rant: should i have got this speeding ticket?

[gadget_lover]

Hmmm. Where to start????

I mention that I'm older because when I was 20 years old I had fewer points of reference when making judgements. Hormones were raging and I knew everything. The addition of 30 years of experience has changed my thinking. There is a quote (that I can't find right now) that says something like "When I was a boy, I thought like a boy." Your viewpoints change as you eliminate the hormones and add experience and knowledge. Viewpoints generally change as people mature.

Ryan might well think as I do after he's lived a bit longer and experienced a bit more. He might not, either. But I've at least exposed him to a few other ways to think about the subject.

I have to say that I got a laugh out of the paragraph
[ QUOTE ]
I too admit that I don't understand the Physics involved, please don't tell my old physics professor! Our difference is that you seem naturally inclined to believe 'government knows best, and is just out to protect us,' whereas I tend to believe that 'government usually does NOT know best, and is seldom trying to protect us.'

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, I'm not sure who constitutes the "government" that is mentioned here, but I suspect he means politicians. For the most part the city or county engineers are the ones who do the studies and set the limits. The politicians have set the federal max speed limit, but everything within the city limits is usually set by some ordinary guy who is trained to assess what is safe. Sometimes the city council gets in the act and lowers a speed limit to discourage un-necessary traffic or satisfy outraged citizens, but that's not all that common.

In my mind there is no such animal as "The Government" that is either good or bad. There are countless people hired to do tasks for what someone or another thought was a good idea at some time. Most are trying to do a good job and many actually provide a valuable service.

If travel is a right, that's good. I don't recall seeing anything in the constitution about it. As a mater of fact, in the days when it was written MOST major roads were toll roads owned by private parties or communities. If you didn't have the cash you could not go anywhere. It is a fact that 300 yeras ago most people never ventured farther than 12 miles from where they were born.

And the last point [ QUOTE ]

If I was Ryan though, personally I'd feel a bit slighted by your post... and how you seemed to insinuate that he is just an 'uneducated kid.'

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said (or hinted) that Ryan was uneducated. Just inexperienced. There is a vast difference between the two. With experience you frequently gain wisdom.

And there's a good place to stop.


Daniel

 

[turbodog]

[ QUOTE ]
gadget_lover said:
I was once young and thought as our good friend ryan thinks, and Roth too. I was busted frequently for breaking minor laws. I thought that they were unfair and that I should not be punished because everyone did it. I figured the speed laws were mainly to make money.

Since then, I've learned that I can stay within the speed limit without undue stress. I actually enjoy driving and never have to worry when I see a cop. Cruise control is your friend.

I found that of my three cars, two have very accurate spedometers (within 1 mph) and one reads a bit fast (reads 65 at 62). I also found that when the cop is clocking me they have always been very accurate. The exception is the one time that radar has picked up a stray target.

I've learned that the speed limits are set that way for many reasons; Some good reasons for apparently too low limits: Driveways where people back out. Blind curves. Cross streets. Unexpected curves. School zones. No shoulder. Lots of kids. Cattle/wildlife. Reverse bank curves. Narrow roads. Too many accidents at a higher speed limit. Trying to divert excessive traffic. Traffic pacing for lights.

Keep in mind that, other than school zones, most areas don't want to confuse drivers by changing the speed limit every 500 feet to match what's safe at that point. In most cities there is a default speed limit if it's not posted. Ask any cop or judge.

I figured out that when I was 'singled out' it was just the law of averages. If I exceeded the speed limit every day for a year, and got caught 4 times a year that was only 1 time out of 80. Not really singled out.

I learned that when everyone obeys the same laws it's much easier to drive safely. I know how fast a car travelling 40 MPH will get to me. It's always a thrill to pull out of a driveway only to find the approaching car is doing 60 instead of 40.


I have experienced a bit more since the days of 1 ticket every 3 months. I've run off the road at freeway speeds. I've hydroplaned at 65 MPH, spinning uncontrollably. I've helplessly watched a guy bleed who slid into a telephone pole sideways at only 45 MPH. I've watched the car hit me from behind when I was to close to the car ahead and could not move. I've crushed my share of fenders and destroyed a few of my motorcycles.

I've figured out that the people who set the speed limits are making their best guess based on data I don't know. They may be too low, but I don't know that. I give them the benefit of the doubt, and keep in mind that other drivers are expecting me to be driving near that speed.

Ryan says that he was deliberately going 55 to 60 in what he thought was a 50 zone. As a college student he should look into some ethics classes. They will teach him that deliberately breaking the law is exactly why he should be busted and shoudl pay the fine.

Keep in mind also, that 80% of all drivers think they are better than average.

If you think the law is wrong, work to change it. Don't flaunt it and whine when you are punished. That's another lesson not learned in college. Fight for what you belive in BEFORE you are labled a disident and crackpot. It is often too late to fix things once you loose your credibility.

And in direct response to the question; Yes, you deserved it bcause you were informed of your responsibility when you got your license. If you thought that you would not get away with a warning, would you have driven more carefully? I think warnings should be reserved for only the rarest cases such as the limit was changed that day.

I, for one, would hate to see blue haired grandmas running down I-5 at 100 MPH just because a young man in his prime with a well constructed and maintained sports car could do it... Well he could if no one of inferior skill was in his way.

Daniel

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent points.

I'd like to add that originally I said to myself that the ticket was maybe a little unfounded, but after reading all of his posts since then I think it was deserved after all.

This is a road that he's been driving on for what (10?) years... and still hasn't noticed the correct limits?

Going back to the 3am time again. Generally speaking, very few people are out at 3am. On a back road, 3am traffic is usually people travelling to/from work. To find 3 young guys in a car at that time rarely means anything good is going on.

Furthermore.... you're out driving at 3am. This is VERY close to the peak fatigue time for the human body; you're speeding, with 2 other people in the car, and do not know the correct speed limit. Any wonder why you got a ticket?

I know the whole thing sucks financially. I got popped for an unmarked handicap parking space in college myself.

I have also gotten ticketed while I was a designate driver. We took off in a vehicle with little brakes (unbeknownst to me) and I ran right through the first stop sign I came to.

Perhaps this ticket is accomplishing exactly what the office hoped it would. You're thinking about your actions. Certainly you're sorry for them now (I hope). And I am pretty sure you will 1) pay more attention to speed limit signs 2) slow down.

 

[jtr1962]

[ QUOTE ]
KC2IXE said:
I think the current disregard for speed limits all stems from the National 55 mph spead limit. It was put into place in 1974, for gas savings measures - NOT for safety.


[/ QUOTE ]
The 55 mph limit is one reason why I never bothered to get a license. I saw little point to going through the trouble with such an artificially low limit which forces you to only use half the speed potential of most cars. The 55 mph limit was one of the most asinine things ever done. The correct solution would have been to make much smaller, much more aerodynamic cars, and to eventually prohibit operation of vehicles getting less than a certain amount of mpg (which would be raised every year). Maybe now we would all be using vehicles which can get 100 mpg at a speed of 100 mph.

[ QUOTE ]

So, you had a who series of roads where the spead limit was dropped from XXX to 55mph.


[/ QUOTE ]
Also let me add that other speed limits were dropped even if they were already less than 55 mph. For example, you might have had a speed limit of 55 mph on a two-lane country road. It could have been kept there, but lawmakers figured the average citizen would wonder why they couldn't go any faster on a winding country road than on a highway so they lowered the limit to maybe 45 mph. The local highways within NYC lowered the limit from 60 mph to 50 mph. In many if not most cases the limits were never raised to their previous values after the 55 mph law was repealed.

[ QUOTE ]

The drivers KNEW the road was safe at XXX, as the day before, the spead limit WAS XXX. So people ignored the spead limit, or "pushed" a few miles over the limit. Then the "gas crisis" "ended" (not really but..) but the 55mph spead limit was kept because "it's safer". We now had political speed limits NOT set by traffic engineers, but by a national group of pols.


[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, and in many cases limits are still set by politicians instead of traffic engineers. The simple fact is that as vehicles and traffic control devices advance, the speed limits, especially on superhighways, need to be looked at every few years by traffic engineers for review and possible change. Remember that most of the Interstate system was expressly designed with 100 mph speeds in mind. Limits were being raised every few years as traffic engineers determined that it was safe. If not for the "gas crisis", we might have been enjoying those higher limits for years now. As for the argument that a few drivers (or cars) might not be able to handle the speeds, the answer is twofold. They can drive less than the limit. They can simply chose to not drive. If you can't handle cruising on a very straight road at 100 mph then you certainly can't deal with more complex driving situations in towns and cities. You probably shouldn't drive at all. Maybe we should retest all drivers periodically, especially for eyesight and reflexes. Setting limits low because 1% of drivers can't go any faster costs both money and accidents. It's foolish policy. In fact, tailoring any facet of public policy to cater to the lowest common denominator ultimately diminishes society. Just look how bad public schools have gotten because of this.

[ QUOTE ]

This leads to the unintended consquence of people believing that ALL speed limits are artifically low - and in fact, people believing that most traffic laws can be safely ignored! (which is reinforced by the fact that 99 times out of 100, nothing happens)


[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, and people thinking they can safely ignore red lights and stop signs is a very bad consequence of this. While not all limits are set artificially low, on almost all limited access highways they are, and on many main arteries as well. Here where I live in Queens, I can agree the local 30 mph is fine for the narrow local streets which have stop signs, people coming out of driveways, and children playing. However, it is a little too low for some of the main avenues where 40 or 45 mph might make a little more sense. The limit of 50 mph on all of the city's highways is also too low. I wouldn't make the limit 100 mph because the roads are too curvy and have too many entrances and exits, but 60 or 65 mph seems about right. On I-95 (the NYS thruway), I would set the limits to maybe 70 or 75 mph for the portions that pass through major cities like Albany, and probably 100 mph everywhere else except over a few long bridges (where 75 mph would be safer). As for constantly changing speed limits along a road, I think it's a good idea as it keeps drivers alert. And electronic signs which allow the limits to be changed for weather conditions should be universal. Of course people are reluctant to change limits if it means installing new signs. Electronic signs would eliminate this excuse, and force speed limits to be reviewed every year or two.

[ QUOTE ]

I've talked to traffic engs who think that the national 55mph speed limit was the worst thing that ever happened for traffic safety, and some go as far as thinking that it helped spread the increase in crime in the mid 70s to 80s, and prople learned to "ignore" the law


[/ QUOTE ]
This is an interesting theory but it's certainly true that more and more people think the law doesn't apply to them. I might also add that our so-called war on drugs isn't helping matters either. Like prohibition before it, this is doomed to failure. While I don't condone taking drugs, the fact is that if someone wants to slowly kill themselves with either drugs or alcohol the state shouldn't play nanny and stop them, or pick up the pieces. Smoking kills more people than illegal drugs yet it's not outlawed. Go figure. This is exactly why people have contempt for the law nowadays. Many laws make absolutely no sense from a logical perspective. NYC outlaws cycling on the sidewalk yet fewer than two people a year on average are killed by cyclists in the entire city both on the street and on the sidewalk. On the other hand, last year a few dozen people were killed by cars on the sidewalk. It seems to me if we want to stop people from getting killed the focus should be on automobiles, not cyclists. The fact is that many laws on the books are there simply because a certain action annoys or inconveniences someone who is politically connected. This is why even laws that make sense end up being held in contempt. The simple fact is that we have too many laws, period. We need to review all of our laws periodically, and throw away the ones which make no sense, or aren't producing the expected results.

 

[PeteBroccolo]

Let me wade in here a bit and make sure I have everything right.

The limit was posted. You thought the limit was higher that what it is actually posted as. You admit that you were driving higher than both what you that THOUGHT was the limit, and what the limit ACTUALLY wast. The LEO/PO executed her duty in a lawful manner. You have an opportunity to challenge the LEO/PO at a Trial.

Almost no CPF members can possibly give you proper advice, because either they are not lawyers nor are they LEO/PO who know the laws in your area, either as far as speeding enforcement or rules of evidence and Court precedents for the jurisdiction where you (are alleged to have) committed this offence.

Like I tell my "clients", go ahead and have a Trial, but all the arguing about 85th percentiles and all the rest that is discussed ad nauseum at caranddriver.com (yes, I do visit other forums!) is more than most Judges are going to be bothered with.

Whether or not the limit is at the level you are comfortable with, it IS the law, and the legislators, and MANY civilians, want to see it enforced. Speed DOES contribute to collisions (F = M x A, does it not?), either in multiple vehicles/passengers, or vs pedestrians, or Bambi and other wild critters. Other road users are expecting a certain variance in the approach velocity of vehicles that they must yield to at intersections or when attempting to change lanes. Higher speeds means braking sooner/harder for intersection control devices and/or makes it more difficult to "drive defensively" when you consider all the other "nuts" behind the other wheels on the road.

I consider it a way of saving lives and trying to educate civilians. If people just HAVE to exceed the legal limits, then I guess you have to take the position of the long-term, but easy-going, speeders that post to C&D, who feel that the odd tickets they get are just their fee for being able to be scofflaws. You will excuse me though for NOT holding that opinion myself!

Good luck at your possible Trial, but remember - the Judge, court clerk and LEO/PO are being paid to be in court, possibly even on overtime. If you can get paid-time-off-work, good for you.

 

[gadget_lover]

I'ev seen this assertion about the interstate freeway system before. Was it really designed for 100MPH? Let me offer a few observations based only on logic:

1) Merging
In order to merge onto a 100 MPH freeway the average car will have to be able to reach that speed before the end of the on-ramp. My 150 HP Ford will take over 30 seconds and travel over 1/2 mile to get there. I've had cars that woudl take most of a mile IF the road was level. I have seen interstate on-ramps as short as a few hundred feet.

2) Visibility
How far ahead do you have to be able to see in order to safely travel 100 MPH? In most of California (or any mountainous region) the roads twist like snakes. When they don't go left and right they go up and down. If you can only see 800 feet ahead of you, can you stop safely?

This is not an issue in the great plains states where straight is the norm. There they have animals wandering on to the raods instead.

3) Endurance
I believe that most cars are not built to withstand the heat and wear at sustaned speeds of 100MPH. My son tends to exceed 80 and keeps having to replace parts and whole cars.

4) Fuel Economy
Cars traveling at 100MPH take a lot more gasoline just to move the air. I seem to recall that it takes 8 times the power to drive 100 Vs 55. It's a matter of physics. A 1960s Chrysler with a 30 gallon gas tank still runs dry pretty quick when the milage falls to the 5 MPG range. I remember the early days of the interstates where there were not kidding when they said "next gas, 200 miles".


Most of the freeways were designed with 65 or 70 in mind, but some were designed with 55 as the limit. After all, some were designed in the 70s and 80s. I refer you to I-5 going through Sacramento or the Golden State through LA. Narrow lanes and twisty roads do not lend themselves to high speed. I-80 going up to Reno is certainly not designed for 65 or higher.

Where does the 100mph myth come from?

Daniel

 

[Empath]

[ QUOTE ]
PeteBroccolo said:
Whether or not the limit is at the level you are comfortable with, it IS the law, and the legislators, and MANY civilians, want to see it enforced.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those are words worth repeating. While I can't reasonably offer legal advise, I can verify that at least I'm one of those civilians referenced in Pete's post. I suspect I'm not alone.

Regardless, the law is on our side, rather than the anti-regulation commuters. We expect traffic to be regulated to where there is a reasonable flow of traffic, and not have someone rushing up on us, changing lanes back and forth in order to maintain their excessive speed, driving reasonable through our neighborhoods where the neighbor's kids play, etc. I think it's pretty obvious that the posted speed limits are assuming the majority of people are going to go at that speed. There may be a few that go slower. They are a bottle neck, but even worse are those that break the flow by trying to rush through at an excessive speed.

So, I speak only for myself, but assume I'm not alone, when I specify what I want done about those that insist it's their right to drive at their own self-determined speed limits.

I want them to receive tickets, hopefully reminding them that their opinion doesn't count for anything; the law's does.

I want them fined enough to get their attention, even if it brings hardship.

I'm not the least bothered that it raises their insurance rate due to the higher risk group they've put themselves into.

If the fines don't bother them enough to change their driving habits, I want their driving privileges revoked.

If that doesn't stop them, I want them jailed for enough time to insure a change of attitude.

And finally, I want them held responsible for the damage they do to property and lives. If they damage property or kill someone, I want to see them prosecuted as a criminal and held financially responsible in whatever civil suits might be applicable.

Now, while all this might seem excessive, I'd like to remind you that in most areas, the laws are already set up for this arrangement, not because the government requires it of it's citizens, but because the citizens require it of their government.

 

[smokinbasser]

Well put Empath. I concur. Too many people become impatient and decide the speed limits don't apply to them. I had a friend that was an alcoholic to everybody that knew him, but not to him, the cops were just waiting for him, the cops picked on just him, I can drink a case of Little Kings and still drive safely to the bar. Well a sentence of every week-end in the county slammer for 6 months and a DUI ID plate finally got through to him. I think a similar punishment for X amount of speeding citations might soak in to the cranium of speeders. Loss of freedom and dancing with bubba or your cell mate Ben Dover seems to get a persons attention more than tickets do.

 

[Rothrandir]

empath, i hope you realize that theres a (big) difference between those who drive at greater speeds than posted on open and unoccupied roads and those who drive as you've described (weaving in and out and driving unsafe). granted, there are some who do that, but i'd venture a guess that many people to drive in excess of the legal limit do so only when it does not present a safety hazard.

to be perfectly honest, there have been times when i've droven in excess of the speedlimit, even by double digits. however these were only in places with little or no cars, and open roads.
if someone is going to drive 90miles an hour on an open country road i'd be fine with that, but if he's going to do it in heavy/medium traffic, i agree that he presents a possible danger to others, and as such should be prosecuted for reckless driving.

it's all about safety (or should be, but honestly i think that we can pretty much all agree that safety doesn't play as much of a part as it should). if somone can reasonably drive at higher speeds, than why shouldn't he be allowed to?
if someone is driving in a reckless manner, weaving in and out of a mass of cars, or driving down a road with children playing, then of course that's something that needs to be stopped.

 

[gadget_lover]

Nicely said, Empath!

Daniel

 

[cobb]

Yeah, I think the cops sometimes take their job too seriously. Sure the cop could of given you a warning or not even bother pulling you over, but to each his own.

I live and work between Richmond and Henrico VA. I have yet to meet a Richmond cop, but when in Henrico I get cops comming up to me starting pointless conversation then walking off as soon as they walk up. They never check my id or anything, just some chit chat about the brand of smokes i smoke, my wheelchair, where i work, my laptop if I am using it or the bus if I am waiting for it, etc.

Needless to say, kind of changed my mind about cops. Then most folks I ve met too have developed a rather negative opinion of them. I know their job is tough, but I think the few that take the law to the letter do worse for their image than they could ever reverse.

 

[gadget_lover]

[ QUOTE ]
Rothrandir said:

if someone is going to drive 90miles an hour on an open country road i'd be fine with that, but if he's going to do it in heavy/medium traffic, i agree that he presents a possible danger to others, and as such should be prosecuted for reckless driving.

it's all about safety (or should be, but honestly i think that we can pretty much all agree that safety doesn't play as much of a part as it should). if somone can reasonably drive at higher speeds, than why shouldn't he be allowed to?
if someone is driving in a reckless manner, weaving in and out of a mass of cars, or driving down a road with children playing, then of course that's something that needs to be stopped.

[/ QUOTE ]


I think the problem is in the perception of each person's skill level AND the perception of the road conditions.

As mentioned earlier, most drivers over estimate thier skill level. Almost none are trained in the area of determining the maximum safe speed for an area. How many factors enter into the determination of a safe speed.

Even an outstanding driver seldom knows how many feet it will take to stop their particular car from any specified speed. Almost no-one has taken the time to test their own reactions in driving simulations. I doubt that 1 driver in 10,000 knows the formula that combines vehicle speed with reaction time to determine stopping distances. I doubt that very many could accurately tell you how fast you can be safely going when you spot a car stalled in the road 400 feet ahead.

In short, most people have no idea how fast is really safe.

In Roth's example of an open country road, are there livestock in the area that might amble into the road? Are there tractors that might swing too wide as they turn at the end of the row of crops? Is there a drunk driver swerving into your lane. Is it straight and level so you can see forever, or does the road dip every 1/2 mile, obscuring your vision until you crest the next rise? 90MPH may ver very unsafe or it might not.

If you really want to gain an appreciation for your skills in determining a safe speed, try covering your speedo and go for a ride. You can just put duct tape over it if you want. Pick a road you know well and determine what speed is the maximum safe speed. Pull off the duct tape when you feel you have started to exceed a safe speed. Chances are that the speedo reading will amaze you. It will not be close to what you thought. It's even worse at night or in a car that you seldom drive.

If everyone drove as well as I think I drive, it would not be a problem /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Daniel

 

[jtr1962]

[ QUOTE ]
gadget_lover said:
I'ev seen this assertion about the interstate freeway system before. Was it really designed for 100MPH?


[/ QUOTE ]
The concept of the system was inspired by Germany's autobahn's with no speed limits. Since the concept of no speed limit wouldn't fly in the US, a design speed of 100 mph was chosen, and we were even promised 150 mph highways at some indeterminant time in the future (I'm still waiting /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif). This wasn't relevant when the system was built because most cars of the 1950s and 1960s either couldn't reach 100 mph, or weren't safe or stable at that speed. As a result, speed limits in the 65 to 75 mph range were used, and we were promised increases when automotive technology caught up. It's worth noting that those ~70 mph limits were pretty close to the comfortable cruising limits of automotive technology of the time. I remember my when my father hit 95 mph in his 1970 LTD once it didn't feel particularly safe, and he soon backed off to 75 to 80 mph, which was a about the most this car could comfortably do on a continual basis. Now on to your other observations:


[ QUOTE ]

1) Merging
In order to merge onto a 100 MPH freeway the average car will have to be able to reach that speed before the end of the on-ramp. My 150 HP Ford will take over 30 seconds and travel over 1/2 mile to get there. I've had cars that woudl take most of a mile IF the road was level. I have seen interstate on-ramps as short as a few hundred feet.


[/ QUOTE ]
You're not required to reach 100% of cruising speed via the on-ramp. That's the purpose of a passing lane. Cruising traffic simply moves to the left lane at merges while the entering traffic comes up to speed. The on ramp is long enough to get most vehicles to 70 mph. This is enough so that cruising traffic has time to move into the left lane and hang there for the mile it might take for entering vehicles to reach 100 mph.

[ QUOTE ]

2) Visibility
How far ahead do you have to be able to see in order to safely travel 100 MPH? In most of California (or any mountainous region) the roads twist like snakes. When they don't go left and right they go up and down. If you can only see 800 feet ahead of you, can you stop safely?


[/ QUOTE ]
Allowing 0.5 second reaction time, and decelerating at 11 mph/sec (0.5 g), you can come to a complete stop from 100 mph in 740 feet. Even buses and many trucks can decelerate at 0.5g. Most cars can stop even faster. And I wouldn't allow 100 mph on any road where the visibility is only 800 feet anyway. That's cutting it much too close. At highway speeds distances tend to seem less than they are. The 800 feet you mentioned might in reality be 2000 feet. Even putting that aside, you don't design roads on the "flying concrete cow" principle, meaning that you don't set speed limits so low that a driver can avoid a stationary obstacle plunked down in front of them at all times. If that is the case, then speed limits at night should be 30 mph because 100 feet or so is all halogen headlights are good for. As for the curves you mentioned, yes, you set limits based on curvature. I think the recommended figure is to bank for neutral forces at 0.1g, meaning that a car on such at curve will experience no centripetal force if traveling at the square root of 0.981*(curve radius in meters) in meters per seocnd. Or put another way, on a 500 meter radius curve (the minimum or most Interstate highways), the balancing speed (speed at which the banking would balance the curvature force) would be 49.5 mph. At 100 mph the car would experience a cornering force of about 0.3g. This would allow even the sharpest corner on Interstate highways to be taken under less than ideal conditions at 100 mph. Note that the majority of highways have minimum curvatures of 1000 meters. The balancing speed of a 1000 meter curve is exactly 70 mph. At 100 mph you only experience a cornering force of 0.1g. This is very gentle. Just to make a point, I would limit speeds to 65 mph in areas with 500 meter curves, but on most of the system 100 mph is perfectly safe. And you can increase the bank angle so that 100 mph is the neutral speed, meaning no cornering forces at all if you're going exactly 100 mph.

[ QUOTE ]

3) Endurance
I believe that most cars are not built to withstand the heat and wear at sustaned speeds of 100MPH. My son tends to exceed 80 and keeps having to replace parts and whole cars.


[/ QUOTE ]
This is because driving conditions in this country don't demand it. There's nothing particularly onerous about designing a vehicle to do even 150 mph day in and day out. For starters, more streamlining means less engine power, which in turn is less wear and tear. Higher tire pressures and rubbers that flex with less heat can be used for high speeds. And the roads would be in better repair if 100 to 125 mph was the norm. SUVs are an abomination which never should have existed, and wouldn't have if we had reasonable speeds on our highways. Just because they are utterly incapable of sustained 100 mph travel doesn't mean that it can't be done.

[ QUOTE ]

4) Fuel Economy
Cars traveling at 100MPH take a lot more gasoline just to move the air. I seem to recall that it takes 8 times the power to drive 100 Vs 55.


[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, the figure is more like half the economy, and maybe 4 times the power. The power to overcome the aero drag portion of the resistance increases with the cube of the speed, but rolling drag increases linearly. Yes, it's all a matter of physics. Cut frontal are from 30 ft² to 20 ft², decrease drag coefficient from 0.4 to 0.09, use ultra low rolling resistance tires. You can make a vehicle which seats four passengers and gets 100 mpg at 100 mph. It's simply a matter of the will to make it. And better yet, you can more easily run such a low power vehicle completely on batteries and/or solar at lower speeds.

[ QUOTE ]

Most of the freeways were designed with 65 or 70 in mind, but some were designed with 55 as the limit. After all, some were designed in the 70s and 80s.


[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know of any limited access highway designed with 55 mph in mind, except possible through existing cities where higher speeds wouldn't save much time. I've heard of 70 mph quoted as a design speed, but this simply means the minimum speed at which it is safe to drive the lowest performance vehicle under all except the most adverse weather conditions. Translated, this means that you can drive a fully laden 18-wheeler at 70 mph on most Interstates during rainy, night time conditions. Very heavy rain or snow or ice will necessitate lower speeds, but 99% of the time 70 mph will be perfectly safe. Translated further, under "normal" driving conditions with normal cars faster speeds than 70 mph will be perfectly safe.

[ QUOTE ]

Where does the 100mph myth come from?


[/ QUOTE ]
Not a myth. The fact is that it is largely conveniently forgotten by the speed nazis in this day and age of the nanny state. Nowadays, the typical kneejerk reaction when an uninformed person hears about someone traveling at 100 mph on a restricted access highway is something like "OMFG, he was going 100 mph!! This is absolutely crazy!!!" I had a course on transportation engineering in college. Although my main interest in the subject is railroads, the principles that apply to roads are the same. Thankfully, with railroads we use curvature radius and the signaling system to set proper speed limits, and not some clueless legislator. I'd rather talk about building 200 mph railways than 100 mph highways to enable decent ground transportation, but since cars are all we have now we might as well use more of their potential. And yes, in the future I think we can and should make 150 mph highways, and perhaps even remove humans from the control loop entirely.

 

[gadget_lover]

Regarding the 100MPH design myth, jtr1962 wrote:
[ QUOTE ]

Not a myth. .... text snipped.... I had a course on transportation engineering in college.


[/ QUOTE ]

Cool! DO you remember the text or source of the 100MPH design criteria? I've not been able to find anything but assertions.




I wrote... Cars traveling at 100MPH take a lot more gasoline just to move the air. I seem to recall that it takes 8 times the power to drive 100 Vs 55.


jtr replied.
[ QUOTE ]

Actually, the figure is more like half the economy, and maybe 4 times the power. The power to overcome the aero drag portion of the resistance increases with the cube of the speed, but rolling drag increases linearly. Yes, it's all a matter of physics. Cut frontal are from 30 ft² to 20 ft², decrease drag coefficient from 0.4 to 0.09, use ultra low rolling resistance tires. You can make a vehicle which seats four passengers and gets 100 mpg at 100 mph. It's simply a matter of the will to make it. And better yet, you can more easily run such a low power vehicle completely on batteries and/or solar at lower speeds.


[/ QUOTE ]

Lets see. that means the frontal area shrinks to about 4 foot high by 5 foot wide. Now that's a seriously small car. I'm not sure you will fit 4 adults comfortably into that. You could make it 6 foot wide and 3.3 feet high, but my back would not allow me to climb into it.

A Prius is reasonably slippery. It's got a CD of .26 The Honda Insight is .25. The Ferarri appears to be in the .3 range. The 2005 corvette is .28 I've never heard of a production car with a CD as low at .1 What shape does it take to get a cd of .09? Would that shape be drivable?

Can you actually drive a car safely at 100 MPH with the super stiff compounds in the ultra low rolling resistance (ULRR) tires? I have low rolling resistance (LRR) tires on my car and they are not the best in terms of handling and stopping.

Lastly, Jtr said:
[ QUOTE ]

You're not required to reach 100% of cruising speed via the on-ramp. That's the purpose of a passing lane. Cruising traffic simply moves to the left lane at merges while the entering traffic comes up to speed. The on ramp is long enough to get most vehicles to 70 mph. This is enough so that cruising traffic has time to move into the left lane and hang there for the mile it might take for entering vehicles to reach 100 mph.


[/ QUOTE ]

Most of the accidents happen when a car changes lanes or while merging. I don't have the figures but recall it was a very high percentage. You are begging for accidents when you have incoming traffic 30 mph slower than traffic. In my experience, most cars don't even get up to 65 by the end of the on-ramp so the speed differential is even higher.

The accidents chronicled in the daily news tells me that the roads are not very safe at 65 MPH. They might be if, like railroads, the traffic was strictly controlled and following distances were enforced, but we are talking cars and streets and human drivers.

Hmmmm Speed Nazi. You get dragged away when you speed? OK.

On a lighter note: Traveling down I5 last week in northern California. We came to a small town where the speed limit dropped from 65 to 55. The sign said "Speed Enforced by Radar". They lied. The Radar did not force my car to slow at all. I had to slow it myself. I wonder if that argument would hold up in court? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif


Daniel

 

[KC2IXE]

[ QUOTE ]
jtr1962 said:
...snip.... The local highways within NYC lowered the limit from 60 mph to 50 mph. ...snip....

[/ QUOTE ]

jtr1962 - First - Howdy Neighbor - I grew up in Flushing (North East part) and my wife grew up by Flushing Hospital - we live in Bayside Hills now - and by the 1962 we are the same age...

As for them lowering the NYC speed limit from 60 to 50 - yes and no. The "Normalized" on 50, but MOST NYC highways already had a limit of 45 or 50 (west Side was 45 if I remember right)

 

[357]

If I remember correctly, braking distance is squarely related to speed. So, doubling speed increases breaking distance 4x, tripling speed increase breaking distance 9 times.

 

[KC2IXE]

[ QUOTE ]
gadget_lover said:
...snip... I have seen interstate on-ramps as short as a few hundred feet....snip...

[/ QUOTE ]

Not on an Interestate that was built to "interstate standards" - there have been a lot of roads rebadged as interstates that were NOT built to the original "Interstate" standards - which required VERY long on and off ramps, wide shoulders, high, and heavy bridges

That said - I believe you are right that the design speed for most was in the 80 mph range, although MANY were designed for a LOT more

It's all a moot point - he was above the limit - It doesn't matter if it was a political limit, or a "reasonable" limit. You pay your fine. Then again, that's easy for ME to say - I've never had to pay one. I watch the speed limit signs - drive at approximately the median speed of the cars around me, and if I'm alone figure the cops leave a 6-7 mph buffer on the highway, so I keep it below 5 over (if other cars on the road - rate may be higher to keep the median speed) - I don't drive a car with a loud radio, flashy graphics, etc - aka, it's cammoflaged - not in the military sense - but it's a car that you will look past 9 times out of 10 - it doesn't regiater as anything special

THAT is the trick

 

[LifeNRA]

I sure wouldnt want anyone going 100mph to run into me as I am driving down the road. I dont care what speed the roads were built for I place a higher value on the safety of my family than anyones right to drive as fast as they want to and I dont care how good of a driver some people think they are. Some stating why or how they could drive faster than the posted highway speeds. So what? I can drive as good as anyone. I used to drive like a fool in my younger days and I could get more out of a car than most thought possible. BUT I had a family of my own one day and realized I could have killed someone and I realized why we have posted speed limits. I saw a Mother and her baby killed by a guy going 75 in a 55. He survived of course and later said "I never had a wreck before. I could always control my car and knew how fast I could go". "I have no idea what happened, I just lost it."
Sure you can kill someone going the posted speed limit but the chances increase the faster you go. The paper said that if he had been going the posted speed limit the Mom and child may have survived. He just didnt have enough time to react and she didnt either.
Like I said I used to drive like a fool but now I look behind me in the family van and see my children and realize that it is not just about me anymore. Its not about how fast I can get there or if I can go faster than the speed limit. Its not about saving a few minutes on my trip anymore. Its about life, pure and simple. I dont ever want to be like that guy and have someones blood on my hands. Just because he wanted to get somewhere fast. Think about that. He wanted to go faster so he broke the law and killed two innocent people. I shudder when I think about how fast I used to drive. Every driver should have to see what I saw that day. I cannot get the image of that accident out of my mind. I still think about that baby and cry sometimes. It was that bad. I would bet that it would make anyone think twice.

 

[Rothrandir]

so 100mph is generally an unsafe speed? 80mph is?
if the current speedlimits were 40mph on the interstate, i'd bet a hundred dollars that you'd say 65mph is way to fast /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

i understand that >speed = >danger, but also remember there is a point of deminishing returns, and a point where just because you're going a bit faster doesn't make you that much more at risk, or that much slower make you that much safer.

there are vast expanses of certain interstates where i could have (and maybe did? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif ), go 80-100mph with noone on the road and with great comfort. granted, my car handles those speeds better than most, but i think a lot of other cars could handle it just as well. naturally when i approached a car that was going significantly slower than me (not many!), i slowed down, but it's all about the conditions.
like i said earlier, it ticks me off just as much as the next guy when someone is weaving in and out of traffic, or otherwise creating dangerous conditions for fellow drivers.

there are some interstates or roads where the speed limit is perfectly reasonable. and there have been some portions of areas that i've driven through that even 65 or 75mph seemed ridiculously slow given the width, straightness, smoothness, and lack of cars on the road. these are the areas where i might get to 90ish miles an hour, which i felt was a safe and comfortable driving speed.

i'm sorry, but i just don't buy the argument that someone driving 10mph over the limit can make a difference between a fatal accident and a non fatal one. that's just guesswork, and to be perfectly honest, i'd be willing to bet that when it's reported as such in a newspaper, that it's the writer of the artical who's making those comments.
now any kind of crash sucks, and especially when lives are lost. i'd hate to be the guy to do something like that much worse than i'd hate to be the victem of that, but i don't think it's necessarily fair to blame it on excessive speeds.
(i'm not talking about anyones specific experiences here, just stories i've heard and read in general)

and interstates and highways aren't the only problems either. there are certain parts in my town where the speedlimit should be 45mph, but for some idiotic reason, it's 30 (slower even than 35). and you can bet these are the roads that the cops snipe on.

 

[LifeNRA]

[ QUOTE ]
Rothrandir said:
so 100mph is generally an unsafe speed? 80mph is?
if the current speedlimits were 40mph on the interstate, i'd bet a hundred dollars that you'd say 65mph is way to fast /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Rothrandir,
Please do not try to put words mouth. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gifface or not. Thank you.
As to "but also remember there is a point of deminishing returns, and a point where just because you're going a bit faster doesn't make you that much more at risk, or that much slower make you that much safer." Well I do think that sometimes even a split second could be the difference between life and death. If someone has just an extra second to react it could very well make you or them safer.
And the guy was going 20mph over the speed limit not 10 as you stated. I am sure that 20mph did make a diffence because I saw the accident. Like I said a second can make all the diffence between life and death sometimes.
I used to feel the same as you. I would have posted the same thoughts as you at one time. I just have a different perspective on it now. When one starts to think that they are in complete control they do not realize how dangerous that thinking is.

 

[turbodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Rothrandir said:
i'm sorry, but i just don't buy the argument that someone driving 10mph over the limit can make a difference between a fatal accident and a non fatal one. that's just guesswork, and to be perfectly honest, i'd be willing to bet that when it's reported as such in a newspaper, that it's the writer of the artical who's making those comments.
now any kind of crash sucks, and especially when lives are lost. i'd hate to be the guy to do something like that much worse than i'd hate to be the victem of that, but i don't think it's necessarily fair to blame it on excessive speeds.
(i'm not talking about anyones specific experiences here, just stories i've heard and read in general)



[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to pick on you here, I'm just using your words to build on and clarify the point for all.

Someone wrote earlier that the government wasn't really setting limits, that is was some traffic engineer that was educated in this area. That person actually set MOST of the recommended limits, one who was skilled in the actual specifics involved.

It is this point that I want to expand on a little. You're talking in "general? terms. These limits are defined by the laws of physics. These are not up for debate by the way.

Kinetic energy (impact energy) is defined by: energy=1/2*m*v^2 For a given vehicle at mutiple speeds the 1/2*m can simply be tossed aside for our purposes (or we can call it k).

That leaves the v^2....

Take a collision at 35 mph. 35*35=1225k
Accelerate this speed to 45. 45*45=2025k
That's an increase of 65% of the kinetic energy of the slower speed. For ONLY 10 mph

I have heard that most accidents occur at around 30-40 mph. I am sure someone can chime in on this one.

Check the figures for 55 mph. 55*55=3025k
And at 65. 65*65=4225k
That's an increase of 40% in kinetic energy. Again, for ONLY a 10% speed increase.

Convinced yet?

Take another approach...
A law abiding citizen at 70 mph on the interstate.
70*70=4900k
A "fast-reacting I can drive better than you" at 100 mph.
100*100=10,000k
An increase of 104%

And, for the record, I used to drive like an absolute madman. I was the guy doing 95 in a 60, and that was on a NORMAL day. I drove that speed all the time. Speed is fun... but it also kills.