• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

OMFG! I passed 2 cops at 100 MPH.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Zenmervolt said:
No, what we've actually established is that there's no possible way for a driver to actually know that there are no pets or other animals.



So, what you're saying is that the additional risk to bystanders or other people's property is an acceptable trade-off. Seems a rather immature perspective to me.
Click to expand...

And we established that such a road can exist and some of us have driven on them. This was not the case in the OP, but we seem to have gotten away from that argument.

How much is the risk lessened of killing the animal between 60 and 100mph? If the animal is going to jump out, they will generally do so as you pass (any reason for this?)...


Anyways, at the end of the day, it's safer than inflating your tires to sidewall 😛 (I kid I kid)
 
Last edited:
crazySOB297 said:
How much is the risk lessened of killing the animal between 60 and 100mph? If the animal is going to jump out, they will generally do so as you pass (any reason for this?)...
Click to expand...

Audi A4 (a reasonably competent family sedan) braking distances:

60-0: 125ft
80-0: 224ft

A 33% increase in speed leads to an 80% increase in stopping distance. The stopping distance from 100 mph is more than 150% longer than the stopping distance at 60 mph. That's a pretty large increase in risk.

As for why animals jump out when you pass, the answer to that one is selective memory.
 
Zenmervolt said:
Audi A4 (a reasonably competent family sedan) braking distances:

60-0: 125ft
80-0: 224ft

A 33% increase in speed leads to an 80% increase in stopping distance. The stopping distance from 100 mph is more than 150% longer than the stopping distance at 60 mph. That's a pretty large increase in risk.

As for why animals jump out when you pass, the answer to that one is selective memory.
Click to expand...

What is the stopping distance of an 18 wheeler from 60? (genuinely curious and a google search didn't come with it)
 
About 3 years ago I was commuting home on I-95 @ 1:00AM when I got a wild hair up my backside and decided to wind up my 6 month old car. Road was empty ahead of me so I got it 115 briefly then started to ease off. At 100 I saw a pair of headlights gaining on me quickly, WTF could it be, it was a FHP state trooper in the left lane pushing 125 or so, probably on his/her way to a serious situation, about shit my pants as I realized I could have gotten a ticket for over 100. Considered myself one lucky mofo and have not tried that silly stunt again..
 
Zenmervolt said:
No, what we've actually established is that there's no possible way for a driver to actually know that there are no pets or other animals.

If a driver could have stopped or successfully avoided the animal had the driver been traveling at the posted limit but instead hit the animal due to speed, it's the driver's fault and not the animal's. While I agree that one should not put one's own life at risk to avoid a cat, it's absolutely ridiculous to dismiss the issue of the danger caused by animals by just saying that they would "splatter".



So, what you're saying is that the additional risk to bystanders or other people's property is an acceptable trade-off. Seems a rather immature perspective to me.
Click to expand...

Speed = immature. Gotcha. 🙄
 
Zenmervolt said:
So, what you're saying is that the additional risk to bystanders or other people's property is an acceptable trade-off. Seems a rather immature perspective to me.
Click to expand...

Don't put words in my mouth. What I'm saying is that it is pretty immature and stupid to argue your point by sensationalized remarks like you made
 
DivideBYZero said:
Speed = immature. Gotcha. 🙄
Click to expand...
Literally, yes.

How much time do you gain by going 100 MPH for one mile compared to 70 MPH? You saved yourself a whopping 15 seconds. 70 MPH is still 15 over so, what if you were going 60 MPH? You saved 24 seconds. Wooo?

I laugh at all the idiots blowing past me on their morning commutes only to be caught at the next traffic light with me. Better yet are the ones who sat at the light and when they get moving I just now approached the light. Guess who didn't have to brake and re-accelerate all the time...

I just hope that when you speed demons run out of luck, you only hurt yourself.
 
Possessed Freak said:
Literally, yes.

How much time do you gain by going 100 MPH for one mile compared to 70 MPH? You saved yourself a whopping 15 seconds. 70 MPH is still 15 over so, what if you were going 60 MPH? You saved 24 seconds. Wooo?

I laugh at all the idiots blowing past me on their morning commutes only to be caught at the next traffic light with me. Better yet are the ones who sat at the light and when they get moving I just now approached the light. Guess who didn't have to brake and re-accelerate all the time...

I just hope that when you speed demons run out of luck, you only hurt yourself.
Click to expand...

Have you driven a LONG distance before? Driving 85-90 instead of 70 saves a lot of time when your driving hundreds of miles. Try driving across Montana in nice weather, and not a car in sight. Driving faster can actually save you hours of time, and still be relatively safe.
 
500 mile trip at 55 mph = 9 hours 6 minutes
500 mile trip at 65 mph = 7 hours 42 minutes
500 mile trip at 75 mph = 6 hours 40 minutes
 
ExarKun333 said:
Have you driven a LONG distance before? Driving 85-90 instead of 70 saves a lot of time when your driving hundreds of miles. Try driving across Montana in nice weather, and not a car in sight. Driving faster can actually save you hours of time, and still be relatively safe.
Click to expand...
Yep. Drove from Philly to Las Vegas and back. Cruise control at 7 MPH over posted limit.

Driving 90 MPH for 100 miles takes 67 minutes. Driving 70 takes 86 minutes. You save all of 20 minutes driving that much faster for every 100 miles. So how much time is the additional fuel-ups you must do at that speed?
 
Screw it. New national speed limit: 25MPH.

94% of traffic fatalities will be prevented.
Cars can be made much lighter.
Bicycles can keep up with traffic for short distances.
Electric city cars will be suitable for freeway use.

Everyone happy? 🙂
 
Demon-Xanth said:
Screw it. New national speed limit: 25MPH.

94% of traffic fatalities will be prevented.
Cars can be made much lighter.
Bicycles can keep up with traffic for short distances.
Electric city cars will be suitable for freeway use.

Everyone happy? 🙂
Click to expand...

Kill it with fire.
 
Demon-Xanth said:
Screw it. New national speed limit: 25MPH.

94% of traffic fatalities will be prevented.
Cars can be made much lighter.
Bicycles can keep up with traffic for short distances.
Electric city cars will be suitable for freeway use.

Everyone happy? 🙂
Click to expand...

Maybe, but only if the US shrinks to about the size of Liechtenstein
 
LTC8K6 said:
500 mile trip at 55 mph = 9 hours 6 minutes
500 mile trip at 65 mph = 7 hours 42 minutes
500 mile trip at 75 mph = 6 hours 40 minutes
Click to expand...

I'll play devil's advocate here. 😛

500 mile trip at 55 mph = 35mpg 14.29 gallons consumed = $42.86
500 mile trip at 65 mph = 29mpg 17.2 gallons consumed = $51.72
500 mile trip at 75 mph = 25mpg 20 gallons consumed = $60
500 mile trip at 100mph = 15mpg 33.3 gallons consumed = $100

So, 4 hours = $37 = $9.25/h
 
KIAman said:
I'll play devil's advocate here. 😛

500 mile trip at 55 mph = 35mpg 14.29 gallons consumed = $42.86
500 mile trip at 65 mph = 29mpg 17.2 gallons consumed = $51.72
500 mile trip at 75 mph = 25mpg 20 gallons consumed = $60
500 mile trip at 100mph = 15mpg 33.3 gallons consumed = $100

So, 4 hours = $37 = $9.25/h
Click to expand...

At 100 vs. 65 you'd have to stop for gas one extra time. I wonder what the average speed of a 500 mile trip is including gas and/or food stops. I bet that even in a rural area you'd slow down a couple times for cities or gas & end up with an avg. speed below 90.
---------------------------------------------
I know a guy who had a long commute (>1 hour, one way) that he hated, so he ended up with 3x tickets at 100-110mph. He lost his license & ended up with some kind of special license that allowed him to only drive during daylight hours, from home to work, or some crap like that.
 
KIAman said:
I'll play devil's advocate here. 😛

500 mile trip at 55 mph = 35mpg 14.29 gallons consumed = $42.86
500 mile trip at 65 mph = 29mpg 17.2 gallons consumed = $51.72
500 mile trip at 75 mph = 25mpg 20 gallons consumed = $60
500 mile trip at 100mph = 15mpg 33.3 gallons consumed = $100

So, 4 hours = $37 = $9.25/h
Click to expand...

I would definitely take the 75-80mph option, pay a little more in gas, and save 2.5-3 hours or so. My time is worth that.

Edit: Notice the fuel efficiency for 100mph is a little exaggerated (accurately). This is why most people on the interstate in good weather drive 75. Anyone else who says everyone drives 55 is either lying, or doesn't drive outside of towns ever. 🙂
 
KIAman said:
I'll play devil's advocate here. 😛

500 mile trip at 55 mph = 35mpg 14.29 gallons consumed = $42.86
500 mile trip at 65 mph = 29mpg 17.2 gallons consumed = $51.72
500 mile trip at 75 mph = 25mpg 20 gallons consumed = $60
500 mile trip at 100mph = 15mpg 33.3 gallons consumed = $100

So, 4 hours = $37 = $9.25/h
Click to expand...

What car?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top