Solve speeding by limiting cars!
BadBlast41
>exceeding the limits of the tires and suspension. Why aren't cars sold with
>speed limiters at 65 mph to keep from exceeding the limits of the law? The
I've wondered the same thing. The automakers obviously want to appeal to the
people who want fast cars, which is why we're seeing so many absurdly
powerful sports cars (who really needs to get to 60 mph in 5 seconds?). But
even though they have a lot of money and influence, the government has
passed many laws that affect them (fuel economy, pollution, safety). Yet,
they won't pass a law mandating that they stop making cars that easily allow
people to break the law!
Jeffrey S. Curtis
that he's actually this stupid - er, serious...
ma...@ludes.com (Mark Spencer) writes:
} Since there is no place in the US where 65 mph can be legally
}exceeded, I don't see why cars are being sold that can go faster than this.
It's legal to drive as fast as you want everywhere in the United States,
except for public roads. That means it's legal to go as fast as you
want in > 99% of our territory. That's hardly "no place".
}Especially with speedometers that read well over 100 mph, enticing drivers
}to drive at dangerous speeds.
Yeah, my speedometer goes up to 180mph, and boy do I hear voices when
I get behind the wheel. Maybe I should sue the manufacturer for
enticing me.
} Cars are already being sold with speed limiters to keep from
}exceeding the limits of the tires and suspension. Why aren't cars sold with
}speed limiters at 65 mph to keep from exceeding the limits of the law?
Because it would kill a *lot* of people (like when I'm sitting behind
self-righteous idiots like you who do 10 mph under the speed limit on
a one lane road to "protect" everyone, and I pull out to pass you, and
my car can't accelerate enough thanks to your great invention to get me
back into the lane in time to avoid that semi in the oncoming lane).
} The
}majority of all accidents are due to speed.
No, sorry, there has never been an accident due to speed. There are
plenty of accidents due to speed differential, though. If you want
to find a serious cause to go after, try going after drunk driving,
since there are actual *facts* that alcohol has been related to about
50% of all accidents in the U.S. each year for the past several years
(as opposed to self-righteous speculation).
} Thosands of lives would be saved
}every year if cars were unable to exceed a safe speed.
Thosands [sic] of people would be senselessly slaughtered every year
if your half-baked idea were mandated to the automakers.
} What is wrong with our government that they would ignore such a
}simple way to enforce a law and save lives?
What's what with people like you who think the answer to everything
is more regulation, more restrictions, more laws?
Followups to a more appropriate newsgroup.
Jeff
--
Jeffrey S. Curtis | Internetwork Manager
Argonne National Laboratory | Email: cur...@anl.gov
9700 South Cass Avenue, ECT-221 | Voice: 708/252-1789
Argonne, IL 60439 | Fax: 708/252-9689
Tigress
NMA, your presence is needed badly to educate this guy.
In article <3pu04u$6...@ludes.com>, Mark Spencer <ma...@ludes.com> wrote:
> Since there is no place in the US where 65 mph can be legally
>exceeded, I don't see why cars are being sold that can go faster than this.
>Especially with speedometers that read well over 100 mph, enticing drivers
>to drive at dangerous speeds.
Well, if nothing else, people like to race their cars in racing events
(SCCA, PCA, other car clubs).
>
> Cars are already being sold with speed limiters to keep from
>exceeding the limits of the tires and suspension. Why aren't cars sold with
>speed limiters at 65 mph to keep from exceeding the limits of the law? The
>majority of all accidents are due to speed. Thosands of lives would be saved
>every year if cars were unable to exceed a safe speed.
SAFE?!!!!!
I know, why don't we all just drive 5 mph?!
>
> What is wrong with our government that they would ignore such a
>simple way to enforce a law and save lives?
>
If you feel that anything over 65 is unsafe, one has to wonder about your
driving skills. Get off the road.
Tigress (sheesh, the insurance comanies sure can brainwash some people)
--
|\ _,,,---,,_
/,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ Tigress
|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-' gt3...@prism.gatech.edu
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) Cat drawn by Felix Lee
Sunny Yum
> Since there is no place in the US where 65 mph can be legally
Try the race track.
>I don't see why cars are being sold that can go faster than this.
>Especially with speedometers that read well over 100 mph, enticing drivers
>to drive at dangerous speeds.
"Dangerous speeds" seems to be your opinion, not mine.
> Cars are already being sold with speed limiters to keep from
>exceeding the limits of the tires and suspension. Why aren't cars sold with
>speed limiters at 65 mph to keep from exceeding the limits of the law?
There ARE places where you can drive over 65 MPH, see my previous answers.
>The majority of all accidents are due to speed. Thosands of lives would
>be saved every year if cars were unable to exceed a safe speed.
I thought it was drunk driving? Maybe not, but why not ban alcohol while
we're at it so that people won't be enticed to drink and drive?
> What is wrong with our government that they would ignore such a
>simple way to enforce a law and save lives?
Yeah, the our government sucks. I say ban guns too, I mean it would
save lives if nobody had access to guns, right? Also, while we're at
it, why don't we ban alcohol, tobacco, fatty foods (McDonalds would
be run out of buisness, of course!), bungee jumping, and couch
potatoes as well!
BTW, for the sarcasm impaird: ;)
sdy
Rahul Dhesi
>The
>majority of all accidents are due to speed.
Evidence, please.
I had assumed most accidents occur due to acceleration.
--
Rahul Dhesi <dh...@rahul.net>
"please ignore Dhesi" -- Mark Crispin <m...@CAC.Washington.EDU>
Henry J. Fok
> Since there is no place in the US where 65 mph can be legally
> exceeded, I don't see why cars are being sold that can go faster than
This will soon change back to whatever each individual state believes is safe
for it's roads and conditions. For example, before the Federal governement
imposed the 55mph limit, several states HAD no highway speed limit. Montana
comes to mind. And now that the National Speed Limit is about to be repealed,
75 looks like it will become the norm, as most people drive at about that
speed ANYWAY. Also, there are places in the U.S. where you can, today, drive
more than 65. They're called racetracks. My favorite is Willow Springs. Being
limited there, or at Bonneville, to 65mph would be just plain stupid!
> this. Especially with speedometers that read well over 100 mph, enticing
> drivers to drive at dangerous speeds.
The fact that a car has a speedo that goes up to 100mph does NOT usually
entice the driver to drive at excessive speed. The fact that American traffic
won't ALLOW you to drive much over 70 is barrier enough.
>
> Cars are already being sold with speed limiters to keep from
> exceeding the limits of the tires and suspension. Why aren't cars sold
The reason these limiters are on there is because:
A: Manufacturers are cheap. They use lower quality materials and then add a
limiter to the computer so that you will find it very difficult to exceed the
recuded capabilities. It's not the suspension, either; it's the tires.
B: Insurance lobbyists have attacked the manufacturers for years by making it
unaffordable to drive certain cars, and they've been giving in. For example.
The 240SX (I think) was limited to 112. Nothing wrong with it's suspension
and tires or the rest of the car, it's just that if they HADN'T limited the
car, it would have cost WAY too much to insure.
> with speed limiters at 65 mph to keep from exceeding the limits of the
> law? The majority of all accidents are due to speed. Thosands of lives
What happens when the law changes, like when we upped it from 55 to 65? Like
now? The majority of all accidents are not due to speed, but to poor drivers.
Read on.
> would be saved every year if cars were unable to exceed a safe speed.
Who determines what is a safe speed? The government? You, Mark? No. A safe
speed is what the environment and the driver's and car's capabilites dictate.
The problem is not speed. Saying that it is is like saying that guns, in and
of themselves are evil. (How can you say something like that about a cold
lump of steel??? But that's another newsgroup.) Contrary to popular belief
and Ralph Nader, it is the lack of true driver training that kills. Driver's
education in the U.S. is sadly lacking. If everyone was required by law to
attend a defensive driving class, and/or a Bondurant/Barber type course (and
pass it) before getting their license, we'd have a lot less accidents
involving fatalities or injuries. We'd also have a lot less people driving,
because many people, quite frankly, should not be behind the wheel of
anything bigger than a riding lawnmower.
>
> What is wrong with our government that they would ignore such a
> simple way to enforce a law and save lives?
You elected them, you tell me!
Would YOU like to pay for a program that would limit cars? How would you
enforce this? Would you retrofit older cars? What do you do about people
removing the limiters? And what happens when the law changes? How do you
handle the millions upon millions of emergency cases where a private citizen
needs to get to a hospital NOW, and the only way to do that is to haul a$$ at
100+mph to get there now? Would you deny this person their right to live,
just because you want to lock out their emergency options? If you like this
sort of governmental control, I know a gentleman in Communist China who would
LOVE to talk to you. Too bad the U.S.S.R. isn't around anymore, or I'd
suggest you move there, where EVERYTHING, absolutely EVERYTHING was
regulated.
I'm TIRED of these stupid questions. I think that this should be relegated to
the Pile of Crappy Topics, which includes Gun Control, Ban the Right to
Privacy, Driving is a Right, and There Is Only One God and He is Mine!
Macintosh Consultant * Repairs and Upgrades * Data Recovery
Toyota Owner * 1982 Longbed Pickup Truck * 22R Powered * Clocked @102mph
Henry Fok is: Spe...@UTDallas.Edu; Spe...@gammaquad.com;II...@gammaquad.com
-----------------------------------
The Gamma Quadrant - FirstClass BBS
Huntington Beach, CA (714) 840-7497
----------------------------------
Gumby
> Since there is no place in the US where 65 mph can be legally
>Thosands of lives would be saved
>every year if cars were unable to exceed a safe speed.
> What is wrong with our government that they would ignore such a
>simple way to enforce a law and save lives?
If you discover that there is an object that will be in the same place at the
same time as your car, you have four choices to avoid a collision, turn left,
turn right, accelerate, and decelerate. When traveling at or near the speed
limit, you would be removing one of these optione, and make cars less safe.
I can come up with no reason why there shouldn't be limiters at 110 on every
car, like Japan. Well, except that my car humms so nicely at redline in fifth
at a hair more than 135.
Marc
Gumby
>In article <jedwards....@dbtech.net>,
>Joel Edwards <jedw...@dbtech.net> wrote:
>>In article <3pu04u$6...@ludes.com> ma...@ludes.com (Mark Spencer) writes:
>>> Why aren't cars sold with
>>>speed limiters at 65 mph to keep from exceeding the limits of the law?
>>Hey, cut out my vocal chords so I can't commit slander. [...]
>Your vocal chords have legitimate uses. Slander is not all it is capable of.
>All your examples would involve
>an intrusion into your body. There is no legitimate reason to exceed the
>maximum speed limit, and there is no reason that cars should be able to do
>it. Limiting cars does not infringe on any of your rights, and does not
>involve the removal of any body parts. Your analogies are flawed.
My car exceeded the speed of 85 mph today. I was not speeding at the time.
I race my car. No, it is not a special car, just a mid 80s 200SX. It
is completly stock. I have a legitamate use of my car that legally exceeds
the 65 limit. There are legal uses of vocal chords, and illegal uses of
them. There are legal uses of 100+mph speeds, and illegal uses of them.
Why are you attacking the speeding, but not attacking the layrnx?
Just because you get uncomfortable at speeds above 30 doesn't mean that
people shouldn't be able to feel the excitment of a legal power-on oversteer
at 80+mph.
Marc
Chris Snowdon
>
>I had assumed most accidents occur due to acceleration.
And I thought they were due to sudden deceleration!
--
Chris Snowdon (csno...@wmc.ac.uk) Network Management Team
(-: The views expressed here are my own - not my employers :-)
A fool learns from his mistakes - a wise man from someone elses
mic...@maine.maine.edu
To the rest of you, my apology for my use of strong language. However, the
proposed abuse of government authority really ticks me off. As others have
pointed out, there are perfectly legal venues in which speeds in excess of
the limit on public roads are allowed. As soon as the NMSL repeal is in
effect (waiting with bated breath) the speed limit is going to go up in some
places. Eventually we may again see unlimited roads in some western states.
Just because the current maximum speed limit is 65 is no reason to propose
that cars have speed governors by law. The maximum speed limit could change
and in some place be eliminated entirely in the not-too-distant future.
What's "wrong" with our government is that this is supposedly a free country
and the people of this country rightly resent the intrusion of government on
their daily lives, especially in the name of "protecting" them from
themselves. More so when such "protection" is proposed by ill-informed
zealots who think that fear and rumor (i.e. the myth that "speed kills")
constitute common sense or worse, equal scientific studies.
Michael Johnson
Relay Technology, Inc.
The opinions stated above are my own and not necessarily shared by Relay Technology
Andy the Pugh
occur in urban areas where the speed limit is considerably lower. The
proposed speed governing devices would not have any impact on speed
around town.
Furthermore, have you ever been stuck behind two (or three or four) trucks
all with fractional speed differences who are trying (legitiamately) to arrange
their on road order to match their road speed?
Can you imagine how traffic flow would be impeded if ALL vehicles had such
tiny speed differentials?
ap (from rec.motorcycles)
Andy the Pugh
>
>In article <4871qv$e...@hustle.rahul.net>, dh...@rahul.net says...
>>
>>I had assumed most accidents occur due to acceleration.
>
>And I thought they were due to sudden deceleration!
A physics nerd writes:-
What does that word mean then?
(Have you ever noticed that a car has three accelerators?
Ther is the one marked "accelerator", the one marked "brake"
and the big round one for your hands to work.)
ap
Daniel Nitschke
Rahul Dhesi <dh...@rahul.net> writes:
:: In <3pu04u$6...@ludes.com> ma...@ludes.com (Mark Spencer) writes:
::
:: >The
:: >majority of all accidents are due to speed.
:: Evidence, please.
::
:: I had assumed most accidents occur due to acceleration.
Nope. It's the sudden *decceleration* that does it.
>> dan -- Ignorant Yank (tm) #1, none-%er #7 <<
/------------------------------------------------------------\
| Dan Nitschke * ParcPlace-Digitalk * nits...@parcplace.com |
>------------------------------------------------------------<
| Some people gonna call you up, tell you something that you |
| already know. -- Paul Simon, "Proof" |
\------------------------------------------------------------/
Tom Lentz
writes:
>>> Why aren't cars sold with
>>>speed limiters at 65 mph to keep from exceeding the limits of the law?
>>
penis so
>>that I could not possibly rape some one. Make me wear a tracking
device just
>>in case the government wants to know where I am.
>
>Your vocal chords have legitimate uses. Slander is not all it is capable
of.
tracking
>device would infringe on your right to privacy, and would require you to
>wear a device or have one implanted in you. All your examples would
>an intrusion into your body. There is no legitimate reason to exceed the
>maximum speed limit, and there is no reason that cars should be able to
do
>it.
There is a legitimate use for going more than 65. When passing. When
passing someone you are legally allowed to have a 15mph speed
superiority. Making the highest needed speed about 70 to 75mph, because
if it's 65, then there's more than one lane. You'll only need to pass in
a 55 to 60mph zone. I can also see where speeding up to get out of
someones way could be useful; for example you're in the left lane of a
2-lane 65mph zone and there's a car on your right. Some jerk in a big
old hot-rod lincoln stars closing on your butt at 90mph. I'd sure want
to get out of the way enough to change lanes!
There's also a movement going on now to repeal the national 65mph speed
limit, and let states set their own again. What if that passes and then
there's no longer a speed limit in places like Montana?
What if they did make speed limiters a law. Would I have to get my older
car retrofitted? What about all those hobbyists who like to drag race
their street cars on the weekends (at a track of course)? The NHRA is
probably a pretty powerful lobby.
Tom.
Dirk Broer
The obvious answer is that not all cars used for driving on the public
roads are used exclusively for that. In your area I bet you could find
Drag Strips, road race tracks (longer drive probably) and other driving
events that require better than 'average' performance.
Then there are always the extraordanary driving circumstances. Since no
driver is perfect, the extra acceleration, braking, and cornering ability
of high performance cars can serve to avoid accidents.
The government basically allows individual freedom of choice, even the
choice of whether to break the law or not. Rather than outlawing
everything simply because it can be used to commit a crime (I hear they
use photography equipement to produce child pornography - outlaw
photography equipement?).
Sounds like you and I would disagree on gun-control. Oh well...
I'll go for the computer controlled speed limiters - as long as the
police have them as well. I'll just disable mine and have one more
option to avoid speeding tickets...
Dirk
Mark Pickerill
>
>What if they did make speed limiters a law. Would I have to get my older
>car retrofitted? What about all those hobbyists who like to drag race
>their street cars on the weekends (at a track of course)? The NHRA is
>probably a pretty powerful lobby.
>
a torch in their garage? I'll have to run out and order some more
acetelene today...
;*****************************************************************************
;* ___ *
;* / \ Mark D. Pickerill Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute *
;*| | ma...@mbari.org (M.B.A.R.I.) *
;* \ / *
;*__\_/__ Servant of Athena ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++*
;* | Assembly hack extraodinaire + All opinions are my own, and in +*
;* | Diesel engine nut + no way reflect opinions of MBARI +*
;* | Mercedes-Benz enthusiast + "Standard disclaimers apply" +*
;* | ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++*
;*****************************************************************************
jr...@watson.ibm.com
>In article <4871qv$e...@hustle.rahul.net>,
> Rahul Dhesi <dh...@rahul.net> writes:
>:: In <3pu04u$6...@ludes.com> ma...@ludes.com (Mark Spencer) writes:
>::
>:: >The
>:: >majority of all accidents are due to speed.
>:: ^>:: Evidence, please.
>::
>:: I had assumed most accidents occur due to acceleration.
>
>Nope. It's the sudden *decceleration* that does it.
>
that all cars involved in accidents had some non-zero velocity.
On top of that, the same stats show that all accident-involved cars
had windshields (windscreens, andy?) so they, too, are dangerous.
Mandate all cars to be sold sans glass! Much safer that way.
=============================================================
1959 BMW R50 Jim Rozen
1969 BMW R60US (JRR0 @ watson.ibm.com)
1975 BMW R75/6 (The "new" one)
===========================================================
rtho...@lynx.dac.neu.edu
..
>I've wondered the same thing. The automakers obviously want to appeal to the
>people who want fast cars, which is why we're seeing so many absurdly
>powerful sports cars (who really needs to get to 60 mph in 5 seconds?). But
>even though they have a lot of money and influence, the government has
>passed many laws that affect them (fuel economy, pollution, safety). Yet,
>they won't pass a law mandating that they stop making cars that easily allow
>people to break the law!
I have a friend whose wife went into labor early. There was some problem with
the baby, I don't remember the specifics, but the kid was in serious trouble.
For some reason an ambulance was not available and the hospital told him to
drive her in NOW. It was a 30 or 40 mile drive, he maintained speeds of 100
to 130 the entire way (so says he). When he arrived at the hospital they
managed to save the baby. The doctor said the kid had no more than 2 or 3
minutes to live when he arrived.
Some things are more important than arbitrary speed limits set by revenue
agents. While that was a once in a lifetime emergency (hopefully) I would
sure hate for my kid to die because some control freak put a speed limiter
on my car.
Bob
Rick Nakroshis
>There is a legitimate use for going more than 65. When passing. When
>passing someone you are legally allowed to have a 15mph speed superiority.
Huh? Do you have a source for this?
>There's also a movement going on now to repeal the national 65mph speed
>limit, and let states set their own again. What if that passes and then
>there's no longer a speed limit in places like Montana?
Then I guess I won't complain about the illegal speeders in Montana. That
still doesn't do anything about the illegal speeders around DC, however.
--
_\\|//_
( O-O )
-------------------------o00--(_)--00o---------------------------
Rick Nakroshis rnakr...@grci.com
And remember, another day ends:
All targets met...
All systems working and customers satisfied...
All staff eager and enthusiastic...
All pigs fed, watered, and ready to fly.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Szymczak
>exceeded, I don't see why cars are being sold that can go faster than this.
>to drive at dangerous speeds.
>
>exceeding the limits of the tires and suspension. Why aren't cars sold with
>majority of all accidents are due to speed. Thosands of lives would be saved
>every year if cars were unable to exceed a safe speed.
Where is your evidence that the majority of accidents are due to speed?
What bullshit. The last stats (1993 or 1994) I saw for the Province of
Ontario showed that speeding was the cause of an accident in
approximately 10% of accidents - hardly a majority.
Thousands of lives would be saved if people wore seatbelts; if people
would use car seats for infants; if people were tested on a regular
basis; if people wouldn't run red lights; if people wouldn't drink and
drive; if people would signal lane changes; if people would stop
tailgating; and so.
> What is wrong with our government that they would ignore such a
>simple way to enforce a law and save lives?
What if the law is wrong? If the road is straight and designed for cars to
do at least 75 mph or more (as most stretches of the Interstate system
are), then why isn't the speed limit posted at 75 mph?
I guess you want the government to control the speed of the car. What
next, the government controlling the time we use our car?
Get real buddy.
--
Yours truly,
Adam Szymczak, BA Master of Arts in Geography (Urban Planning)
szy...@server.uwindsor.ca University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada
Daniel Nitschke
jr...@watson.ibm.com writes:
:: >Nope. It's the sudden *decceleration* that does it.
:: >
:: No, he's really right - a careful survey of accident stats will show
:: that all cars involved in accidents had some non-zero velocity.
Not to be pedantic or anything, but I'm going to be pedantic.
Not *all* cars involved in accidents had non-zero velocity; I've
witnessed accidents where at least one car involved was quite
stationary (at least, at the point the accident began).
Will ya look at that. It's correct, factual, and added 0% useful
content to the discussion. Looks like I'm on rec.moto.
>> dan -- Ignorant Yank (tm) #1, none-%er #7 <<
Dan Nitschke == ParcPlace--Digitalk == el...@parcplace.com
`~^`~^`~^`~^`~^`~^`~^`~^`~^`~^`~^`~^`~^`~^`~^`~^`~^`~^`~^`
But no matter what I say, you ignore me anyway. I might
as well talk in my sleep. -- Supertramp
JSmith
says...
circumstances. Just think though - at 130 in an unmarked car without
a siren, a driver may kill not only the child but also himself. I
guess the question to ask is "is this situation dangerous enough that
it would be well worth killing two rather than one?" -- Alleycat
Mark Zen
:> There is a legitimate use for going more than 65. When passing. When
:> passing someone you are legally allowed to have a 15mph speed
:> superiority. Making the highest needed speed about 70 to 75mph, because
:> if it's 65, then there's more than one lane. You'll only need to pass in
:> a 55 to 60mph zone. I can also see where speeding up to get out of
:> someones way could be useful; for example you're in the left lane of a
:> 2-lane 65mph zone and there's a car on your right. Some jerk in a big
:> old hot-rod lincoln stars closing on your butt at 90mph. I'd sure want
:> to get out of the way enough to change lanes!
i would check on that!! it is NEVER legal to excede the speed limit, even
to pass. [in colorado]... doesn't mean we don't...
mark
--
-------...@netcom.com------------------------------------------------
mark zen o, o__ o_/| o_.
po box 6091 </ [\/ [\_| [\_\
longmont, co 80501-2077 (`-/-------/----') (`----|-------\-')
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@~~~~~~~@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@~~~~~~~~@~~~~~~~~
Michael W Wong
Adam Szymczak <szy...@uwindsor.ca> wrote:
>In article <3pu04u$6...@ludes.com>, Mark Spencer <ma...@ludes.com> wrote:
>> Since there is no place in the US where 65 mph can be legally
>>exceeded, I don't see why cars are being sold that can go faster than this.
>>Especially with speedometers that read well over 100 mph, enticing drivers
>>to drive at dangerous speeds.
>>
>> Cars are already being sold with speed limiters to keep from
>>exceeding the limits of the tires and suspension. Why aren't cars sold with
>>speed limiters at 65 mph to keep from exceeding the limits of the law? The
>>majority of all accidents are due to speed. Thosands of lives would be saved
>>every year if cars were unable to exceed a safe speed.
>
>
>>simple way to enforce a law and save lives?
>
tanks, yet they let car such as (no offense intended, just an east target) Yugos
be sold publicly. You can't honestly tell me that these tin cans on wheels are any
safer than a Lexus. And if speed kills, then dammit I should have been dead a LONG
time ago (and I'm only 22). But I have 8 speed tickets to date (I'm not bragging,
just stating a fact). But I haven't had a single accident, now how do explain that
one smarty pants. It's not speed that kills, it's stupidity and lack of driver
competance that causes accidents. IMHO, its people on the road that aren't moving
with the flow of traffic (assuming the flow is exceeding the limit) that present
more of a danger to their fellow motorist.
Secondly, if the govenrment is so interested in safety why didn't they make all
these recent safety requirements mandatory long ago. I know for a fact that air
bags were developed back in the mid-70s, yet they were not fully employed until
the late 80's.
Thirdly, have you ever been in a hurry??? (And don't try to give me any BS that
if you buget your time wisely...) because there will always be accidents (caused by
incompetent and unsafe drivers) or some other form of delay.
That's all for now
Mike
("`-''-/").___..--''"`-._ Michael Wong
`6_ 6 ) `-. ( ).`-.__.`) login: mw...@tools.ecn.
(_Y_.)' ._ ) `._ `. ``-..-' purdue.edu
..`--'_..-_/ /--'_.' ,' The only Indiana university
(__),-'' (__),' ((!.-'
--
*****************************************************************
*** Michael Wong PURDUE!!! ***
*** mw...@tools.ecn.purdue.edu ***
*****************************************************************
Ed Glamkowski
:P >> Why aren't cars sold with
:P >>speed limiters at 65 mph to keep from exceeding the limits of the law?
:P >> What is wrong with our government that they would ignore such a
:P >>simple way to enforce a law and save lives?
cause there are times when the average citizen does
have legitimate reason to travel at speeds above the
speed limit - e.g. you are driving to work and someone
in your carpool has a heart attack - wouldn't you like
to be able to get to the hospital as quickly as possible?
same thing with a pregnant woman. in most cases, even if
you are pulled over by a cop, as soon as they realize what
is happening, they will often escort you, at that higher
speed, to the hospital.
these may be exceptional cases, but they do happen, and
if *you* happen to be the one having the heart attack,
you won't think the limit to be such a good idea then :P
ynot
writes:
>Subject: Re: Solve speeding by limiting cars!
>From: Rahul Dhesi, dh...@rahul.net
>Date: 13 Nov 1995 09:06:39 GMT
>>In <3pu04u$6...@ludes.com> ma...@ludes.com (Mark Spencer) writes:
>
>>The
>>majority of all accidents are due to speed.
>
>
>I had assumed most accidents occur due to acceleration.
Actually most auto deaths are due to deceleration. It's that sudden stop
that kills you.
Gopal S Kailad
>ma...@ludes.com (Mark Spencer) wrote:
>>
>> Since there is no place in the US where 65 mph can be legally
>> exceeded, I don't see why cars are being sold that can go faster than this.
You know, there are situations where one would just want to get the hell
out of some place and speed limits might be the last thing on his/her mind ;))
- I personally would prefer to have a car which *could* go much faster
than 65 ...
Besides, if I remember right, there are places (Montana ?) which used to have
no speed limits, and might again remove speed limits altogether.
Cheers,
Gopal
**********************************************************************
gka...@telogy.com Cogito Ergo Sum
**********************************************************************
Tigress
>beyond 58 mph. Those proposals did not make it far but the porposal
>for speedometers cannot display any speed beyond 85 mph made it but
>got repealed under Reagan.
Yeah, they thought it would make people drive slower cause the people
were supposed to think that their car didn't go any faster. Instead,
people used that as an excuse ("But how am I supposed to know I was going
100, my speedometer only goes to 85") and getting away with it. I thought
this was nifty cause my first car, an 82 model, speedometer was made under
this law.
Tigress
--
|\ _,,,---,,_
/,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ Tigress
|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-' gt3...@prism.gatech.edu
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) Cat drawn by Felix Lee
Tigress
and cops who get money from speeding like the limit), but you post one
post at least four times so far.
>Your vocal chords have legitimate uses. Slander is not all it is capable of.
>Your penis has legitimate uses. Rape is not all it is capable of. A tracking
Rape isn't all it is capable of? Can you explain? It can totally ruin some
one mentally, it is degrading, and sometimes the woman (or man) doesn't
even end up living afterwords. *Stop*being*so*damn*ignorant*. I would like
to see you get raped, and then say that.
>an intrusion into your body. There is no legitimate reason to exceed the
>maximum speed limit, and there is no reason that cars should be able to do
There is no reason for the limit except the insurance companies get lots
of money for it.
>it. Limiting cars does not infringe on any of your rights, and does not
>involve the removal of any body parts. Your analogies are flawed.
It limits my ability to go a reasonable speed.
>Preventing your car from exceeding the maximum speed limit does not affect
>your ability to reason, nor does it affect your ability to use the car
>legally. Although you don't condone rape or slander, you seem to condone
>speeding, otherwise you wouldn't be so sensitive about the issue that you
And I do too, cause the limit is ridiculous. Why follow a rule that is so
obviously just a scam by insurance?
>would compare the prevention of cars that allow speeding to the removal of
>your penis.
>
Cause being forced to go 65 is having something removed, all fun of
driving the car. It would be horrible to have a car like that. Imagine how
much car company's profit would decrease, everyone would be buying old
cars without the limiter (hey, old cars would become worth more!).
Dude, if you feel threatened at speeds over 65, fine, stay in the right.
But there are people more competent at driving than you that don't like 65
and shouldn't be forced to drive a stupid speed.
John P. Curcio
> Since there is no place in the US where 65 mph can be legally
>exceeded, I don't see why cars are being sold that can go faster than this.
>Especially with speedometers that read well over 100 mph, enticing drivers
>to drive at dangerous speeds.
If you are enticed by a speedometer capable of doing 100 mph, you are
an idiot.
> Cars are already being sold with speed limiters to keep from
>exceeding the limits of the tires and suspension. Why aren't cars sold with
>speed limiters at 65 mph to keep from exceeding the limits of the law? The
>majority of all accidents are due to speed. Thosands of lives would be saved
>every year if cars were unable to exceed a safe speed.
Bullshit. Your "facts" are laughable.
> What is wrong with our government that they would ignore such a
>simple way to enforce a law and save lives?
First thing-- 55 does NOT save lives.
Secondly, why don't they do this? Simple. They WANT people to break
the law. It means money for them, money for the cops, money for the
insurance companies.
-JPC
--
=============================================================================
John P. Curcio j...@philabs.philips.com Philips Labs Briarcliff Manor, NY
"FOSTERS: Australian for Bud, mate!!"
"No goats, no boats, no motorcars, not a single 'yes-siree!'" -BH
Robert S. Fourney
> There is no legitimate reason to exceed the
>maximum speed limit, and there is no reason that cars should be able to do
>it. Limiting cars does not infringe on any of your rights, and does not
>involve the removal of any body parts. Your analogies are flawed.
>
OK, say I'm a tire manufacturer at some point in the future after
mindless "protect me from myself" dweebs have changed the laws so that
no _new_ car can exceed 65 mph. Say I want to test my tires at a higher
speed, in case they are installed on older cars, sold in europe, or sold
to somebody whos carm goes 65.9 instead of 64.9. Right now, I can legally
test my tires, on my test track, at whatever speed I want. Of course, tire
testing puts a lot of miles on my test fleet, so I often buy new test cars.
Now, I can't buy a car to test my tires. Are you gonna pay my legal bills
when a tire explodes at 65.4 (or 100.4).
What if next year the federal blackmail provision is removed, and
some western states raise their speed limits to 70 or (gasp) 75? Are you
(or the government) gonna pay to "un-govern" all those cars? Are you also
gonna pay to upgrade those cars that were given less than desired equipment
(tires, suspension, sway bars) under the false assumption that the car
would never _legally_ go over 65?
How about if the bank robbers/assassions/kid-touching kidnappers
have an "illegal" 70 mph car when they take your kids away? To bad the
cops won't be able to catch them in their "legal" cars.
If a car gets stuck on a train track and has to race ahead of the
70 mph train to safety, are you gonna pay the family of those killed
for their loss?
I know there aren't that many communist countries left, but perhaps
you should move to China or Cuba or someplace else where the government
does all of your thinking for you and leave us 'mericans alone!
Bob Fourney
>>> What is wrong with our government that they would ignore such a
>>>simple way to enforce a law and save lives?
>>
A big part of what is wrong with our government are snivelling
whiners who want the government to take responsibility for every facet
of their lives.
>Preventing your car from exceeding the maximum speed limit does not affect
>your ability to reason, nor does it affect your ability to use the car
>legally. Although you don't condone rape or slander, you seem to condone
>speeding, otherwise you wouldn't be so sensitive about the issue that you
>would compare the prevention of cars that allow speeding to the removal of
>your penis.
>
It does affect my pursuit of happiness, especially the rate at which
I can pursue said happiness with my speed-governed method of transportation.
(insert favorite founding father quote re: liberty vs freedom tradeoffs here)
Bob Fourney
Rahul Dhesi
Nitschke) writes:
>Not *all* cars involved in accidents had non-zero velocity; I've
>witnessed accidents where at least one car involved was quite
>stationary (at least, at the point the accident began).
There are head-on crashes where, for an instant in time, both autos
involved have zero velocity. Airbags really help in these.
--
Rahul Dhesi <dh...@rahul.net>
"please ignore Dhesi" -- Mark Crispin <m...@CAC.Washington.EDU>
Jeremy Hansen
: There is a legitimate use for going more than 65. When passing. When
: superiority. Making the highest needed speed about 70 to 75mph, because
: if it's 65, then there's more than one lane. You'll only need to pass in
: a 55 to 60mph zone.
Hmmm, everytime I've ever read the little driver's pamphlets the Department
of Motor Vehicles gives out it says that the maximum speed limit is an
absolute, and that exceeding it, even to pass, is a violation of the law.
I think making cars have speed limiters to match the speed limit is a
great idea - as long as the speed limit is 130 MPH. :)
--
Jeremy Hansen jer...@amcc.com
Technology Group
Applied Micro Circuits Corp.
AMCC now has a web page: http://www.amcc.com/
michael w. geitner
> Since there is no place in the US where 65 mph can be legally
>exceeded, I don't see why cars are being sold that can go faster than this.
> What is wrong with our government that they would ignore such a
>simple way to enforce a law and save lives?
>
Because our country was formed to escape tyranny and to create
freedom.
Mike
DLFA - here to help
mgei...@execpc.com
Adam Szymczak
>There is a legitimate use for going more than 65. When passing. When
>passing someone you are legally allowed to have a 15mph speed
>superiority. Making the highest needed speed about 70 to 75mph, because
>if it's 65, then there's more than one lane. You'll only need to pass in
>someones way could be useful; for example you're in the left lane of a
>2-lane 65mph zone and there's a car on your right. Some jerk in a big
>old hot-rod lincoln stars closing on your butt at 90mph. I'd sure want
>to get out of the way enough to change lanes!
I do not understand the above paragraph. Aside from the poor grammar, the
math does not add up. If, as you state, you can legally speed by another
car while passing by a factor of 15mph, then 65 plus 15 is not equal to
70 to 75 mph - try 80 to 85 mph. In what legislation is this 15mph
speed superiority you talk about? What is this bit abot "more than one
lane"? Please clarify yourself.
>There's also a movement going on now to repeal the national 65mph speed
>limit, and let states set their own again. What if that passes and then
>there's no longer a speed limit in places like Montana?
Agreed.
>What if they did make speed limiters a law. Would I have to get my older
>car retrofitted? What about all those hobbyists who like to drag race
>their street cars on the weekends (at a track of course)? The NHRA is
>probably a pretty powerful lobby.
Another good point.
Mark.O.Wilson
>
>Your vocal chords have legitimate uses.
So does driving fast.
>Slander is not all it is capable of.
The same for fast cars.
>There is no legitimate reason to exceed the
>maximum speed limit,
Ever try passing a car that is doing say 60mph, when you are not able
to exceed 65mph? That's going to end up in a lot of extra dead bodies.
What happens if you need to get to the hospital real fast?
What happens when your livelyhood depends on making as many
deliveries in as short a time as possible?
>and there is no reason that cars should be able to do
>it.
Just because you can't be bothered to think of any, doesn't mean there
aren't any.
>Limiting cars does not infringe on any of your rights
Except for my right to use my property as I see fit, so long as I don't
put anyone else in danger. And please tell me how speeding along
an Arizona highway, with no one else in sight puts others at danger.
>Although you don't condone rape or slander, you seem to condone
>speeding,
Because speeding laws are just one more of the useless, sensless laws,
that the government passes, because it believes it knows better then
we do, how to run our lives.
--
Mark.O...@AtlantaGa.attgis.com
It ain't charity if you ain't using your own money.
Just because a mob calls itself a government, doesn't make it so.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for
dinner.
People who claim that money doesn't matter, are usually living on
someone else's money.
Society is a mental construct, formed by those people who are too
insecure too handle the concept of people as individuals.
Rahul Dhesi
egla...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ed Glamkowski) writes:
>cause there are times when the average citizen does
>have legitimate reason to travel at speeds above the
>speed limit - e.g. you are driving to work and someone
>in your carpool has a heart attack - wouldn't you like
>to be able to get to the hospital as quickly as possible?
The original poster's point was that the law clearly says that you must
never go above the speed limit. Of course there are hardship cases,
but the THE LAW IS THE LAW!!! Having a heart attack does not justify
breaking the law. The guy should have eaten fewer french fries etc.,
and avoided the whole mess in the first place.
Or, if you think that heart attacks are really that serious, then you
should get organized and change the law, so the speed limit is high
enough to take people to the hospital. Or we could have two posted
speed limits, e.g., 'normal 55, heart attack victims 65'. (In some
places three, because there would be a third one for trucks. And maybe
a fourth one for trucks with heart attack victims.)
But until the law is changed we are supposed to strictly obey it!
Gerald G. Washington
California made over $800 million from speeding citations last year. The
simple fact is that the government likes speeders.
-- Gerald
gwash...@cen.com
Mark C. Orton
: There is a legitimate use for going more than 65. When passing. When
: passing someone you are legally allowed to have a 15mph speed
: superiority.
This is by no means universal. Around here (Virginia), the posted
speed limit is the limit, whether you're passing or not.
--
Mark C. Orton
employed by (but not speaking for)
Pulse Communications, Inc.
John Caradimas
>> Since there is no place in the US where 65 mph can be legally
You must be joking!!!! You are lucky enough to have one of the best
road networks on earth. Highways, where one can safely do 100 or even
150 mph in some cases. Where do you live in USA?
>>I don't see why cars are being sold that can go faster than this.
For one simple reason. Someday, some idiot will misscalculate passing
a track, and another track will be heading his way. If you were in his
shoes, would you like such a stupid speed limiter?
>>Especially with speedometers that read well over 100 mph, enticing drivers
>>to drive at dangerous speeds.
Oh, yeah? So 70 or 80 mph is dangerous speed? How old are you? Your
reaction time should be VEEEERY large, if you think that anything
above 65 is unsafe.
>> Cars are already being sold with speed limiters to keep from
>>exceeding the limits of the tires and suspension.
And I thought they were there to stop you from over-revving your
engine. Silly me! But then again, over-revving your engine is not your
cap of tea, unless you are in neutral.
>> Why aren't cars sold with
>>speed limiters at 65 mph to keep from exceeding the limits of the law?
Because there are people who can safely drive above that speed, no
matter what your personal opinion is. And industries sell what the
consumer wants, not what some stupid politically-based governement
decision mandates.
>>The majority of all accidents are due to speed. Thosands of lives would
>>be saved every year if cars were unable to exceed a safe speed.
This is the most silly thing I've ever heard, and unfortunately it is
said by several ignorant persons. SPEED DOES NOT KILL.
Speed is a driver-controlled parameter. It is bad drivers (that speed
where you cannot or should not speed) that kill people. For God sake,
can't you make that simple distinction? If you are fool enough to do
100 mph in a road where anyone in his right mind will do 50, it isn't
the excessive speed that killed you, it is your lack of understanding
simple things. In Germany, there are no speed limits on the autobahns,
yet they do have less accidents (percentage-wise) with other
countries, where speed limits exist. The difference is that they have
been properly trained to drive at these speeds.
Educating drivers better is a more sure way of decreasing car
accidents.
>> What is wrong with our government that they would ignore such a
>>simple way to enforce a law and save lives?
Why don't they simply ban cars? It would be safer!
David Schindler
weren't for speed, everything would be ok. PFFFTT!! Maybe if you combine
that with people that don't know how to drive, yes, speed kills. 65mph is
not all that fast to be going on the highway, especially on open strips of
it where there is not much going on.
And as was mentioned, sometimes speeding can safe a life as well.
And I like the feeling of knowing that if some truck can't make his stop
and I'm sitting at a light that I can floor it and get out of the way
before the damn thing crushes me.
Of course, this is not what they advertise because this is not
what sells, it's the flash that sells. But there are other reasons to
having a car with great accelleration.
Mark Shaw
> Cars are already being sold with speed limiters to keep from
> speed limiters at 65 mph to keep from exceeding the limits of the law? The
> majority of all accidents are due to speed. Thosands of lives would be saved
> every year if cars were unable to exceed a safe speed.
>
> simple way to enforce a law and save lives?
You should pick up a copy of Leonard Evans' book "Traffic Safety and the
Driver" (1991, Van Nostrand Reinhold, NY, ISBN 0-442-00163-0) and get a
little more perspective on the issue of traffic safety. It is not so cut
and dry as you would suggest.
Evans even comments on studies that showed:
1) A decrease in traffic fatalities in areas not affected by the 55 mph
speed limit when it was put into effect.
2) An increase in traffic fatalities in areas kept at 55 mph when other
sections of the same interstate were raised to 65 mph.
The only thing that can be said conclusively is that an impact at a
higher speed will do more damage than at a lower speed IF YOU DON'T
CHANGE ANYTHING ELSE. It is real hard to pinpoint exact effects
when you are simultaneously providing better crash protection and
increasing the speed of impact.
Besides, I think if we are supposedly going to get serious about
reducing traffic fatalities the most obvious thing to do is to
train better drivers, remove bad drivers from the road, and really
put a clamp on alcohol and driving. This would save far more than
the few thousand lives predicted for such nebulous restrictions
like speed governors.
Speed governors as another one of those PC solutions that could
not possibly insult someone who is either an irresponsible or
lousy driver.
Mark
DWIGHT DEAN
And I wonder have much money was made by the insurance companies by raising
the insurance rates of those drivers. Remember, even if the politicians do
not own stock in an insurance company, there are always other ways that they
can personally profit(such as campaign contributions, bribes, free equipment
from insurance companies, etc.).
The U.S. federal government spend something like 500 million dollars over ten
years to find the main causes behind traffic fatalities and accidents. I read
in (I believe CAR & DRIVER) a few years ago. This report said that most
accidents were caused by speed variance between vehicles and driving under the
influence. As I recall, the report even try to recommend that the speed limits
be raised. So it is funny that after all this time the government has done
nothing but say that raising the speed limit will result in increased carnage
on the highways and interstates. Also it is funny that many of the safety
advances and automotive improvements that Ralph Nader lobbied for 30 years ago
have also made high speed travel safe.
Lodewick
[snip story of speeding-to-save-a-life-or-two]
>You probably could've challenged such a ticket under those
>circumstances. Just think though - at 130 in an unmarked car without
>a siren, a driver may kill not only the child but also himself. I
>guess the question to ask is "is this situation dangerous enough that
>it would be well worth killing two rather than one?" -- Alleycat
>
All the more reason to get some PRACTICE, so we can handle these situations
safely.
Scott Sigethy
> Date: 13 NOV 1995 16:44:12 -0500
> From: John P. Curcio <j...@philabs.research.philips.com>
> Newgroups: rec.autos.misc, rec.autos.driving, rec.autos.tech, ca.driving,
> dc.driving, alt.law-enforcement, talk.politics.misc, rec.motorcycles
> Subject: Re: Solve speeding by limiting cars!
>
> In article <3pu04u$6...@ludes.com>, Mark Spencer <ma...@ludes.com> wrote:
>
> > Since there is no place in the US where 65 mph can be legally
> >exceeded, I don't see why cars are being sold that can go faster than this.
> >Especially with speedometers that read well over 100 mph, enticing drivers
> >to drive at dangerous speeds.
For what it's worth, take a look at USA Today, page 4A.
Congress is about to abolish the 55/65 mph limit
and many states are about to raise their limits if the bill passes.
In OK, SD, MO, TX, and CA, the speed limit will be raised to 70 mph
in Wyo., Nev, and Kansas, the new limit will be 75 mph.
In Montana, there will be NO SPEED LIMIT!
Personally I am looking forward to driving through Montana if this passes.
So I guess we won't be needing speed limiters will we?
I DO think, though, that drivers should be better educated at handling
cars, particularly at higher speeds.
A lot of people out there are not particularly skilled at high speed
driving and they are causing the accidents that appear on highway statistics.
Wow, an Autobahn in Montana- cool huh?
dwa...@atlanta.com
>**** SNIP *************. There is no legitimate reason to exceed the
>maximum speed limit, and there is no reason that cars should be able to do
>it. Limiting cars does not infringe on any of your rights, and does not
I can think of at least one case where limiters would endanger one's life.
Trying to drive someone to the hospital before they die, either in the car
of a friend or relative, or in an ambulance that can't get by a pack of 65-limited
cars that can't speed up to get out of the way.
Or, someone is following me, with obvious intent to do me harm or steal my car,
I'd like to have the ability to lose the vermin with my vehicle's superior speed..
I suppose, without that option, I could always carry a suitable automatic weapon...
Besides, the 55/65 limit has no realistic basis.. 55 was a temporary law
designed to make the public think the politicians were doing something about
a phony fuel crisis, and the insurance industry bribed the politicians to keep
it on the books to protect the bonanaza of ticket surcharge income it generated.
Besides, If my car had a speed governor, I'd just disable it, as most everyone
else would.
dwa...@atlanta.com
>I've wondered the same thing. The automakers obviously want to appeal to the
>people who want fast cars, which is why we're seeing so many absurdly
>powerful sports cars (who really needs to get to 60 mph in 5 seconds?). But
I do.. Makes it easy to run away from persistent tailgaters, merge with traffic,
and it's just plain FUN!
>they won't pass a law mandating that they stop making cars that easily allow
>people to break the law!
If 80 to 90 percent of the people are breaking the law, then it SHOULD
be broken, and then eliminated.
Hey, let's improve highway safety and fuel economy by requiring everyone to
stop and check their tire pressures every 10 miles, inflating them as needed.
While they're at it, they'll also have to check the tread depth, and not proceed
if the wear bars are showing.
Let's have another law that requires drivers to install tire chains immediately
as soon as there's any measurable snow or ice on the roads, and remove them
as soons as it'd dry again.
Let's pass a law requiring that no car is kep on the road for more than 5 years,
before it becomes unsafe..
Let's pass a law that prevents accidents by allowing the stickiest tires possible,
even if they only last 1000 miles (It'll stimulate the economy too..)
Let's pass a law requiring everyone to wear oversize padded gloves so they
can't hurt anyone in case they have abusive tendencies.
Let's put cameras and microphones in every room in everyone's home and
workplace to ensure they don't break any present (or future) laws..
To make sure these laws are enforced, allow the insurance companies to charge
drivers up to $2000 extra per year per vehicle, with no cancellation by the
insurer ot driver allowed..
We'll also remove all police from other duties and put them all on the highways
to follow us and make sure we OBEY..
Stupid laws erode respect for legitimate laws, and 55/65 is most definitely
a stupid law, with about as much chance for compliance as the others listed above.
dwa...@atlanta.com
> The
>majority of all accidents are due to speed. Thosands of lives would be saved
>every year if cars were unable to exceed a safe speed.
>
established.. I also run 10-20 over the limit on back roads, curves, wherever
traffic and road conditions allow a comfortable limit that's higher than the
posted limit..
Strangely enough, I'm still alive, and the only times I've suffered bent
sheetmetal were in parking lots and bumper-to-bumper traffic.. Oh, I
also ended up in a ditch after missing a turnoff on a dark rainy night at
about 10 MPH UNDER the posted limit, "proving" that low speeds
cause accidents.
Rick Nakroshis
>In Montana, there will be NO SPEED LIMIT!
>
>Personally I am looking forward to driving through Montana if this passes.
Planning to take a driving tour every weekend, eh?
>So I guess we won't be needing speed limiters will we?
The speed limit (or lack thereof) doesn't affect the traffic problems here,
so I wouldn't be quite that quick.
>I DO think, though, that drivers should be better educated at handling
>cars, particularly at higher speeds.
>A lot of people out there are not particularly skilled at high speed
>driving and they are causing the accidents that appear on highway >statistics.
You've got a good point here. More skill and less ego would go a long way
in reducing the blood and gore that is regularly reported on the six
o'clock news.
--
_\\|//_
( O-O )
-------------------------o00--(_)--00o---------------------------
Rick Nakroshis rnakr...@grci.com
And remember, another day ends:
All targets met...
All systems working and customers satisfied...
All staff eager and enthusiastic...
All pigs fed, watered, and ready to fly.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Glamkowski
:P In article <4871qv$e...@hustle.rahul.net> Rahul Dhesi, dh...@rahul.net
:P writes:
:P >>The majority of all accidents are due to speed.
:P >Evidence, please.
:P >I had assumed most accidents occur due to acceleration.
:P Actually most auto deaths are due to deceleration. It's that sudden stop
:P that kills you.
to nitpick here, there is no such thing as "deceleration",
but rather, acceleration in the negative direction :)
i do agree that it is the sudden stop that kills you though ;)
the most dangerous part of a car - the nut behind the steering wheel :)
Randy
> In <3pu04u$1...@ludes.com>, ma...@ludes.com (Mark Spencer) writes:
> >**** SNIP *************. There is no legitimate reason to exceed the
> >maximum speed limit, and there is no reason that cars should be able to do
> >it. Limiting cars does not infringe on any of your rights, and does not
>
> I can think of at least one case where limiters would endanger one's life.
> Trying to drive someone to the hospital before they die, either in the car
> of a friend or relative, or in an ambulance that can't get by a pack of
65-limited
> cars that can't speed up to get out of the way.
I must contradict this. Ambulance personnel should stabilize the patient
PRIOR to transport. As a paramedic, I was bound by those rules. In PA,
ambulances must obey ALL laws regardless of the emergency. No sense
endangering more lives to save on life, whether transport by ambulance or
personal vehicle.
> Or, someone is following me, with obvious intent to do me harm or steal
my car,
> I'd like to have the ability to lose the vermin with my vehicle's
superior speed..
> I suppose, without that option, I could always carry a suitable
automatic weapon...
Well if all cars have the same speed limiter, he would not be able to
catch/pass you. Not that I am for limiters. :-)
>
> Besides, the 55/65 limit has no realistic basis..
Sure it does.
> 55 was a temporary law
> designed to make the public think the politicians were doing something about
> a phony fuel crisis,
How do you know it was phony?
> and the insurance industry bribed the politicians to keep
> it on the books to protect the bonanaza of ticket surcharge income it >
generated.
How do you know the insurance companies bribed the politicians?
>
> Besides, If my car had a speed governor, I'd just disable it, as most everyone
> else would.
Which leads me to believe that you have no regard for law. Are you above
the law?
--
Randy
Randy
> In <3pu04u$6...@ludes.com>, ma...@ludes.com (Mark Spencer) writes:
> > The
> >majority of all accidents are due to speed. Thosands of lives would be saved
> >every year if cars were unable to exceed a safe speed.
> >
> I've been exceeding the 55/65 by at least 10 MPHlimit ever since it was
> established.. I also run 10-20 over the limit on back roads, curves, wherever
> traffic and road conditions allow a comfortable limit that's higher than the
> posted limit..
Ooh, you outlaw you. :-0
> Strangely enough, I'm still alive, and the only times I've suffered bent
> sheetmetal were in parking lots and bumper-to-bumper traffic.. Oh, I
> also ended up in a ditch after missing a turnoff on a dark rainy night at
> about 10 MPH UNDER the posted limit, "proving" that low speeds
> cause accidents.
This does not prove low speeds cause accidents, it proves you weren't
paying attention, and you can't drive in the rain. I believe the phrase
OPERATOR ERROR fits here.
--
Randy
Matthew T. Russotto
Randy <ra...@omni.voicenet.com> wrote:
}I must contradict this. Ambulance personnel should stabilize the patient
}PRIOR to transport. As a paramedic, I was bound by those rules. In PA,
}ambulances must obey ALL laws regardless of the emergency. No sense
}endangering more lives to save on life, whether transport by ambulance or
}personal vehicle.
I'll just have to watch for the ambulance with full lights and sirens
heading down the Blue Route at 55mph, getting passed by everyone else.
I'm sure it's a comical sight, to everyone except the patient.
}> Besides, the 55/65 limit has no realistic basis..
}
}Sure it does.
Like what?
}> and the insurance industry bribed the politicians to keep
}> it on the books to protect the bonanaza of ticket surcharge income it >
}generated.
}
}How do you know the insurance companies bribed the politicians?
They do it openly and notoriously.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russ...@pond.com russ...@his.com
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."
mic...@maine.maine.edu
In article <48ae40$e...@post.gsfc.nasa.gov>, gwas...@ace.gsfc.nasa.gov said:
>
>California made over $800 million from speeding citations last year. The
>simple fact is that the government likes speeders.
Yeah, sort of like the way that a bear likes salmon. If the salmon came up
with a way to avoid being caught by the bear, I bet the bear would try to
pass a law against it if he could. But he's not about to put up a dam that
keeps the salmon from swimming in his favorite fishing hole.
Michael Johnson http://mordor.relay.com/
Relay Technology, Inc.
The opinions above are my own and not necessarily shared by Relay Technology
dcw...@csupomona.edu
]exceeding the limits of the tires and suspension. Why aren't cars sold with
]majority of all accidents are due to speed. Thosands of lives would be saved
]every year if cars were unable to exceed a safe speed.
What happens *when* (not if) Congress passes the new highway bill eliminating
the 55/65 speed limit, and you're stuck with a car limited to 65. That'll do
wonders for the resale value I bet. The new speed limit in California is
going to be 70. Already signed by the governor just waiting for the bill
to pass in Congress.
This all reminds me of a speed limit thread in rec.autos.driving from a
while back. Some guy posted something about speed limits being set where
they are for safety reasons after careful study, blah blah blah. Played
it real straight, and lots of people took the bait, but someone finally
noticed the DOD# in the sig and got the joke. :)
--
****************************************************************************
Daniel Wang '84 RZ350 AMA#: none Activities: none
dcw...@csupomona.edu '92 GS500E DOD#: none Honors: none
Quote: "To be old and wise, you must first be young and stupid."
****************************************************************************
Reid D Rivenburgh
John> Friends in the State Patrol and RCMP tell me that they
John> target speeders more because most are highly focused, paying
John> attention to the road ahead, and are much easier to slip up
John> on.
Now I wouldn't think that the above is true, unless you're referring
to the idiotic sub-breed of speeders. Part of being a good driver is
being aware of the cars around you, and that includes looking in your
rear-view mirror from time to time. I usually know when someone is
coming up behind me quickly, especially if it's a cop! Which is
another point: smart speeders are always on the lookoup for cops. I
guess the bottom line is that there are lots of dumb speeders...
Reid
Seungho Cha
more stupid people who don't know what speed they can handle. A few
days ago, I was driving on the freeway on the second lane, and a BMW
325i on the left lane almost hit me. That idiot couldn't handle 75mph
on the curved freeway. He slowed down a little on that curve after
that close call, then speed up again on the straight freeway. And,
that same idiot almost hit me again on the next curve. Some idiots
think they should do speeding if they have nice cars, even though they
cannot handle. Those idiots may try to corner local cross way at
65mph, even if car speed is limited to 65mph. Do you want to limit
the speed to 15mph? Why don't you say "let's ban the automobile on
the road"?
--
___
' o/ |>
| . o | Seungho Cha, Ph.D.
>\. ( | ) Computer Science
Tigress
>paying attention, and you can't drive in the rain. I believe the phrase
>OPERATOR ERROR fits here.
Actaully, do you know that most accidents happen in parking lots?
Also, operator error is what happens in every accident, not speed. If
people knew how to drive better, I bet you accidents would go drastically
down. Speed has little to do with it (except it is more damaging at faster
speeds, but by that logic, we all should go 30 or lower on the highway, 55
is still going to damage a lot).
Tigress
--
|\ _,,,---,,_
/,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ Tigress
|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-' gt3...@prism.gatech.edu
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) Cat drawn by Felix Lee
Ye Wild Rider
: In article <4871qv$e...@hustle.rahul.net>, dh...@rahul.net says...
: >
: >I had assumed most accidents occur due to acceleration.
: And I thought they were due to sudden deceleration!
silly rabbit. he meant the initial acceleration from a standstill.
: Chris Snowdon (csno...@wmc.ac.uk) Network Management Team
: (-: The views expressed here are my own - not my employers :-)
: A fool learns from his mistakes - a wise man from someone elses
gears,
ye wilde ryder
--
wal...@neta.com | 91 zx-11 "black beauty" 83 v65 magna "animal"
wro...@amex-trs.com | 86 cr250 "dirt devil" 79 it250 "mr reliable"
"E Pluribus Unix" | 82 v45 magna "elliot" (D.O.A.) Support the RKBA
"I have no heart to lie, I can't pretend a stranger is a long awaited friend."
Shahak Nagiel
> >Strangely enough, I'm still alive, and the only times I've suffered bent
> >sheetmetal were in parking lots and bumper-to-bumper traffic.. Oh, I
> >also ended up in a ditch after missing a turnoff on a dark rainy night at
> >about 10 MPH UNDER the posted limit, "proving" that low speeds
> >cause accidents.
>
> nearly always exceeding the speed limit I've received no tickets and the only
> time I've ever had a collision was when I was pulling out of a driveway very
> slowly on a residential street and hit a parked car, breaking the cover on
> my taillamp. That PROVES that low speeds cause accidents, too.
>
Sorry. These things prove nothing but the fact that accidents are
possible under any conditions. You both got in accidents (or ditches) not
necessarily because you were going slow, but because you were unfamiliar
with the area in poor weather or just not observent enough. Had you been
going faster, it just would have been worse. Speed in and of itself is
not dangerous, but it is inheritantly so. Many drivers seem to forget a
fundamental law of physics which states that the kinetic energy is equal
to mass (the car's weight) times velocity SQUARED. Regardless of the
car's mass, the point is that for doubling your speed, the momentum of the
car increases FOURfold. From 50 to 75, while only a 50% increase in
speed, momentum increases 125%, which requires far longer breaking
distances and makes accidents far more dangerous.
Granted, most speed laws on today's highways have been around since the
50s, when cars needed 250 feet to come to a stop from 60 miles/hour, and
they got 10 miles to the gallon. Today, a good car can get 25-30 miles to
the gallon, and yank itself to a halt within 140 feet. Which is why, of
course, almost everyone cruises at 65 or 70 and doesn't feel guilty about
it. But speed kills, no doubt about it, whether on highways or not.
Eric Smith
>Preventing your car from exceeding the maximum speed limit does not affect
>your ability to reason, nor does it affect your ability to use the car
>legally. Although you don't condone rape or slander, you seem to condone
>speeding, otherwise you wouldn't be so sensitive about the issue that you
>would compare the prevention of cars that allow speeding to the removal of
>your penis.
>
Your own logic is so impaired as to be nearly useless in this situation.
Consider, for a moment, facts. Fact: 25 years ago, a 2-ton sled with no
airbag, no shoulder belt, no anti-lock brakes, no crumple zones, no radial
tires, and no fuel-efficient engine was legally allowed to cruise at 70 miles
per hour, or faster (so I'm told).
Now, contrast that with today. Modern vehicles have all of the above safety
features, far more efficient engines, and a more developed interstate highway
system. Yet it is considered unsafe for them to exceed 55mph (or 65, as the
case may be).
Now consider another afront to logic: seven or eight years ago, all highways
were considered "safe" at 55mph. Then, suddenly, those very same highways
driven by those very same people in the very same manner were deemed "safe" at
65mph by good 'ole John Lawman. Did some sweeping safety device come into play
that magically made this possible? No. The law just bowed to sense, which is,
I admit, an odd thing for it to do since it does it so irregularly.
Now, every day in my commute to work, I catch up to people like you.
Apparently, you must be immortal, because you seem to have no grasp of the
passage of time. Time is the ONLY resource available that we can't get more of
in some form or fashion. I don't cherish spending it in a car.
So, if you want to drive at 55mph or 65mph, you just go right ahead. Stay in
the damned right lane where sheep belong. Perhaps you are so insecure about
your abilities to operate a motor vehicle that you don't feel capable of
performing this duty, to which I answer: take public transportation and stop
making the rest of us pay for your handicap.
I have a 1994 Camaro Z/28 which is capable of nearly 160mph, and I have had it
there on occasion on a state-patrolled highway. I routinely drive at 80mph or
more, traffic permitting. I wish I could spit in the face of every "policeman"
that hides behind a radar/laser gun in attempt to enforce a law that 97% of the
American public does not support, obey, or condone and to which the police
themselves do not obey. And I wish there was a way I could kick every lackey
politician out of office who supports this inane and criminal law for the
solitary purpose of profiteering.
Of course, as long as there exists drivel such as you that can't seem to figure
out which lane he/she belongs in, it seems the rest of us are going to have to
pay for your inadequacies and insecurities.
Feel free to respond. I have a lot more ammunition to throw at your pitiful
argument.
Dick Brewster
>
> ynot <yn...@chiba.netxn.com> wrote:
> :P In article <4871qv$e...@hustle.rahul.net> Rahul Dhesi,
dh...@rahul.net
> :P writes:
> :P >>The majority of all accidents are due to speed.
> :P >Evidence, please.
> :P >I had assumed most accidents occur due to acceleration.
> :P Actually most auto deaths are due to deceleration. It's that
sudden stop
> :P that kills you.
>
> to nitpick here, there is no such thing as "deceleration",
> but rather, acceleration in the negative direction :)
Only if you are dealing with an anal retentive (:-)
Check your dictionary.
Dick Brewster
Mr. Damon Kelly
Mark.O.Wilson <Mark.O...@AtlantaGA.attgis.com> wrote:
>What happens when your livelyhood depends on making as many
>deliveries in as short a time as possible?
This is a poor reason to justify high speeds. If the employer's
policy encourages speeding among its employees, it is time to readjust,
or devote more resources to the completion of the policy. Most of the
pizza places I dealt with (for example) recognized this fact, and made
adjustments when necessary.
-d
--
"Can't murder. Eating." -- Homer Simpson in "The Shinning," The Simpsons
Halloween Special V
Tom Walker
On Tue, 14 Nov 1995, michael w. geitner wrote:
> ma...@ludes.com (Mark Spencer) wrote:
>
> > Since there is no place in the US where 65 mph can be legally
> >exceeded, I don't see why cars are being sold that can go faster than this.
>
> > What is wrong with our government that they would ignore such a
> >simple way to enforce a law and save lives?
> >
> Because our country was formed to escape tyranny and to create
> freedom.
>
> Mike
This thread might just beat out re:American Cars SUCK!! for flame thread
of the year!! What do you guys think??
--
Tom W
DoD#1792
Ninja 500
tjwa...@ic.sunysb.edu
Bob Morrow
>Hmmm, everytime I've ever read the little driver's pamphlets the Department
>of Motor Vehicles gives out it says that the maximum speed limit is an
>absolute, and that exceeding it, even to pass, is a violation of the law.
>
>
Depends on two things:
1) what state you're in, and
2) what roads you're on.
Some states have "prima facie" speed limits where exceeding
them is legal if you can prove that your actions were not
unreasonable or dangerous.
The other exception is a little-known clause of the wonderful
National Maximum Speed Limit law. You cannot exceed it under
any circumstances; it is absolute. The anti-speed, big-
government forces won another round.
firebug
>> I can think of at least one case where limiters would endanger one's life.
>> Trying to drive someone to the hospital before they die, either in the car
>> of a friend or relative, or in an ambulance that can't get by a pack of
>> 65-limited cars that can't speed up to get out of the way.
>
>PRIOR to transport. As a paramedic, I was bound by those rules. In PA,
>ambulances must obey ALL laws regardless of the emergency. No sense
>endangering more lives to save on life, whether transport by ambulance or
>personal vehicle.
It's always been my understanding that an ambulance can do whatever it wants
as long as it's not unreasonably dangerous. This is what they told us in
driver's ed, this is what I've observed, and it even happens to be what
Florida law says. (I tried to check NY (where I took driver's ed) and PA
laws, but couldn't find them on the net, though NY could have it buried a
dozen levels deep in one of their messy gopher systems).
>> Besides, If my car had a speed governor, I'd just disable it, as most everyone
>> else would.
>
>Which leads me to believe that you have no regard for law. Are you above
>the law?
When you've got as many stupid laws as we do now, you'll find that people
don't have much regard for law.
firebug
>> Strangely enough, I'm still alive, and the only times I've suffered bent
>> sheetmetal were in parking lots and bumper-to-bumper traffic.. Oh, I
>> also ended up in a ditch after missing a turnoff on a dark rainy night at
>> about 10 MPH UNDER the posted limit, "proving" that low speeds
>> cause accidents.
>
>paying attention, and you can't drive in the rain. I believe the phrase
>OPERATOR ERROR fits here.
I think you missed his point.
Robert W. Hall
|> In article <48b182$e...@shark.sb.grci.com>,
|> Rick Nakroshis <rnakr...@grci.com> wrote:
|> >
|>
|> >Years ago, as an EMT in a rural Virgina town, I was called to a accident
|> >with a rolled-over pickup truck. On this perfectly straight road, speed
|> >had to have been a contributing factor. I'll never forget the look of
|> >horror frozen on that partially-ejected teenager's face.
|>
|> Possibly but the correct term is "driving too fast for conditions" not speeding.
Competence is the problem, not speed. There are far too many incompetent
drivers on the road. Far too many drivers lack precision, judgement, skill.
Rigourous driving tests, as present in Germany, would be a start, I think.
Rob
Stephen Lajoie
something else. I think this is a crummy idea. Cars get older and less
effecient. How are you going to limit the speed? What about older cars?
Imorted cars? What about passing?
Right after the 55 MPH speed limit was passed, I was pulled over by a
highway patrolman for blocking traffic. I was doing 55 in a 70 MPH zone.
I said it wasn't legal to go 70. He said that under the basic spped law,
I had to drive at a SAFE speed, and going 55 when everyone else is going
70 was NOT safe.
Once I had a sick VW and it could go very fast. I almost got squished by
a semi getting one the freeway. It would have been nice to be able to get
up to the same speed as the traffic. As it was, I was only ran off the road.
Crummy idea that will probably get more people killed than it would save.
--
--
Steve La Joie
laj...@eskimo.com
Adam Neil Villani
>Strangely enough, I'm still alive, and the only times I've suffered bent
>sheetmetal were in parking lots and bumper-to-bumper traffic.. Oh, I
>also ended up in a ditch after missing a turnoff on a dark rainy night at
>about 10 MPH UNDER the posted limit, "proving" that low speeds
>cause accidents.
Good point. I'm only 22 and have only been driving for 5 years, but despite
nearly always exceeding the speed limit I've received no tickets and the only
time I've ever had a collision was when I was pulling out of a driveway very
slowly on a residential street and hit a parked car, breaking the cover on
my taillamp. That PROVES that low speeds cause accidents, too.
--
Adam Villani
ad...@cco.caltech.edu
http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~addam
Find the wondrous connection: Cesar Chavez, Benjamin Banneker, Sacajawea
Adam Szymczak
John Paramore <wizp...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>Friends in the State Patrol and RCMP tell me that they target speeders
>more because most are highly focused, paying attention to the road ahead,
>and are much easier to slip up on.
It wouldn't have anything to do with revenue generation, now would it?
When we had photo radar in Ontario, the offical government line was
public safety, the unofficial line was money. Since speeding was only a
factor in 10% of accidents, I guess the government thought the other 90%
weren't that serious.
At least our new government putting the police officer where they belong
- in a cruiser not a van taking pictures. And at least they are starting
to crack down on drivers eating, using cell phones, reading something,
tailgating, unsafe lane changes, etc - the more common reasons behind
accidents.
I remember driving to Toronto on the QEW when photo radar began. Man it
was tense. It was the most tense drive I ever had. Everyone was doing the
same speed in all three lanes, in fact, the right lane was down to 80km/h
is some places. People braking at the sight of a van - chain reaction.
Now with photo radar gone, speeds are up, the left lane is moving faster,
and I feel more relaxed.
My biggest beef: people who insist on driving in the middle lane around
the speed limit on 3 or more lane highways. I have one piece of advice:
MOVE OVER! I hate passing on the right, especially near onramps/offramps.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that passing on the right is
illegal in Germany and other European countries.
Left lane bandits are fun too. Ohh a truck, I better pass it at exactly
1km/h more. By the time the person has passed the truck there is a line
of 10 or more cars, literally tailgating. Speed up and pass.
The only time I got caught speeding was on a secondary highway on the
Manitoulin Island doing about 120km/h in an 80km/h. Cop was coming
straight at me, and as soon as I saw the car I knew it was the OPP. But,
alas, I had met the cop the day before - my ex-girlfriend was selling his
house - I guess I had used my free "Get Out of Jail" card.
--
Yours truly,
Adam Szymczak, BA Master of Arts in Geography (Urban Planning)
szy...@server.uwindsor.ca University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada
Melissa L Brown
: >>> What is wrong with our government that they would ignore such a
: >>>simple way to enforce a law and save lives?
: >>
Frankly, this is pure BS.
For the millionth time, most accidents/highway deaths happen because
somebody does something stupid, or maybe mechanical failure, but not
because someone is driving too fast.
For example, pulling out in front of someone, not paying attention and
rear-ending someone, ad nauseum.
If you feel that driving the big 55 is the safest maximum speed, get your
ass over in the right lane and let the rest of us pass you by.
mic...@maine.maine.edu
In article <randy-14119...@philly48.voicenet.com>, ra...@omni.voicenet.com said:
>In article <4893a6$o...@nntp.atlanta.com>, dwa...@atlanta.com wrote:
>
>Sure it does.
No, it doesn't. A correct interpretation of various studies shows that not
only did the 55mph limit not save any lives, but the 65mph limit did not
increase the highway fatality rate (per million miles traveled) AND if
anything a low speed limit (lower than the 85th percentile speed of freely
flowing traffic) contributes to a higher accident rate, rather than the
opposite. In fact, a low speed limit is more likely to increase accidents
than a high speed limit is. See the NMA home page:
http://www.msn.fullfeed.com/nma/
>> 55 was a temporary law
>> designed to make the public think the politicians were doing something about
>> a phony fuel crisis,
>
>How do you know it was phony?
Because anyone alive at the time knows that the shortage of fuel was caused
not by an actual shortage of supply at the oil well, but by an embargo by
the OPEC nations trying to extort more money out of the USA market. Not the
fault of our politicians directly, but phony nonetheless.
>> and the insurance industry bribed the politicians to keep
>> it on the books to protect the bonanaza of ticket surcharge income it >
>generated.
>
>How do you know the insurance companies bribed the politicians?
Can you say PAC? Can you say "campaign contribution"? Can you say "bribe"?
The fact is that insurance companies pump large amounts of money into
lobbying politicians to keep the NMSL. A bribe by any other name smells
just as foul.
>>
>> Besides, If my car had a speed governor, I'd just disable it, as most everyone
>> else would.
>
>Which leads me to believe that you have no regard for law. Are you above
>the law?
Damned right I have no regard for that particular law. As a free citizen,
I consider it my DUTY to disregard laws that are clearly unjust, as
determined by the question "does breaking this law actually harm anyone?".
If the answer is no, the law is unjust. Removing the speed limiter from one's
car would not harm anybody, hence it would be an unjust law that imposed it.
Clearly murder, assault, rape, robbery, larceny, and so on harm others and
should be outlawed. Such laws I respect. Driving my car at greater than the
posted limit but nonetheless in a responsible manner does not harm (or even
endanger) anyone, thus the speed limit is unjust. Obviously most everyone
else thinks so too, since the majority of drivers regularly exceed the
speed limit on most roads.
>Randy
George B
> What is wrong with our government that they would ignore such a
>simple way to enforce a law and save lives?
Because it could KILL people.
What if you had to rush someone to the hospital and did not have time
to wait for an ambulance? What if someone is chasing you?
Your suggestion is another example of the idiotic thinking that is
becomming so common in this country. Because a FEW violate the law,
you want to take away one more piece of my security. If I NEED to go
fast, I want to be able to do it.
Otherwise, only cops, lawyers, and politicians will have cars that go
over 65.
George Bonser
gr...@cris.com
Have Internet access at work but don't
want to use it for personal postings?
A cris.com telnet account is only $10/month
unlimited access time. That include a web page too.
See http://www.cris.com
There are three kinds of jobs:
Good, Cheap, Fast ... pick any two.
George B
station in a hurry ... I want to be able to. Out in the country, you
might not have time to wait for an ambulance or a cop. I might also
need to get away from a truck with failed brakes or a lunitic with a
gun.
I want the security of knowing I CAN go fast if I need to ... even if
I never do.
Dave Schrader
offense that is punishable by death. That would save many lives, as for
speeding, I would rather have a sober driver going 100 pass me than a drunk
doing 55. Look at the problem not the symptom !
--
===============================================================================
| Dave Schrader | But remember, as you stare into the abyss,|
|schr...@mendel.agron.iastate.edu| so the abyss also stares into you. |
| (515) 294-0421 | -Nietzsche |
===============================================================================
Gaz
>Will ya look at that. It's correct, factual, and added 0% useful
>content to the discussion.
You must be a computer scientist...
Gaz
Andy the Pugh
>In OK, SD, MO, TX, and CA, the speed limit will be raised to 70 mph
>in Wyo., Nev, and Kansas, the new limit will be 75 mph.
>In Montana, there will be NO SPEED LIMIT!
>
>Personally I am looking forward to driving through Montana if this passes.
>
I just hope the Montana authorities have the common sense to
overlook the probable iniriall rash of accidents as foolish people
from neighbouring states bring their cars in to see what they will
do, then find that what they will do is seize or break in some
unfortunate and unrecoverable manner. :-(
ap
Sol
Neil Villani) wrote:
> In article <4895bo$o...@nntp.atlanta.com>, <dwa...@atlanta.com> wrote:
> >Strangely enough, I'm still alive, and the only times I've suffered bent
> >sheetmetal were in parking lots and bumper-to-bumper traffic.. Oh, I
> >also ended up in a ditch after missing a turnoff on a dark rainy night at
> >about 10 MPH UNDER the posted limit, "proving" that low speeds
> >cause accidents.
>
> Good point. I'm only 22 and have only been driving for 5 years, but despite
> nearly always exceeding the speed limit I've received no tickets and the only
> time I've ever had a collision was when I was pulling out of a driveway very
> slowly on a residential street and hit a parked car, breaking the cover on
> my taillamp. That PROVES that low speeds cause accidents, too.
>
>
As part of the previously proposed European legislation to restrict bikes
to 100bhp the argument went something like... more powerful bikes go
faster and since speed is a major factor in motorcycle accidents ban more
powerful bikes.
The European bike organisations like FEM, BMF, MAG etc all succesfully
argued that most motorcycle accidents occur at lower speeds and within the
speed limit.... therefor power and speed are not major contributing
factors in M/C accidents.
It was also shown that (and I don't remeber the figures) while the power
of bikes had increased the number of accidents as a proportion of bikes
registered had decreased over time - this was largely attributed to the
increased rider training and increased safety awarness of bikers. The
conclusion here was that the proportion of accidents caused by other road
users and perpetrated against bikers was increasing as a proportion of the
number of accidents involving M/C's, and was largely attributable to poor
cage owner training / awareness.
So in conclusion we shouldn't be tempted to assume speed is 'the' factor
in bike accidents .... and should turn our attention to improving the
training and awareness of cage owners.
--
\\||/ DoD#50117 I'd like to make a positive contribution to
^ ~ SI:99.9% this conversation .... but too many posts,
(` @ @) UKMC#501 and not enough time!!
` .. KRC#11208
\ ~ PKS#844 _________ Non Illigitimum Carburundum _______ Sol
"'
Gaz
Oh no, I'm sorry. I didn't realise that this was crossposted to loads of
other groups. I thought it had suddenly got very busy here on
alt.sad.lonely.uk.bullies
I really did not mean to cause offence and I am truly sorry for the previous
crosspost.
Could the rest of you show some consideration and not crosspost this thread in
future.
Thanks in advance,
Gaz
mic...@maine.maine.edu
In article <48b182$e...@shark.sb.grci.com>, rnakr...@grci.com said:
>Years ago, as an EMT in a rural Virgina town, I was called to a accident
>with a rolled-over pickup truck. On this perfectly straight road, speed
>had to have been a contributing factor. I'll never forget the look of
>horror frozen on that partially-ejected teenager's face.
As tragic as that teenager's death was, you have no basis for assuming that
speed had to be a contributing factor. This was an inexperienced driver
operating a vehicle with a high potential for rollover. The accident might
very well have been caused by the driver overcorrecting for an error, such
as allowing a wheel to drift onto the shoulder.
Driving too fast for conditions _might_ have caused the accident. It might
not. You don't know, and neither do I. Even it was the proximate cause,
we don't know how fast that truck was going. Perhaps the teenager was very
stupid and was operating at 50mph over. This does not mean that operating
at 10mph over would also have resulted in an accident. Operating over the
posted limit may be illegal, but it is not always dangerous. What matters is
whether one is driving too fast for conditions, which is a different thing.
Robert S. Jenkins
Pugh) wrote:
yeah right... They are kinda slack in Montana now and they don't have a hoard of
people flooding into that state...
Robert
--
Mark W. Schaeffer
to a bandwidth-eating, subject-diverging flame war?
Mark (chemist and computer geek, really bad combo)
--
Mark W. Schaeffer
mark...@ucla.edu or
scha...@chem.ucla.edu
Andy the Pugh
>. Many drivers seem to forget a
>fundamental law of physics which states that the kinetic energy is equal
>to mass (the car's weight) times velocity SQUARED. Regardless of the
>car's mass, the point is that for doubling your speed, the momentum of the
>car increases FOURfold. From 50 to 75, while only a 50% increase in
>speed, momentum increases 125%, which requires far longer breaking
>distances and makes accidents far more dangerous.
So using this logic I can justify riding my bike at 140mph as it than has
only the same kinetic energy as a car at 70mph?
That's a relief. I wonder how well it would stand up in court?
ap
NMA [Bob M]
ago, a device was proposed for cars that would allow the police to shut
off the engine by remote control. The idea was to prevent high-speed
chases. A noble idea, but hollow nails work well at that too.
Speed limiters are safety limiters too. What about the volunteer
firemen, paramedics etc? There are times where going over the speed
limit is warranted albeit not always legal. Would you want to say you
had an accident because you couldn't step on the gas to get out of the
way? But we're missing the real point here. We're assuming that all
speed limits are set correctly. If that was true, there would be no such
thing as speed traps for revenue enhancement. People pulled over for
speeding would deserve a ticket. Unfortunately, that's not the situation
today.
There's another issue related to that: Properly set limits reflect the
-actual- (on-road, as opposed to meaningless talk) desires of drivers,
meaning that the limit would be self-regulating. This defeats any need
for a limiting device.
By the way, in some states, the speed limits are prima facie, not
absolute. PF speed limits are illegal to exceed unless you can prove
that doing so isn't dangerous. This is tacit acknowledgement of the
effects that variations in roads, weather, cars, etc. play in the speed
situation. Absolute means just that; it is never legal to exceed it.
For example, Montana's speed limit, when 55/65 is repealed, will have no
numerical limit during the day. It's called "reasonable and prudent", a
part of their basic speed rule. (The MT Highway Patrol chief supports
the repeal, BTW)
If you feel that 56 mph is too fast, please stay in the right lane so the
rest of us can pass.
--
National Motorists Association Join the NMA!
n...@genie.geis.com $29 a year.
http://www.msn.fullfeed.com/nma/ Sign up online.
John Keck
>. Many drivers seem to forget a
>fundamental law of physics which states that the kinetic energy is equal
>to mass (the car's weight) times velocity SQUARED. Regardless of the
>car's mass, the point is that for doubling your speed, the momentum of the
>car increases FOURfold. From 50 to 75, while only a 50% increase in
>speed, momentum increases 125%, which requires far longer breaking
>distances and makes accidents far more dangerous.
Momentum is not the same thing as kinetic energy, and it _is_ proportional
to velocity. Double the speed, double the (magnitude of) momentum.
--
jk
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Keck Alpharel, Inc., San Diego (for whom I do *not* speak)
Lord Kittenslayer
> I'm only 22 and have only been driving for 5 years, but despite
> nearly always exceeding the speed limit I've received no tickets
Well it's kinda hard to get tickets on the 210, where the flow of traffic
ranges from 70-80 MPH. Although I almost managed to one time: I was
tearing down the carpool lane going at least 85 when all of a sudden I
saw a motorcycle cop on my right, two lanes away. Needless to say, I
checked my rear-view and fell back hard. I think he either must have lost
me, or must have been looking for actual Car Pool violators (which I wasn't).
> time I've ever had a collision was when I was pulling out of a driveway very
> slowly on a residential street and hit a parked car, breaking the cover on
> my taillamp. That PROVES that low speeds cause accidents, too.
No, it just proves that not looking where you're going causes accidents. If
you had been going faster, it just would have been worse! This lame 'proof'
is just more ammo for the "speed kills" people. Sheesh, no wonder people
over here make fun of you CalTech folk!
Mark.O.Wilson
>
>In article <4871qv$e...@hustle.rahul.net> Rahul Dhesi,
dh...@rahul.net
>writes:
>>Subject: Re: Solve speeding by limiting cars!
>>From: Rahul Dhesi, dh...@rahul.net
>>Date: 13 Nov 1995 09:06:39 GMT
>>>In <3pu04u$6...@ludes.com> ma...@ludes.com (Mark Spencer)
writes:
>>
>>>The
>>>majority of all accidents are due to speed.
>>
>>Evidence, please.
>>
>>I had assumed most accidents occur due to acceleration.
>
>
>Actually most auto deaths are due to deceleration. It's that sudden stop
>that kills you.
I've heard the same thing about falling. It's not the fall that kills you,
it's the sudden stop at the end.
--
Mark.O...@AtlantaGa.attgis.com
It ain't charity if you ain't using your own money.
Just because a mob calls itself a government, doesn't make it so.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for
dinner.
People who claim that money doesn't matter, are usually living on
someone else's money.
Society is a mental construct, formed by those people who are too
insecure too handle the concept of people as individuals.
Adam Neil Villani
Shahak Nagiel <sna...@emory.edu> wrote:
>> In article <4895bo$o...@nntp.atlanta.com>, <dwa...@atlanta.com> wrote:
>> >Strangely enough, I'm still alive, and the only times I've suffered bent
>> >sheetmetal were in parking lots and bumper-to-bumper traffic.. Oh, I
>> >also ended up in a ditch after missing a turnoff on a dark rainy night at
>> >about 10 MPH UNDER the posted limit, "proving" that low speeds
>> >cause accidents.
>>
>> nearly always exceeding the speed limit I've received no tickets and the only
>> time I've ever had a collision was when I was pulling out of a driveway very
>> slowly on a residential street and hit a parked car, breaking the cover on
>> my taillamp. That PROVES that low speeds cause accidents, too.
>>
>possible under any conditions. You both got in accidents (or ditches) not
>necessarily because you were going slow, but because you were unfamiliar
>with the area in poor weather or just not observent enough. Had you been
>going faster, it just would have been worse. Speed in and of itself is
Of course, this is obvious. I was being sarcastic; of course I didn't hit
the parked car because I was going slow. I was just saying that speed is
a minor factor in accidents; I hit the car because I wasn't paying attention
to the back of my vehicle. Speeding has never gotten me into an accident.
I never exceed my perception of what seems to be a safe speed.
Speeding, as defined by exceeding the posted speed limit is a very minor
problem compared to tailgating, driver inattentiveness, drunk driving,
unsafe lane changes, and driving too fast for the road conditions (which
may or may not be above the speed limit).
And yes, I'm a student at Caltech, I know all about momentum.
Scott Kirkham
Why aren't cars sold with
> speed limiters at 65 mph to keep from exceeding the limits of the law?
I guess for the same reason that they don't make morons get
vasectomies so that they don't breed more morons.
The
> majority of all accidents are due to speed.
Like I said......
Thosands of lives would be saved
> every year if cars were unable to exceed a safe speed.
Uh huh. Yeah. Sure. Right. Again, like I said....
> What is wrong with our government that they would ignore such a
> simple way to enforce a law and save lives?
And what is wrong that they don't interfere with everybody else's
lives more than they already do. You seem to be the ideal candidate
for the aforementioned medical procedure.
Scott
John Richardson
>Consider, for a moment, facts. Fact: 25 years ago, a 2-ton sled with no
>airbag, no shoulder belt, no anti-lock brakes, no crumple zones, no >radial tires, and no fuel-efficient engine was legally allowed=
to cruise >at 70 miles per hour, or faster (so I'm told).
>
I've been driving a 29 year-old sled 20 miles to work everyday. But I
try to stay off of the interstate. I don't want to get in an accident
trying to avoid those silly law-and-order types, and become impaled by
the rigid steering column, an event many drivers enjoyed in the days when
even seat belts were optional. Just ask my friend Rick, who...oh I
forgot; he's dead now.
>Now, contrast that with today. Modern vehicles have all of the above >safety features, far more efficient engines, and a more deve=
loped >interstate highway system. Yet it is considered unsafe for them to >exceed 55mph (or 65, as the case may be).
>
WHO considers modern vehicles unsafe over 55? Nobody. But they can be
dangerous at ANY speed when moving in heavy traffic, or on
unpredictable roads. That's why the speed limit is 65 on the 4-laner
to Hicksville, but not around the mall or my residential neighborhood
cul-de-sac.
Which, conversely, is fuel for upping speed limits on very low-traffic
rural multi-lane roads to 80 or 90, or...well, why not put it to a
vote? This seems to be a popularity contest, anyway.
>Now consider another afront to logic: seven or eight years ago, all >highways were considered "safe" at 55mph. Then, suddenly, th=
ose very >same highways driven by those very same people in the very same manner >were deemed "safe" at 65mph by good 'ole John Lawm=
an. Did some sweeping >safety device come into play that magically made this possible? No. >The law just bowed to sense, which is=
, I admit, an odd thing for it to >do since it does it so irregularly.
Not quite. "Good 'ole John Lawman" had nothing to do with it.
Politicians did. The "sweeping safety device" used was called
"election year politics". We remember. We were there.
>
>I have a 1994 Camaro Z/28 which is capable of nearly 160mph, and I have >had it there on occasion on a state-patrolled highway. I =
routinely >drive at 80mph or more, traffic permitting.
Wow. How "kewl".
>I wish I could spit in the face of every "policeman"
>that hides behind a radar/laser gun in attempt to enforce a law that 97% >of the American public does not support, obey, or condone=
and to which >the police themselves do not obey.
I grant thee thy wish. Just let us all know the time and place, so
we can all rally 'round you as you nobly, unselfishly stand up for
your fellow citizens.
Seriously.
ZAZZLE
>majority of all accidents are due to speed.
right. speeding through stop signs, speeding while trying to finish your
bottle of bud, speeding while pedestrians in way, speeding while pushing
cyclists off the road, speeding while cutting off other motorists-
get a fucken brain pal- most accidents happen by the inability to drive a
vehicle properly in the first place- speed is just the icing on the cake
JP Burdett
ful...@globalx.net
Ashton Rampersad
Who make you the fucking expert in evaluating accidents. I work for the New
York City Department of Transportation- Traffic Engineering Division which is
not really an agency for preventing accidents but simply to keep the traffic
moving.
Just do you fucking research properly.
Ashton Rampersad
dang...@phoenix.net
In Article<48dlto$c...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>, <ad...@cco.caltech.edu> write:
> Path: gryphon.phoenix.net!news.sprintlink.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.kei.com!simtel!lll-winken.llnl.gov!fnnews.fnal.gov!nntp-server.caltech.edu!addam
> From: ad...@cco.caltech.edu (Adam Neil Villani)
> Newsgroups: rec.autos.misc,rec.autos.driving,rec.autos.tech,ca.driving,dc.driving,alt.law-enforcement,talk.politics.misc,rec.motorcycles
> Subject: Re: Solve speeding by limiting cars!
> Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
> Lines: 39
> Message-ID: <48dlto$c...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>
> References: <3pu04u$6...@ludes.com> <4895bo$o...@nntp.atlanta.com> <48bmlk$1...@gap.cco.caltech.edu> <snagiel-1411...@turm-a27.resnet.emory.edu>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: piccolo.cco.caltech.edu
> Xref: gryphon.phoenix.net rec.autos.misc:66404 rec.autos.driving:93421 rec.autos.tech:150808 ca.driving:21758 dc.driving:4299 alt.law-enforcement:35589 talk.politics.misc:429313 rec.motorcycles:279277
Speed is relative. 65 to Mario or any other Andretti is
*slow*, and I would think very safe for them. However, 65
is very fast for the teen who just got his/her license yesterday,
and probably very *unsafe* for him/her. I agree that more
accidents are caused by drunk driving, tailgating, sleepy or
inattentive drivers, etc., and aggravated drivers (please don't be
a left-lane bandit!).
I also think that spike heels, car phones, and cigarettes can easily
contribute to an accident, because both can create a situation
where the driver is not in full control of the vehicle. If both hands
aren't on the wheel, and both feet are not fully maneuverable, the
driver is *not* in full control and is *not* ready to handle *any*
situation. (I read somewhere that use of car phones while driving
is illegal in Japan. If this is true,their government is smarter than
most.)
Caroline
Lord Kittenslayer
> In article <487o1d$o...@dns1.mci.com>, Brad Cuppy <b...@rmii.com> wrote:
> >beyond 58 mph. Those proposals did not make it far but the porposal
> >for speedometers cannot display any speed beyond 85 mph made it but
> >got repealed under Reagan.
>
> Yeah, they thought it would make people drive slower cause the people
> were supposed to think that their car didn't go any faster. Instead,
> people used that as an excuse ("But how am I supposed to know I was going
> 100, my speedometer only goes to 85") and getting away with it.
If you go to court hoping the officer doesn't show up, you might as well
say that for your own amusement if he does. Otherwise plead innocent
(obviously). If he does, you won't be "getting away" with anything.
Mark.O.Wilson
>
>The original poster's point was that the law clearly says that you must
>never go above the speed limit. Of course there are hardship cases,
>but the THE LAW IS THE LAW!!! Having a heart attack does not
justify
>breaking the law.
Seig Heil.
Seig Heil.
Seig Heil.
Lord Kittenslayer
> My biggest beef: people who insist on driving in the middle lane around
> the speed limit on 3 or more lane highways. I have one piece of advice:
> MOVE OVER! I hate passing on the right, especially near onramps/offramps.
> Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that passing on the right is
> illegal in Germany and other European countries.
Passing on the right is all but impossible, since the slower drivers are
curtious and move over as far right as possible to begin with.
Sometimes people will get out of the way for you even if they are right
about to make a left turn (on highways, not freeways). That happened to
me all the time in Belgium, and I was really impressed. Likewise, I would
stay as far right as possible, and yield to anyone approaching in the
rear-view. I really wish American drivers were more like that.