time isn't the right time to go much than 80 mph.
there are considerable numbers of large trucks on> interstates,

And the less time you spend beside them, the better.
Add comment
Arif Khokar 4 March 2005 18:33:38 [ permanent link ]
 John Lansford wrote:
John David Galt <jdg@diogenes.sacra­mento.ca.us> wrote:
Most (all?) state governments have plenty of official stuff online>>if you want to build a case for believing scare-stories. There's>>also www.nhtsa.dot.gov. But a lot of it is BS. In particular, the>>federal government classifies a wreck as "alcohol related" if>>anyone involved -- even a passenger or pedestrian -- has had a drink.>>
For a more realistic view, I suggest www.motorists.org.
Not hardly. The NMA is the poster-child for speeders. I'll stick with> the FHWA and NHTSB for my data.

He was referring to the NHTSA. The same angency that mandated airbags
that are desgined to save an unbelted 50th percentile sized male dummy.
The same agency that limits highbeam intensity to half that of the
rest of the industrialized world. The same agency that allows glaring
highbeam based DRLs with a 7000 candela limit (which is way too high).
The same agency that combines speeding and alcohol statistics leading to
the fact that less than 5% of fatal crashes were speed related (after
removing alcohol related crashes from the mix).

It's no wonder why the US is only 16th in the world in terms of fatality
rate per 100 million miles driven (despite the fact that we have lower
speed limits).
Add comment
 

Add new comment

As:
Login:  Password:  
 
 
  
 
respect your talk pals, avoid using obscene language, typing entire messages in CAPS, posting buy/sell ads or violating netiquette or the RF Criminal Code..

CarGuru > Driving > Re: Need advice on reckless driving... 4 March 2005 18:33:38
see also:
Vitara for sale
Re: Want new vehicle is true (real) 4…
Advise please
pass tests:
see also:
gears not engaging
...hhhhiiiiiiiiiii
  Copyright © 2001—2009 Car-Guru
Idea: Miñhael Monashev
See Help and FAQ in the community support.car-guru.com.
Write in the community about the bugs you have noticedbugs.car-guru.com.
Write your offers and comments in the communities suggest.car-guru.com.
Information for parents.
Write us at:
If you would like to report an abuse of our service, such as a spam message, please .