Regardless of what traffic engineers say, would you honestly assume that your life is safe in the presence of other drivers on the road given that many people are either in a rush, on their cell phone, getting fustrated with their kids in the back, eating, or just not paying attention to the road? Coming from California, you should understand what traffic is like and how other drivers are driving.
Regardless of what traffic engineers say, would you honestly assume that your life is safe in the presence of other drivers on the road given that many people are either in a rush, on their cell phone, getting fustrated with their kids in the back, eating, or just not paying attention to the road? Coming from California, you should understand what traffic is like and how other drivers are driving.
Zenmervolt
Elite member
- Oct 22, 2000
- 24,514
- 44
- 91
Given that when interstate highways were built they were engineered for safe travel at 80 mph, he's not endangering ANYONE by driving 80 mph in a car that is at least 20 years newer than the most advanced piece of machinery that could have theoretically been used to determine that 80mph was a safe design speed for the road.
ZV
Originally posted by: BD2003
Isn't that what eyes and a brain are for?
Assuming that people use them.
Zenmervolt
Elite member
- Oct 22, 2000
- 24,514
- 44
- 91
The solution is to revoke those drivers' licenses, not to dumb-down driving.
Personally, I think that a valid competition license (such as are issued by entities like the SCCA) should be required for street driving. At least 20% of the people currently holding a valid driver's license should have never been allowed to drive in the first place. I say again, the solution is not to take these people into account, but rather to exclude them from driving at all. We also need to implement laws prohibiting driving a vehicle with accident damage as they do in Germany.
ZV
Originally posted by: DAWeinG
Originally posted by: BD2003
Isn't that what eyes and a brain are for?
Assuming that people use them.
Aside from the occasional idiot, they tend to. Ive probably been on the same road with millions of drivers over time, and considering that, I'd say that 99% of drivers seem to be functioning fine.
- Oct 28, 1999
- 62,484
- 8,345
- 126
And we've also got about 3x the number of cars on the road(if not more) and about a billion more things to distract us while driving now. Cell phones, cd players, navigation systems, fast food, electric shavers, ect.
Our cars are safer, but drivers as a whole are much much dumber.
just to see some numbers
-----------------------------
braking distance = velocity^2 / 2*deceleration + 2.5seconds*velocity
velocity as 80mph
2.5 seconds is the assumed reaction time of a driver. you can argue that certain people react argueably faster, but then we also know that some people love eating/drinking/talking/smoking/blahblahblah while driving, so 2.5s is the accepted standard currently.
deceleration is 11.2 ft/sec^2 because thats what they figured out several decades ago. outdated, yea. most cars can probably stop at 16-18ft/sec^2 now.
so assuming newer cars with better breaks - 17 ft/sec^2 deceleration - your total braking distance comes out to 700ft. that is, once you see an obstruction on the road you will have at least a 700 ft buffer before you mangle yourself (and the object in front of you).
using old standards - 11.2 ft/sec^2 - you'd need a 900ft buffer to stop.
---------------------------
these are just numbers, obviously. they dont account for other cars, rush hour traffic, slick roads, grade of the road, curvature of the road, whether your car is riced out or 20 years old on its first brake pad. but i hope it sheds some light as to WHY the speed limit is so low
-----------------------------
braking distance = velocity^2 / 2*deceleration + 2.5seconds*velocity
velocity as 80mph
2.5 seconds is the assumed reaction time of a driver. you can argue that certain people react argueably faster, but then we also know that some people love eating/drinking/talking/smoking/blahblahblah while driving, so 2.5s is the accepted standard currently.
deceleration is 11.2 ft/sec^2 because thats what they figured out several decades ago. outdated, yea. most cars can probably stop at 16-18ft/sec^2 now.
so assuming newer cars with better breaks - 17 ft/sec^2 deceleration - your total braking distance comes out to 700ft. that is, once you see an obstruction on the road you will have at least a 700 ft buffer before you mangle yourself (and the object in front of you).
using old standards - 11.2 ft/sec^2 - you'd need a 900ft buffer to stop.
---------------------------
these are just numbers, obviously. they dont account for other cars, rush hour traffic, slick roads, grade of the road, curvature of the road, whether your car is riced out or 20 years old on its first brake pad. but i hope it sheds some light as to WHY the speed limit is so low
Raduque
Lifer
- Aug 22, 2004
- 13,140
- 138
- 106
The problem with this argument is it can and does happen AT or BELOW the speed limit.
Also, to go off on a tangent, WHY is it so illegal to endanger yourself? Morality legislation, ftl. Or does the Government really care that much about their subjects?
That'd be nice, but it'd be political suicide to try and get laws like that passed. Good luck, though.
speed limits are way arbitrary. drive on rural southern interstate, and you'll see that the limit changes from county to county... with NO change in lane #, width, traffic density, or population density.
newParadigm
Diamond Member
- Jul 30, 2003
- 3,667
- 1
- 0
Laws made to protect people from themselves are so stupid. If our government is so about preventing people from harming themselves why isn't attempted suicide a crime?
More seriously though, I don't give a damn if you want to risk your ass and die/get hurt, its your call. And people, don't give bullshit arguments about insurance costs, 1, or even 100, $100k+ hospital bills will not raise your insurance by any noticeable amount.
Is the OP retarded?
1. The US constitution does not say that.
2. Even if it did, it only affects federal laws. (14th amendment wouldn't apply)
3. The speed limit isn't codified law. It's not even a statute. The law only gives prescribed punishment for "breaking" the speed limit, which has nothing to do with the arbitrary nature of the speed limit.
- Dec 11, 2002
- 18,409
- 39
- 91
Nope.. but it seems like you're retarded.
In modern constitutional law, the rational basis test applies not only to the federal government, but also to the state and local government (via the Fourteenth Amendment).
Seriously, why does everyone feel the need to make personal attacks nowadays on ATOT?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter