Perception-Reaction time is anywhere from 0.5-2.5 secs for the average person. A difference of 20mph is going to cost you about 14 feet of manuevering distance. Pull the wheel harder to miss the object and you increase the risk that you lose control of the vehicle or strike a vehicle in an opposing lane. Typically it results in over correction, which depending on the vehicle means you either roll it or spin out. Either situation will take out adjacent vehicles that can't react quickly enough. If you exit the roadside your chance of death is about 20% at normal speeds, at 90mph it at least double that. Design speed comes into this if you are in a curve, either vertical or horizontal because they will shorten the distance you have to see the object.
Perception-Reaction time is anywhere from 0.5-2.5 secs for the average person. A difference of 20mph is going to cost you about 14 feet of manuevering distance. Pull the wheel harder to miss the object and you increase the risk that you lose control of the vehicle or strike a vehicle in an opposing lane. Typically it results in over correction, which depending on the vehicle means you either roll it or spin out. Either situation will take out adjacent vehicles that can't react quickly enough. If you exit the roadside your chance of death is about 20% at normal speeds, at 90mph it at least double that. Design speed comes into this if you are in a curve, either vertical or horizontal because they will shorten the distance you have to see the object.
Let's be honest. Very few people follow the 70mph limit. Most in the left lane are floating along at 80+mph.
It's not very honest to generalize the entire country. I know of many facilities that you can't go that fast and stay on the road.
Freejack2
Diamond Member
- Dec 31, 2000
- 7,751
- 8
- 91
The most expensive ticket I ever got was in Virginia. That state is insane. I hear they have traffic cameras on tons of lights and insane fines for it. Also calling anything over 80 reckless is just a bs revenue generator.
In a 65 zone that's 15 over to get a ticket. Heck in Virginia they've thrown people in jail for driving 90+ mph.
In New York you get caught doing 95 in a 65 the officer would give you a ticket and tell you to slow down, then you'd get your 6 points (11 points is license loss) on your license and pay your fine then be done with it. No insane fines or being thrown in Jail.
In a 65 zone that's 15 over to get a ticket. Heck in Virginia they've thrown people in jail for driving 90+ mph.
In New York you get caught doing 95 in a 65 the officer would give you a ticket and tell you to slow down, then you'd get your 6 points (11 points is license loss) on your license and pay your fine then be done with it. No insane fines or being thrown in Jail.
dabuddha
Lifer
- Apr 10, 2000
- 19,579
- 17
- 81
Originally posted by: rahvin
Oh so you think you know debate tactics do you? You assert that:
And when I point out the irony that you think YOU have more understanding of the subject than the thousands of highway designers in this country that compose AASHTO. An organization whose collective experience in highway design is probably in excess of a million years. You call it a fallacy? Nice try at dismissing it buddy.
Yes I'm going to ignore it, you source is hearsay. Provide a valid link to the study so that I can analyze the parameters of the study instead of relying on the opinion of Gary Witzenburg of ConsumerGuide.com with unknown qualifications published on the internet with no attribution of source. If you think such a source is proof of anything you are an idiot.
I'm throwing out a signficant blip in the data because I couldn't cut and paste the whole fvcking table and had to hand type it. Anyone with an ounce of ability to read and comprehend will note that Fatalities per Million VMT has been in steady decline since 1960, this is because of the mandated safety improvements and general trend towards safer vehicles. What IS significant about the 6 year block I posted as opposed to the other years is that instead of the .1 to .2 drop that was normal 1974 saw a drop of .6, three times the average over 30 years. That IS statistically significant. Oh and your hearsay assertian of your parents anecdotal experience of the number of drivers on the highways is evidence of nothing. Show me the number of VMT driven those years as I don't care to look myself although IIRC correctly it only flattened the growth and didn't drop the number of miles that year. Afterall not going on the sunday drive had no effect on the commute of the average worker.
Vehicles and roadways continue to get safer, but this is where knowing how to read statistics comes into play. If for example you paid attention to total fatalities you would note that they had been in steady decline since the introduction of the airbag (mandatory) and anti-lock brakes but increased (to 1990 levels) in the years following the dropping of the federal 55mph limit. In fact I remember quite clearly that the number of accidents went up quite signficiantly following the raise because at the time I didn't believe they would.
You know, wikipedia isn't a bad source for more commonly studied things like History. But if you think you can rely on it for technical information you are sadly mistaken. I'm a highway designer who has spent his entire career designing high speed highways in both rural and urban settings. I have designed many miles of highway that millions of people drive on every single day. I know far better than you or wikipedia what the typical designer designs for considering I'm actually a designer. In a typical FHWA funded interstate or rural highway the design speed will be no more than 70mph. Horizontal and vertical curves will not exceed that 70mph design if it adds a single fvcking dollar to the cost of the construction. On a typical facility that mean 49 out of 50 curves are going to be at exactly the minimum to achieve that design speed.
For a driver traveling at 95mph on a facility designed for 70mph that means the design stopping sight distance needed for the driver is going to be FAR in excess of what the facility provides and the driver is risking their life and the life of everyone on the faclity with them.
There you go again talking about sh!t that you don't even understand the context of the words used. The about 95 page pamphlet you are referenceing is a general primmer whose purpose I don't really know except as maybe somthing to give politicians and the public that they can read and maybe understand (or more than likely an excuse for the FHWA to waste some money on producing worthless publications). Now if you moved your bolding ONE word back and included that rather critical word "typical" and pondered on it a moment you might gain a slight insight (although probably not).
"Typical minimum" as used in highway design publications means that it's recommended that when the decision to set the design speed for the facility is made it's recommended by the FHWA that the interstate system be designed at no less than 70mph. I really have no idea why they put that 80mph in this little pamphlet because 80mph is absent from all the design tables in the green book. To use a higher design speed than 70mph the designer would be required to hand calculate the 70 different paramters that are important to apply the correct design unless they are in a state like Montana that provides the required design data for higher speeds (at one point Montana used to design facilities for 120mph IIRC).
Speed differential causes accidents. There is no question about that. Placing cars with 30mph differences in speeds in the same proximity is INCREDIBLY dangerous. Trying to enforce yeilding will do almost nothing to reduce that risk becuase a differential that high will reduce reaction time, manuvering distances and would more than likely double the number of fatalities on our highways.
The only thing you have refuted is your own intelligence.
Now if you would like I could ask my supervisor what the design speed is on the facility in question as he was likely involved in the design of it at one time. I'm not from the east coast so I could be wrong but it is my professional understanding that because the eastern interstates were designed early in the construction of the interstate system many of the facilities were designed for 65 or even 55mph and have remained so. I know for a fact that quite a number of facilities in NJ (the first constructed segments of the interstate system) were designed at 55mph and remain so to this day.
But lets get back to the point of this little discussion. Driving 95mph on any interstate in this country that was designed for 70mph IS dangerous. Your attempt to assert that it is safe is nothing more than the uneducated and ill informed opinion of a lay person but as you pointed out earlier, you think you know better than professional designers who spend their careers trying to make our intersates safe.
:shocked:
After careful and long consideration, I hereby nominate this post for the most complete pwnag3 post for 2005
Mill, you've done a fine job of showing ignorance and a lack of logical reasoning skills through this thread.
rahvin, thanks for your excellent post. That's some serious ownage.
rahvin, thanks for your excellent post. That's some serious ownage.
Originally posted by: dabuddha
Originally posted by: rahvin
Oh so you think you know debate tactics do you? You assert that:
And when I point out the irony that you think YOU have more understanding of the subject than the thousands of highway designers in this country that compose AASHTO. An organization whose collective experience in highway design is probably in excess of a million years. You call it a fallacy? Nice try at dismissing it buddy.
Yes I'm going to ignore it, you source is hearsay. Provide a valid link to the study so that I can analyze the parameters of the study instead of relying on the opinion of Gary Witzenburg of ConsumerGuide.com with unknown qualifications published on the internet with no attribution of source. If you think such a source is proof of anything you are an idiot.
I'm throwing out a signficant blip in the data because I couldn't cut and paste the whole fvcking table and had to hand type it. Anyone with an ounce of ability to read and comprehend will note that Fatalities per Million VMT has been in steady decline since 1960, this is because of the mandated safety improvements and general trend towards safer vehicles. What IS significant about the 6 year block I posted as opposed to the other years is that instead of the .1 to .2 drop that was normal 1974 saw a drop of .6, three times the average over 30 years. That IS statistically significant. Oh and your hearsay assertian of your parents anecdotal experience of the number of drivers on the highways is evidence of nothing. Show me the number of VMT driven those years as I don't care to look myself although IIRC correctly it only flattened the growth and didn't drop the number of miles that year. Afterall not going on the sunday drive had no effect on the commute of the average worker.
Vehicles and roadways continue to get safer, but this is where knowing how to read statistics comes into play. If for example you paid attention to total fatalities you would note that they had been in steady decline since the introduction of the airbag (mandatory) and anti-lock brakes but increased (to 1990 levels) in the years following the dropping of the federal 55mph limit. In fact I remember quite clearly that the number of accidents went up quite signficiantly following the raise because at the time I didn't believe they would.
You know, wikipedia isn't a bad source for more commonly studied things like History. But if you think you can rely on it for technical information you are sadly mistaken. I'm a highway designer who has spent his entire career designing high speed highways in both rural and urban settings. I have designed many miles of highway that millions of people drive on every single day. I know far better than you or wikipedia what the typical designer designs for considering I'm actually a designer. In a typical FHWA funded interstate or rural highway the design speed will be no more than 70mph. Horizontal and vertical curves will not exceed that 70mph design if it adds a single fvcking dollar to the cost of the construction. On a typical facility that mean 49 out of 50 curves are going to be at exactly the minimum to achieve that design speed.
For a driver traveling at 95mph on a facility designed for 70mph that means the design stopping sight distance needed for the driver is going to be FAR in excess of what the facility provides and the driver is risking their life and the life of everyone on the faclity with them.
There you go again talking about sh!t that you don't even understand the context of the words used. The about 95 page pamphlet you are referenceing is a general primmer whose purpose I don't really know except as maybe somthing to give politicians and the public that they can read and maybe understand (or more than likely an excuse for the FHWA to waste some money on producing worthless publications). Now if you moved your bolding ONE word back and included that rather critical word "typical" and pondered on it a moment you might gain a slight insight (although probably not).
"Typical minimum" as used in highway design publications means that it's recommended that when the decision to set the design speed for the facility is made it's recommended by the FHWA that the interstate system be designed at no less than 70mph. I really have no idea why they put that 80mph in this little pamphlet because 80mph is absent from all the design tables in the green book. To use a higher design speed than 70mph the designer would be required to hand calculate the 70 different paramters that are important to apply the correct design unless they are in a state like Montana that provides the required design data for higher speeds (at one point Montana used to design facilities for 120mph IIRC).
Speed differential causes accidents. There is no question about that. Placing cars with 30mph differences in speeds in the same proximity is INCREDIBLY dangerous. Trying to enforce yeilding will do almost nothing to reduce that risk becuase a differential that high will reduce reaction time, manuvering distances and would more than likely double the number of fatalities on our highways.
The only thing you have refuted is your own intelligence.
Now if you would like I could ask my supervisor what the design speed is on the facility in question as he was likely involved in the design of it at one time. I'm not from the east coast so I could be wrong but it is my professional understanding that because the eastern interstates were designed early in the construction of the interstate system many of the facilities were designed for 65 or even 55mph and have remained so. I know for a fact that quite a number of facilities in NJ (the first constructed segments of the interstate system) were designed at 55mph and remain so to this day.
But lets get back to the point of this little discussion. Driving 95mph on any interstate in this country that was designed for 70mph IS dangerous. Your attempt to assert that it is safe is nothing more than the uneducated and ill informed opinion of a lay person but as you pointed out earlier, you think you know better than professional designers who spend their careers trying to make our intersates safe.
:shocked:
After careful and long consideration, I hereby nominate this post for the most complete pwnag3 post for 2005
I'll second that.
Freejack2
Diamond Member
- Dec 31, 2000
- 7,751
- 8
- 91
That's all fine and dandy but it was also designed for vehicles at the time too. Since then vehicles have improved quite a bit.
Also you fail to mention that these equations take into factor things like tractor trailer trucks which can't handle nearly as well as a passenger vehicle.
These officers are probably driving Crown vics and Impala 9C1&3s with police handling packages. They are trained in high speed pursuit driving and put in more miles in a month or two than most people put on in a year. Also most police vehicles are kept in top operating condition unlike a number of other vehicles on the road.
If there is anybody who can handle 95mph easily they can.
Personally I'm willing to look the other way when they choose to speed. They had a long ass drive and they have driven through every state before Virginia without a problem and made it back to NJ without a problem. They had their lights on so drivers would be aware of them and odds are they weren't doing 95 when traffic got heavy enough.
after reading the transcript:
that arrogant NJ piece of sh1t. i hope he dies. we don't need cops like that.
that arrogant NJ piece of sh1t. i hope he dies. we don't need cops like that.
I'll give you that, but I believe there are a few things about that argument.
-About the trained police: The other people in the highway are not. There was a giant concern of them pulling over and it was considered dangerous. I also heard that the "interstate" isn't even as big as NJ's 295. It's quite small
-About you willing to look away: These people enforce the law, they are not above it. The NJ State Police here are notorious (not that I don't like them) for having their lights on just to go through a red light and then turning it off (seen it happen a couple of times). Like it or not, it's in their job description (I believe). Nevertheless, the amount of time they did put into that stuff is no excuse, in my opinion, for what they did, otherwise, I'd want that much leniency when I'm coming home from other places or have even my dad have such leniency when he comes home from the other side of the globe.
-I hate to say it, because god knows I'd be complaining too, they got caught speeding. They weren't doing any police work as far as I can tell during their trip through VA. There was no reason for them to do that. The Secret Service doesn't turn on their lights when they go to my dad's work here in NJ for even more important business, I'm sure there's no need for the NJSP to do the same.
Total garbage argument. Speedlimits are put in place for a reason. While a handful of police cars charge down the fast lane, lights and sirens blaring people in front of them are trying to make adjustments to get out of their way. Old folks, loaded tucks and trailers, kids who don't have alot of driving experience.
I worked in Gulfport and Long Beach Mississippi for a week and drove home to N.Y. doing the speed limit for a couple of reasons...I obey each states traffic laws AND I value my life as well as others. These N.J. guys sound like they wanted to have their own parade of sorts through the Northeast on their way home. And they WERE extended courtesy by not getting tickets as most of us would have..The cars that never stopped committed an even more serious offense as well.
Stop bullying your "theories" on people...95 MPH on many highways is foolish, and not everyone drives vehicles suitable for those speeds either. You have to look at the big picture of laws and why they are in place.
I worked in Gulfport and Long Beach Mississippi for a week and drove home to N.Y. doing the speed limit for a couple of reasons...I obey each states traffic laws AND I value my life as well as others. These N.J. guys sound like they wanted to have their own parade of sorts through the Northeast on their way home. And they WERE extended courtesy by not getting tickets as most of us would have..The cars that never stopped committed an even more serious offense as well.
Stop bullying your "theories" on people...95 MPH on many highways is foolish, and not everyone drives vehicles suitable for those speeds either. You have to look at the big picture of laws and why they are in place.
Originally posted by: Slappy00
Originally posted by: EatSpam
I'll take Illinois with radar detectors and no enforcement. I've driven I-55 to Chicago close to 1000 times at 90mph in the last 7 years and never had a ticket.
They got lasers on I55 now, around bloomington is where I got hit, luckly there were cars in front of me with brakelights flashing as they went over teh top of a hill, so I got the hint.
Be careful, with the photo detectors at construction zones its not as safe as it used to be.
/me loves my Escort X50, paid for itself once already
I live in Normal.... the places to watch are the bridges near the Lexington exit and the police turnaround road right near the Towanda exit. Otherwise, its wide open. I've really only had my laser/radar detector go off once in that area. Holidays are particularly bad though.
I slow down in the construction zone.... I don't want to risk hitting anyone. Who knows when someone isn't looking and steps out in front of you.
SP33Demon
Lifer
- Jun 22, 2001
- 27,928
- 142
- 106
Mill, you got pwned pretty fcking bad buddy.
To generalize that anyone should be able to drive 95MPH on any interstate in the country is the fcking funniest thing I've heard in a LONG time! Hell, you haven't even driven on I-81 and people who drive it EVERY DAY are telling you that 95MPH is not a safe speed for that area. You have to be a pretty arrogant sht to think you know more than them. I'm betting you've been pulled over MANY TIMES for speeding, and will now argue like a prepubescent kid who was just grounded from his PS2 for a week against it. As a result, nobody can ever take you seriously.
The cops who were speeding should be suspended, but not fired for abusing their lights. There's no excuse for that, I don't give a fck if you saved 10 babies the day before from drowning in a flood or stealing money from a hooker, there's no excuse.
Since I'm originally from NJ, I know the history that the law enforcement has faced due to corruption (God, the racial profiling fiasco was a nightmare). This adds another black eye to NJ, and the officers in question should be fcking ashamed. If I can't drive 95 on I-81, a g.dam officer from another jurisdiction shouldn't be allowed to either.
To generalize that anyone should be able to drive 95MPH on any interstate in the country is the fcking funniest thing I've heard in a LONG time! Hell, you haven't even driven on I-81 and people who drive it EVERY DAY are telling you that 95MPH is not a safe speed for that area. You have to be a pretty arrogant sht to think you know more than them. I'm betting you've been pulled over MANY TIMES for speeding, and will now argue like a prepubescent kid who was just grounded from his PS2 for a week against it. As a result, nobody can ever take you seriously.
The cops who were speeding should be suspended, but not fired for abusing their lights. There's no excuse for that, I don't give a fck if you saved 10 babies the day before from drowning in a flood or stealing money from a hooker, there's no excuse.
Since I'm originally from NJ, I know the history that the law enforcement has faced due to corruption (God, the racial profiling fiasco was a nightmare). This adds another black eye to NJ, and the officers in question should be fcking ashamed. If I can't drive 95 on I-81, a g.dam officer from another jurisdiction shouldn't be allowed to either.
TallBill
Lifer
- Apr 29, 2001
- 46,017
- 62
- 91
I 100% disagree. I'm a police officer at Fort Campbell and trust me, speed enforcement loses the base money. Its very costly to buy, maintain, and run all of the equipment and pay all of the salaries of the traffic section. Yet people still get pulled over.
The US has some of the worst drivers in the world. The current speed limits are more than enough. The last thing I want to see is some soccer mom in an SUV or Minivan barreling down the road or highway at 95mph. 8 car pileup anyone?
You all can continue to say what you want. You're the same folks that pop up in every speeding ticket thread and chant "but its the law, but its the law." I don't care what opinion you guys have, because you've always had the same one, and tried to browbeat anyone that didn't agree with you. You won't entertain anything other than if it is illegal it is bad, and because it is bad it is illegal. Circular logic.
You know Forts and Bases are very different. I'd never speed on a base -- they'll get you for 2 over!
What are you talking about? I replied to it in full. His last long post was simply him re-hashing the same points that I already responded to, yet I replied to it again. There's no point in continuing to waste any time. He feels the Interstates are unsafe above 70mph, and I disagree. He's posted links and I've posted links. I think any American driver out there has driven on the Interstate at speeds exceeding 80mph before, and realizes that most Interstates are safe for fast driving. Yes, there are hilly, rocky, curvy, wet, foggy, or whatever stretches in which someone needs to go BELOW the speed limit, but this is the exception and not the rule. A vast majority of the Interstate is safe for highspeed driving. Differ if you will, but I do it everyday.
NFS4
No Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 72,636
- 47
- 91
But he is in a position of authority on the subject, you are not. My roommate works for the NC DOT in roadway design. He pretty much backs up the statements that rahvin made when it comes to speed limits, line of sight, etc.
Sure we, all may think that we know a lot on a particular subject or have enough experience to speak on a subject. But when it comes down to it, I value the opinion of someone who is actually in the field or someone who has a hand in the development of roadways over someone who feels that "Just b/c I can do it means that it is safe."
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter