OMFG! I passed 2 cops at 100 MPH.

[rootaxs]

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.

I guess the previous posters point was based on short distances. (i.e. OP mentioned his drive from work to home... can't be more than a few dozen miles, unless he's driving 500 miles each way as calculated later on in this thread).

 

[daw123]

+1.

80-90 isn't anything special on the interstate where I live either...a 100 isn't a whole lot faster than some people's commutes.

I didn't catch the OP's vehicle, but those with a nicely powered car can hit 100 quite easily. To those who say "there isn't a clear road" obviously have never really driven. I have hit well over a 100 on a stretch of the interstate in the middle of Arizona with no car a mile ahead or behind me. Why? Because I was 19 and wanted to see how fast my friends MB would go. 🙂

Sure its dangerous, but if your the only one on the road, and use some judgement, do so at your risk (and be ready to accept the consequences if your pulled-over).

I agree with this. In fifth gear 100MPH is 3.7k RPM in my car. It will do that happily all day.

If the coppers are visible from 1 mile away and you're travelling at 100MPH, you've got 36 seconds to spot them, react and slow down to the speed limit (assuming that they don't spot you first).

In England, the police / speed camera vans tend to position themselves on the flyovers, so that they have a vantage point. They can see you long before you can see them.

 

[ArizonaSteve]

Speed limits are for old people and bad drivers.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Glad the cats know better than to jump in front of the CDL drivers

Do you have any idea of the amount of training involved with getting a CDL and the relative skill levels of the average CDL driver vs the average teenage boy in a Honda?

The point is not the distance itself, but the fact that the distance increases exponentially with a linear increase in speed. A little more speed mean a lot more braking distance and whether you want to admit it or not, the majority of driver's lack the skills necessary to understand this and adjust. If you asked the average driver how much longer it takes to stop from 80 than from 60, he would probably say something like, "I don't know, 30 feet?" which means he won't be looking far enough ahead to adequately account for the actual extra braking distance.

Speed = immature. Gotcha. 🙄

Not at all what I said. We're talking about people going 100mph here. Not someone going 70 in a 65 zone. I grew up in a rural area and saw people who were going 80-90 mph on "clear" roads getting pulled out of ditches or the sides of barns with enough regularity to know that such speeds are just stupid in the vast, vast, vast majority of cases.

Yes, I've driven through Montana, and yes it was on roads where we literally went hours without seeing another car and could see for miles. This is a situation that is incredibly rare for almost all drivers and to use it as an excuse for speeding in other situations (which is how posts defending it come across, even if that's unintentional) is bad logic.

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

It's not at all sensationalized. It was a response to someone who was being blithely flippant about killing someone's pet. Yes, given the choice you should hit the animal rather than swerving and risking an accident, but that doesn't make it "OK" to flatten animals just because it won't hurt your car, which is precisely what the post to which I responded suggested.

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

Speed limits are for old people and bad drivers.

And people who aren't compensating.

 

[yh125d]

It's not at all sensationalized. It was a response to someone who was being blithely flippant about killing someone's pet. Yes, given the choice you should hit the animal rather than swerving and risking an accident, but that doesn't make it "OK" to flatten animals just because it won't hurt your car, which is precisely what the post to which I responded suggested.

ZV

It was very sensational. All that was posted was a flippant suggestion that you should hit an animal rather than swerve at high speed. You took that post and extrapolated it to mean that he was apologizing for that speed, and suggested that people only speed to "get their rocks off" by killing animals.

 

[yh125d]

And people who aren't compensating.

Now you're suggesting that people only speed to compensate?



Son, I am disappoint.

 

[Zenmervolt]

It was very sensational. All that was posted was a flippant suggestion that you should hit an animal rather than swerve at high speed. You took that post and extrapolated it to mean that he was apologizing for that speed, and suggested that people only speed to "get their rocks off" by killing animals.

Reading comprehension fail.

My post suggested that people were getting their rocks off by speeding and that killing animals was, according to the poster to whom I was responding, an acceptable byproduct.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Now you're suggesting that people only speed to compensate?

Son, I am disappoint.

Double reading comprehension fail.

Nowhere does my comment include the exclusive qualifier which would be necessary for it to say what you have described.

Take a couple logic classes and come back when you've finished High School.

 

[BassBomb]

I was totally pulling numbers out of my arse but the 55mph and 100mph are correct according a 2003 Honda accord with the 2.4L I-4.

Interesting

I get 32MPG @ 130km/h (80MPH)
and 35ish @ 100km/h (62MPH)

at 140km/h (87MPH) it drops to ~30MPG

but then again im on 2007 i4 accord

 

[DietDrThunder]

Speed limits are for old people and bad drivers.

Actually, I'm surprized that many older people don't speed simply for the fact that they have such little time left in life that they need to get where they are going quicker. 😉

 

[DivideBYZero]

Not at all what I said. We're talking about people going 100mph here. Not someone going 70 in a 65 zone. I grew up in a rural area and saw people who were going 80-90 mph on "clear" roads getting pulled out of ditches or the sides of barns with enough regularity to know that such speeds are just stupid in the vast, vast, vast majority of cases.

Yes, I've driven through Montana, and yes it was on roads where we literally went hours without seeing another car and could see for miles. This is a situation that is incredibly rare for almost all drivers and to use it as an excuse for speeding in other situations (which is how posts defending it come across, even if that's unintentional) is bad logic.

ZV

OK, I may have reacted strongly, but what I read was faux outrage of the 'moral majority' kind. Speed can and is appropriate in certain situations. A skilled driver* will take all risk factors into consideration prior to making a conscious decision to exceed the posted limit. A less experienced driver may exceed the limit for lulz without making the judgements and I know that is your intended audience.

I see drivers almost every day refuse to exceed the speed limit on roads. Does this make them safe? Let's take a look at one such driver: On a road where the posted limit is 60Mph, and the conditions are dry, clear and temperatures are above 10c a driver is cruising at 40Mph. A queue of traffic forms (one lane in both directions) behind the driver who is traveling at 60% of the posted limit. Traffic in the opposing direction is heavy enough to prevent a safe overtake. Drivers behind can and do get frustrated in these situations. The 'safe' driver has now potentially created a situation where a following driver, who is frustrated by the lack of progress (perceived or otherwise), may feel he needs to attempt an unsafe overtake maneuver.

This same driver continues his journey and the speed limit for the road changes from 60Mph to 30 Mph as the area becomes built up. The driver continues to do his 'leisurely' 40Mph and is now posting 10Mph over the speed limit. The same 'safe' driver is now the complete opposite and is posting a 30% overspeed.

My point is that speed in itself does not indicate unsafe driving. Driving at 100Mph on an empty three lane highway in a well maintained car in good conditions is not unsafe. Not taking risk factors into consideration when deciding to speed, or doing so in an unsafe vehicle, is unsafe.

*Not making any claims that I am or am not a skilled driver. I can't be bothered to argue that with anybody on the internet.

 

[cronos]

I see drivers almost every day refuse to exceed the speed limit on roads. Does this make them safe?

You can create scenarios all you want but they're clearly much safer from getting a speeding ticket than people who don't do that ^_^

 

[yh125d]

Reading comprehension fail.

My post suggested that people were getting their rocks off by speeding and that killing animals was, according to the poster to whom I was responding, an acceptable byproduct.

I comprehended your post just fine

"It splatters on your front end/windshield if you're able to keep your cool enough not to swerve. "

"Because killing someone's pet is completely permissible as long as the driver is getting his rocks off."

Nowhere in the first quote does crazySOB say anything along the lines of killing animals is fine as a byproduct of speed. He was suggesting that you shouldnt swerve when at speed to avoid an animal (a point you agreed with in a different post). You obviously misread his post.

----------------

"Speed limits are for old people and bad drivers. "

"And people who aren't compensating. "


My mistake. You weren't saying people only speed to compensate. What you were saying is that people who don't follow speed limits are compensating



You have to be really silly to think that people only speed to compensate and/or "get their rocks off", unless you have a third bogus reason to add

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

There is no such thing as a "truly empty road" when you're talking about public thoroughfares. Animals, other cars, and even the occasional pedestrian can all appear at any time, even on a limited access freeway that appears to be empty. The idea that, if the road is empty, "the only person I'm endangering is myself" is bullshit because it is quite simply never possible to know that the road is empty.

Saying, "oh, the road was empty, so it was OK" is a common way of rationalizing the behaviour, but it's not legitimately exculpatory.

Yes, most young males will do something like this at one time or another. When I was in High School I did too. That doesn't make it smart and it doesn't make the rationalization valid.

Furthermore, considerations of whether an individual car is safe at 100mph neglect the fact that a safe speed is not dependent solely on the vehicle, but in almost all circumstances depends far more upon the design of the roadway and the available sightlines as well as the differential in speed among existing traffic. If a road is built such that the sight lines will not accommodate speeds above 55 mph then it simply doesn't matter that the car can safely drive at 100 mph because that's still too fast for the road. For this reason, simply saying that high-speed travel is safe on Germany's Autobahn is not valid as those roads are designed for high-speed travel.

They also don't understand that just because they weren't caught does not mean they were not breaking any laws. And they also don't understand that they don't have a right to be there, it is a privilidge.

 

[exdeath]

They also don't understand that just because they weren't caught does not mean they were not breaking any laws. And they also don't understand that they don't have a right to be there, it is a privilidge.

There are also those who don't understand that a law that does more to violate an individual's liberty than it does to protect the liberty and equal rights of others is not a valid law in the first place.

What about people who speed when they are alone (individual liberty), but slow down to match the speed of other traffic when present (respecting equal rights of others to be safe)?

Just be careful when saying "the law" because that means absolutely nothing by itself. It was "the law" to execute Jews and it was "the law" to force blacks to stand at the back of the bus.

 

[Possessed Freak]

Just be careful when saying "the law" because that means absolutely nothing by itself. It was "the law" to execute Jews and it was "the law" to force blacks to stand at the back of the bus.

You are equating speed limits with what now?

 

[crosshairs]

Sorry, I'm from the heavy foot club too, but I have seen a friend die because he was doing over 100 on a clear backroad in farm country, guess what happens when a cat jumps out of the ditch when you're doing 120 ...

Dead cat?

 

[yh125d]

You are equating speed limits with what now?

You're misreading his post. He's not equating speed laws to those other laws, he's encouraging caution in blindly supporting everything only because it's "the law". He's trying to point out that even laws are fallible and can be questioned (not saying I necessarily agree or disagree in this situation, just how I read the post)

 

[DivideBYZero]

You can create scenarios all you want but they're clearly much safer from getting a speeding ticket than people who don't do that ^_^

Did you read my scenario? They were far from safe from a ticket, in fact they were way more likely to get one. It was from a real life case, anyhow, not just made up for forum lulz.

 

[TridenT]

You are equating speed limits with what now?

lol no kidding. Equating speed limits with genocide and segregation, rofl.... :awe:

 

[Possessed Freak]

You're misreading his post. He's not equating speed laws to those other laws, he's encouraging caution in blindly supporting everything only because it's "the law". He's trying to point out that even laws are fallible and can be questioned (not saying I necessarily agree or disagree in this situation, just how I read the post)

I do not think so. He is attempting to make parallels to 2 specific laws in history. If one wanted to make parallels, then why not pick one that is also not harming anyone but yourself with the war on drugs...

Certainly question laws, but some have more sound ground than others. God help you if you thought you were alone on the highway/backroads and you caused a homicide speeding. The cons FAR outweigh the pros in reckless driving. Regardless, in the OP's case he was far from alone as there were two cops present.

 

[KIAman]

Just be careful when saying "the law" because that means absolutely nothing by itself. It was "the law" to execute Jews and it was "the law" to force blacks to stand at the back of the bus.

This is the only portion that exdeath equates anything with anything. Keep it in context and nobody should be confused.

Let me give an example of how to do it wrong

You are equating speed limits with what now?

So you agree that the holocaust and segregation was right?

 

[yh125d]

I do not think so. He is attempting to make parallels to 2 specific laws in history. If one wanted to make parallels, then why not pick one that is also not harming anyone but yourself with the war on drugs...

Certainly question laws, but some have more sound ground than others. God help you if you thought you were alone on the highway/backroads and you caused a homicide speeding. The cons FAR outweigh the pros in reckless driving. Regardless, in the OP's case he was far from alone as there were two cops present.

Again, he's not saying speed limits = Jim Crow laws, he just used those radical examples as proof of concept. That's all


Don't read too much into it

 

[DivideBYZero]

OK, thread has Nazi war crime references, kill it now.