Interstate Freeway No Speed Limit
nicht2
American Autobahn
The Road to an Interstate Freeway with No Speed Limit
The Book, The Movement, The Reality
Imagine driving from Minneapolis to Chicago,
San Francisco to L.A. or Louisville to Atlanta
(400 Miles) in under 4 hours!
Imagine the Highway Patrol helping you do it!
It's already being done from Munich to Stuttgart,
Frankfurt to Hamburg, Hangover to Pass.
Right now, someone is driving down the German
Autobahn at 120 mph-- and doing it far safer than
we ever imagined at 75 mph...
How can we bring this Fast-and-Safe philosophy
to America?
With the automotive enthusiast's "Bible" for
Fast-and-Safe driving:
AMERICAN AUTOBAHN!
This is the book that the Federal government and insurance
industry don't want you to read... The book that dares to expose
why America has failed to save lives on the road, and how
Germany has reduced the number of people killed on its
roadways by almost 70 percent over the last thirty years, in spite
of 100 mph speeds on its Autobahn freeway network.
Take a peek inside the pages of American Autobahn:
http://www.americanautobahn.com/
Bill22
nicht2 <nic...@pacbell.net> wrote:
<<I'm chopping all this stuff>>
Because it has been repitive on the usenet...but there is a URL :-)
Montana tried all this stuff.
I believe.
What have they done now? Yeap retracted.
> http://www.americanautobahn.com/
>
>
--
***************************************************
It is of immense importance to learn to
laugh at ourselves.
--Katherine Mansfield//////Question of the day.
How fast do you have to go?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Arif Khokar
"Bill22" wrote in message
> Because it has been repitive on the usenet...but there is a URL :-)
> Montana tried all this stuff.
> I believe.
> What have they done now? Yeap retracted.
>
> > http://www.americanautobahn.com/
The reason that Montana reimposed a speed limit was because the reasonable
and prudent driving law was declared unconstitutional because it was "too
vague". It had nothing to do with accidents.
Anyway, here's my view on speed limits on 4 (or more) lane rural divided
highways..
I think that speed limits on open divided 4 (or more) lane highways cause
more trouble
then they are worth. The lead to left lane blocking because the person in
the left lane is too worried about being ticketed for speeding rather than
staying parallel to a car or truck in the right lane for the last 1 minute.
This also leads to packs of cars that are travelling in close proximity to
each other due to both lanes being blocked. Both of these problems are far
more dangerous than speeding. Why would I say that? Well, its because if a
road hazard comes up, its far more likely that a multi car pileup will
result because most of the cars in the pack will have no room to make
emergency maneuvers. Also, people in the middle or rear of the pack won't
have as much advance visibility of the road. Now, if there were no speed
limit, then its far more likely that any car will be outside of a traffic
pack at any given time. If that car encountered a road hazard, there will
be far more room to pull off an emergency maneuver and possibly avoid an
accident. Any rural interstate can be driven at 85 to 100 mph with little
trouble at all. But due to a speed limit ranging from 65 mph to 75 mph, you
are more likely to come across 2 cars or a pack of cars occupying both lanes
travelling at the speed limit.
Isn't it safer to have traffic flowing at faster speeds rather than have
cars travelling in close proximity to each other at slower speeds? Please
reply with your opinions.
Bill22
"Arif Khokar" <akhok...@wvu.edu> wrote:
>
> "Bill22" wrote in message
Yeap retracted.
> The reason that Montana reimposed a speed limit was because
the reasonable
> and prudent driving law was declared unconstitutional because
it was "too
> vague". It had nothing to do with accidents.
### Lawyers & responsible citizens..good show
### All you said is knowlegable to many who have traveled any
interstate on a consistent bases...but appreciate the comment.
But speed does kill?
Arif Khokar
"Bill22" <bil...@my-deja.com> wrote
>
> ### All you said is knowlegable to many who have traveled any
> interstate on a consistent bases...but appreciate the comment.
> But speed does kill?
Well, "speed" only kills if you overdose on methamphetamines ;-)
Seriously though, if a collision occurs, the faster you were going before,
the more damage will result. Of course, as has been pointed out on this NG
numerous times before, the likelihood of the collision isn't really
influenced by speed. If it were, then the German Autobahn would be a
deathtrap.
Bart Youngblood
cars. Two cars travelling at or near the same speed are going to have what
amounts to a minor fender bender, assuming both cars keep control. When a
faster car hits a slower car, that's where the problem occurs. I have
continiously seen people, travelling way slower than the prevailing flow of
traffic just move their way to the far left and plant themselves over there.
Here are a few types of vehicles that should stay out of the left hand lanes
PERIOD:
RV's
Any vehicle with a trailer
Commercial delivery vehicles, regardless of number of wheels
Drivers over the age of 65
I think this would go a long way of cutting down on congestion as well, as
many of these vehicles simply aren't equipped to deal with higher speeds and
the need to accelerate faster. There was a whole line of large box trucks in
the left hand lanes of 75/85 through Atlanta this afternoon that were
putting along at 60, when everyone else in that lane was trying to do 70. Of
course, only a few states actually make it illegal to block the flow of
traffic regardless of the prevailing speed, most just make it illigal to do
below the speed limit, and then, if you asked most cops, they'd say no such
law exists.
Bart
Arif Khokar <akhok...@wvu.edu> wrote in message
news:sus2pao...@corp.supernews.com...
Bill22
"Arif Khokar" <akhok...@wvu.edu> wrote:
>
> "Bill22" <bil...@my-deja.com> wrote
ent.
> > But speed does kill?
>
> Well, "speed" only kills if you overdose on methamphetamines
> numerous times before, the likelihood of the collision isn't really
> influenced by speed. If it were, then the German Autobahn would
be a
> deathtrap.
I understand where your coming from ...
But *....but are we talking about two different attitudes here?
NA & European.
If your on the AB.
You do not stay in the hammer lane.
Here in NA a bit different? Hey...
Could lead to many unwanted results?
Arif Khokar
"Bill22" wrote
> I understand where your coming from ...
> But *....but are we talking about two different attitudes here?
> NA & European.
> If your on the AB.
> You do not stay in the hammer lane.
> Here in NA a bit different? Hey...
> Could lead to many unwanted results?
Possibly but if the speed differential is less than 30 mph, then with a good
clear rural interstate, you should have enough time to react if you need to
slow down due to a LLB. I always keep right except to pass but there are
times I'm in the left lane passing a series of cars. Also, I only drive
like this in areas I'm familiar with since I know there is a low liklihood
of enforcement (read I don't do this out of state).
In NA, most people are driving econoboxes or SUV's. SUV's can't really
maintain more than 85 to 90 mph (and that's if you're really pushing it....I
cannot get our '96 Isuzu Trooper above 95 mph and I'm not interested in
keeping it floored for extended periods of time to maintain that speed).
Econoboxes are probably the same. I don't think you're going to encounter
many people who will be exceeding 110 mph on any given day.
Michael A. Stone Jr.
> In article <surlg0k...@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Arif Khokar" <akhok...@wvu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > "Bill22" wrote in message
>
> Yeap retracted.
>
> > The reason that Montana reimposed a speed limit was because
> the reasonable
> > and prudent driving law was declared unconstitutional because
> it was "too
> > vague". It had nothing to do with accidents.
>
> ### Lawyers & responsible citizens..good show
Well, it usually is lawyers that make and argue law.
> ### All you said is knowlegable to many who have traveled any
> interstate on a consistent bases...but appreciate the comment.
> But speed does kill?
*******************************
http://mchs.fhwa.dot.gov/safetyprogs/hiway/speed2.htm
Does Speed Kill? This popular slogan suggests that the lower the speed limit is
set, the more safety will result. If this were true, the U.S. Interstate System
would have the worst, not the best, safety record. Instead, Interstates have the
highest speed limits, the highest operational speeds, and the lowest fatality
rate in America (0.88 fatalities per every 100 million vehicle miles traveled).
Roadway design and use should be part of every speed setting discussion, and
debate about speed limits should distinguish between speed causing a crash, and
speed influencing injury severity once a crash occurs. Safety statistics vary
greatly according to roadway class. Local roads, which normally have the lowest
posted speed limits, have the highest fatality rate of any roadways.
*******************************
Well, the FHWA seems to say no.
*******************************
"A word about 85th percentile speed is in order. Traffic studies have shown that
speed on a roadway resembles a bell-shaped curve. The standard deviation can be
determined by the difference between the average speed and the 85th percentile
speed. The difference contains 35 percent of the distribution."
"Various studies seeking to prove that the 55 mph limit has had a long-term
positive effect on highway safety have come up with mixed results. Given the
present federal law, however, more than local considerations are at stake
whenever a police administrator considers a speed enforcement program, because a
state has much to lose by not complying with the federal law and regulations."
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/enforce/DESKBK.html#PART6
*******************************
The NHTSA seems to think the 85th percentile is safest... the speed alone is not
a problem.
*******************************
In 1996, about 46 percent of all speed-related fatal crashes occurred on roads
with a posted speed limit of less than 55 mph. NHTSA data
showed 2,538 speeding-related fatal crashes on roads with posted speed limits
between 40 mph and 50 mph, and most surprisingly, more than 2,512 speed-related
fatal crashes on roads with posted speed limits of 35 mph or less.
http://mchs.fhwa.dot.gov/safetyprogs/hiway/Speed/spdwrkpln.htm
*******************************
Well, according to both the FHWA and the NHTSA, most fatal collisions occur in
"low speed" areas. So, again, speed is not a problem. Speed is certain areas,
however, is. Residential areas. Construction zones. Highly crowded urban areas.
Pedestrian trafficed areas.
*******************************
Speeding was involved in almost one-third of the fatal crashes that occurred in
construction/maintenance zones in 1998.
In 1998, 85 percent of speeding-related fatalities occurred on roads that were
not Interstate highways.
Between midnight and 3 am, 76 percent of speeding drivers involved in fatal
crashes had been drinking.
In 1998, 23 percent of the speeding drivers under 21 years old who were involved
in fatal crashes were also intoxicated, with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC)
of 0.10 (grams per deciliter [g/dl]) or greater.
For drivers between 21 and 24 years of age who were involved in fatal crashes in
1998, 47 percent of speeding drivers were intoxicated.
In 1998, 43 percent of the intoxicated drivers (BAC = 0.10 or higher) involved
in fatal crashes were speeding, compared with only 14 percent of the sober
drivers (BAC = 0.00) involved in fatal crashes
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/ncsa/pdf/Speeding98.pdf
*******************************
Well more from the NHTSA..... 1/3rd of all fatal speeding collisions were in
construction zones. Don't speed there. Interstates are pretty safe, though.
Speed isn't too big a problem there. And, 76% of "speeding" collisions between
midnight and 3am involve drinking. Now, maybe this isn't too obvious... but...
DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE!!!!!! Drunk drivers are scum. (no offense to scum
intended)
But speed... not too big a problem in most places.
*******************************
Speed and the Incidence of Crashes
In a landmark study of speed and crashes involving 10,000 drivers on 600 miles
(970 kilometers) of rural highways, Solomon (1964) found a relationship between
vehicle speed and crash incidence that is illustrated by a U-shaped curve. Crash
rates were lowest for travel speeds near the mean speed of traffic, and
increased with greater deviations above and below the mean. The estimated travel
speed from the accident records were compared to the speeds measured at
representative sites within each study section. The comparisons showed that
crash-involved drivers were over-represented in both high- and low- speed
categories of the speed distribution.
Crash-involvement rates decreased with increasing speeds up to 65 mi/h (105
km/h), then increased at higher speeds. Further, Solomon reported that the
results of his study showed that "low speed drivers are more likely to be
involved in accidents than relatively high speed drivers." Cirillo (1968) in a
similar analysis of 2,000 vehicles involved in daytime crashes on interstate
freeways confirmed Solomon's results, extending the U-shaped curve to interstate
freeways, as illustrated in figure 1. The analysis was limited to crashes
involving two or more vehicles traveling in the same direction.
http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/speed/speed.htm#intro
*******************************
More from the Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center (a part of the FHWA and US
DOT).... pretty strong evidence and statements... speed variance, not speed, is
dangerous. Make speed limits that most people will follow, and safety will
increase. Make them too low or too high and safety will suffer.
--
Michael A. Stone Jr.
------------------------------------------
The Definitive Guide to Speeding Tickets
http://home.att.net/~speeding
------------------------------------------
Only 4% of all fatal collisions are "speed related". - NHTSA 1998 Fact Sheet
"low speed drivers are more likely to be involved in accidents than relatively
high speed drivers." - Cirillo (1968)
(from http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/speed/speed.htm )
Bill22
> many people who will be exceeding 110 mph on any given day.
Yea...I kknow what you mean,
But Arif:
You have to be trained :-)
Most NA drivers are selfish.
Do not practice in defensive driving.
Get hug up in other frustrations.
Oh well!
Talk to you later.
Bill22
Bill22
"Michael A. Stone Jr." <ma.s...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Bill22 wrote:
> >
> > ### All you said is knowlegable to many who have traveled any
> > interstate on a consistent bases...but appreciate the comment.
> > But speed does kill?
>
> *******************************
> http://mchs.fhwa.dot.gov/safetyprogs/hiway/speed2.htm
> Does Speed Kill? This popular slogan suggests that the lower
the speed limit is
> set, the more safety will result.
> Well, according to both the FHWA and the NHTSA, most fatal
collisions occur in
> "low speed" areas.
Yes...Oka...
I disagree.
But why going through a construction area fines are doubled.,if the
speed is above posted limit.
They must know something...I think?
Your paying these people from your tax $ to make these calls.
Akhilesh Bajaj
dangerous stems from 2 things: 1. IF i hit a stationary object and am
driving at higher speeds, i am more likely to be hurt, than at lower
speed....2. higher speeds reuquire people to make quicker judgments....
actually both of these things are somehwat irrelevant on highways...one
can easily modify highways si that there are no staionary objects around
(most highways are already built that way), and if everyone travels faster
and sticks to he right, then the question of felexes won;t
arise...reflexes are needed only if i am driving RELATIVELY faster to my
environment.....that is why we are so relaxed when driving at the same
speed that everyoine else is....
Solution:
Quite easy. Increase the speed limit, and train drivers to drive
responsibly...i.e. follow a keep right law.
i wonder why the state governments don't do that?
-akhilesh
On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Arif Khokar wrote:
>
> "Bill22" wrote in message
> > Because it has been repitive on the usenet...but there is a URL :-)
> > Montana tried all this stuff.
> > I believe.
> > What have they done now? Yeap retracted.
> >
> > > http://www.americanautobahn.com/
>
>
> The reason that Montana reimposed a speed limit was because the reasonable
> and prudent driving law was declared unconstitutional because it was "too
> vague". It had nothing to do with accidents.
>
> Anyway, here's my view on speed limits on 4 (or more) lane rural divided
> highways..
>
>
> I think that speed limits on open divided 4 (or more) lane highways cause
> more trouble
> then they are worth. The lead to left lane blocking because the person in
> the left lane is too worried about being ticketed for speeding rather than
> staying parallel to a car or truck in the right lane for the last 1 minute.
> This also leads to packs of cars that are travelling in close proximity to
> each other due to both lanes being blocked. Both of these problems are far
> more dangerous than speeding. Why would I say that? Well, its because if a
> road hazard comes up, its far more likely that a multi car pileup will
> result because most of the cars in the pack will have no room to make
> emergency maneuvers. Also, people in the middle or rear of the pack won't
> have as much advance visibility of the road. Now, if there were no speed
> limit, then its far more likely that any car will be outside of a traffic
> pack at any given time. If that car encountered a road hazard, there will
> be far more room to pull off an emergency maneuver and possibly avoid an
> accident. Any rural interstate can be driven at 85 to 100 mph with little
> trouble at all. But due to a speed limit ranging from 65 mph to 75 mph, you
> are more likely to come across 2 cars or a pack of cars occupying both lanes
> travelling at the speed limit.
>
Arif Khokar
"Bill22" wrote
> Yea...I kknow what you mean,
> But Arif:
> You have to be trained :-)
> Most NA drivers are selfish.
> Do not practice in defensive driving.
> Get hug up in other frustrations.
> Oh well!
> Talk to you later.
> Bill22
You're absolutely right. The main problem that I encounter here is people
not checking their mirrors before changing over to the left lane to pass
someone. Either they don't see me or don't care...
Anyway, that's why I mentioned the speed differential of less than 30 mph.
I could go faster myself but even I'm too worried about going 60 mph faster
than the rest of traffic for the reasons outlined above.
I wish I could drive on the German Autobahn...but then again, I don't have
any special training ;)
Bill22
Akhilesh Bajaj <aba...@bpaosfa.bpa.arizona.edu> wrote:
>
> Solution:
> Quite easy. Increase the speed limit, and train drivers to drive
> responsibly...i.e. follow a keep right law.
>
> i wonder why the state governments don't do that?
> -akhilesh
No problem increasing the speed.
But being knowlegable how to use the speed.
I assume you are a AZ resident. (for the time)
With open interstate hwy.
Have you ever driven down I - 17 on a late Sunday from Flagstaff
going into the Valley during the summer?
***********
It is of immense importance to learn to
laugh at ourselves.
--Katherine Mansfield//////Question of the day.
Driving is enjoyable?
Mister
speed of traffic which is very dangerous. SUVs will likely be going
70-85mph while Corvette's pass at 150. That is very dangerous.
Personally I dislike speed limits and only think people should be pulled
over for driving recklessly. Driving 120mph on a dry uncrowded interstate
isn't reckless.
-M
nicht2 <nic...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:39ED5B14...@pacbell.net...
Christian Huebner
>
> In article <39ED5B14...@pacbell.net>,
> nicht2 <nic...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> <<I'm chopping all this stuff>>
> Montana tried all this stuff.
> I believe.
> What have they done now? Yeap retracted.
For a simple reason. Montana's Highway Police
had a financial problem. Not enough tickets.
Christian
Bill22
--
***************************************************
It is of immense importance to learn to
laugh at ourselves.
--Katherine Mansfield//////Question of the day.
Just to break the ice...which never developed ???
Arif Khokar
"Bill22" wrote
> "Michael A. Stone Jr." wrote:
> > Bill22 wrote:
>
> > >
> > > ### All you said is knowlegable to many who have traveled any
> > > interstate on a consistent bases...but appreciate the comment.
> > > But speed does kill?
> >
> > *******************************
> > http://mchs.fhwa.dot.gov/safetyprogs/hiway/speed2.htm
> > Does Speed Kill? This popular slogan suggests that the lower
> the speed limit is
> > set, the more safety will result.
> > Well, according to both the FHWA and the NHTSA, most fatal
> collisions occur in
> > "low speed" areas.
>
> Yes...Oka...
> I disagree.
> But why going through a construction area fines are doubled.,if the
> speed is above posted limit.
> They must know something...I think?
> Your paying these people from your tax $ to make these calls.
>
Yes, we do pay them our tax dollars. There is another entity that we also
pay premiums to that has a great influence on current speed laws, namely
auto insurance companies. Basically, those companies are proponents of
lower speed limits. One in particular, the IIHS (Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety) has manipulated data of vehicular accident statistics to
show that their foregone conclusion of the "speed kills" theory is indeed
true. These insurance companies fund lobbies in national and state
governments that "suggest" to our representatives that their ideas are true
and as a result, laws are passed that lower speed limits, allow insurance
companies to charge higher premiums of drivers with speeding tickets on
their records, etc.
I don't remember the link in particular but one study that Michael Stone
posted showed that increasing speed limits increased compliance and reduced
speeds of the 99th percentile drivers, while lowering speed limits decreased
compliance and actually led to an increase in speeds of 99th percentile
drivers. If you take this a step further, lower compliance with speed
limits leads to more violations and more speeding tickets issued. The
insurance companies therefore get to charge higher premiums to a greater
proportion to the people they insure than they would if speed limits were
raised to a higher level. Now if you also consider studies that show that
setting speed limits to the 85th percentile level leads to the lowest
accident rates, then you can see that money and not safety is the primary
reason insurance companies try to lobby for lower speed limits.
Arif Khokar
"Mister" wrote
> The problem with no speed limit is that you'll have VAST differences in
the
> speed of traffic which is very dangerous. SUVs will likely be going
> 70-85mph while Corvette's pass at 150. That is very dangerous.
>
> Personally I dislike speed limits and only think people should be pulled
> over for driving recklessly. Driving 120mph on a dry uncrowded interstate
> isn't reckless.
>
> -M
That is possibly true but to drive at 150 mph, you would need to have
adequate sight lines. If the speed differential is 70 to 80+ mph then the
Corvette driver will need to be able to see at least 1200 feet (at a
minimum) ahead at all times (this gives you about 10 seconds to make a
judgement in order to pass as well as it gives the SUV driver that much time
to be able to observe the Corvette driver in the rear/side view mirrors,
assuming an 80 mph speed differential). If the Corvette driver can't see
that far, then that person is driving too fast for conditions. Why would
that be? The reason is that the Corvette driver would not see a car to pass
until its much closer than it should be and if the SUV driver needs to pass
a slower vehicle, there would be no way that he/she would be able to observe
the Corvette in his/her mirrors until its too late.
TheCentral...@abcnopamdef.pobox.com
>The problem with no speed limit is that you'll have VAST differences in the
>speed of traffic which is very dangerous. SUVs will likely be going
>70-85mph while Corvette's pass at 150. That is very dangerous.
>
It wouldn't be nearly as dangerous as poeple trying to weave their way around
some asshole doing 65 to pass someone else doing 65.
John David Galt
> Montana tried all this stuff.
> I believe.
> What have they done now? Yeap retracted.
No, they never tried it.
Montana's lawmakers posted "R&P", but didn't really intend it to mean no
speed limit. Their definition of "Reasonable and Proper" was like the
credit limit on an American Express card: each time you try to use it,
AmEx decides whether to allow the purchase. It's not automatic at all.
The courts quite rightly found that letting police officers at the scene
decide after the fact whether your speed is "reasonable" violates the Rule
of Law. If there is to be any speed limit, it must be a specific number,
posted on signs BEFORE you're expected to obey it.
Having thus been forced to put up or shut up, Montana took down their
bait-and-switch R&P signs and posted a limit of 75.
Bart Youngblood
implemented this, the very first thing that started happening was the
invariable argument between motorists and your small town cops and judges
about what a "reasonable and prudent" speed was. Basically, there was no
finite basis on which the cops could write tickets, and therefore, speed
traps were naturally broken up because cops couldn't sit on the side of the
road with the auto lock turned on and read the paper and eat doughnuts all
day. They actually had to get out into traffic, and run down people that
were really going to fast for the conditions, or they were picking the
"speed of the day" and pulling over anyone that violated the whims of the
cop at the time, which were no doubt influenced more by the city council or
county comisisoners, not by a legitimate safety concern.
Bart
Christian Huebner <christia...@sun.com> wrote in message
news:39EF576D...@sun.com...
> Bill22 wrote:
> >
> > In article <39ED5B14...@pacbell.net>,
> > nicht2 <nic...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > <<I'm chopping all this stuff>>
> > Because it has been repitive on the usenet...but there is a URL :-)
> > Montana tried all this stuff.
> > I believe.
> > What have they done now? Yeap retracted.
>
> For a simple reason. Montana's Highway Police
> had a financial problem. Not enough tickets.
>
> Christian
AKSzafran
from NJ, which has some of the lowest speed limits in the nation - 55 on most
expressways, 65 on only a few, mostly 45 or 50 on other roads, other than
2-lane limited access highways which can be 55. In addition, the speed limit
on the Jersey side of the Ben Franklin Bridge (US 30) is 20 mph, rising to 45
*on the bridge itself.* Nevermind that everyone does 65-70 there.
The average speed on NJ freeways seems to be between 70 and 80 mph. In
addition, certain roads in NJ are not interstates, but are up to interstate
standard, and have good (if a bit longer) routes running in parallel to them.
These roads include the Turnpike south of Trenton (parallelled by I-295), the
G.S. Parkway (paralleled by U.S. 9, and NJ-18 - and except for the short
segment that is also US 9), Rte. 24 (the new one to Morristown, but not the
two-lane road past M'town, paralleled by I-78 to I-287 to Morristown), Rte. 55
in South Jersey, and the Atlantic City Expressway (paralleled by US 322 or US
30). These roads should be made into toll roads, with fairly high charges in
order to make them self-supporting (probably $0.03/mile, or something), *no
trucks* or other vehicles heavier than 5000 lb (excludes big S.U.V.'s) should
be allowed on them, and the speed limit should be unlimited during the daytime,
and 85 at night. In order to make sure that vehicles on these roads can handle
high speeds, a more rigorous safety inspection class should be established.
Furthermore, the tolls should only be collected electronically (but NOT at 5
m.p.h like the current EZ-Pass system) to avoid impeding the flow of traffic.
The road should be strictly patrolled for actual examples of dangerous driving,
such as tailgating, poor control of a car, etc..
It is unlikely that routes actually designated interstates could be converted,
because (I think that) trucks have to be allowed on Interstates. It may be
possible to convert Interstates with "express" and "local" lanes such as I-78
from Summit to Newark - rename the Express lanes of 78 to NJ 24 all the way to
Newark, and designate the entire length of the old 24 from NJ 57 to Newark as
124. It may also be practicable to convert the I-95 (northern) part of the
Turnpike, where it is split into truck and car-only routes.
Drew "Call them Rapidways or something" Szafran
'82 Yamaha XS-650 "incognitomobile"
>
>
>"Mister" wrote
>> The problem with no speed limit is that you'll have VAST differences in
>the
>> speed of traffic which is very dangerous. SUVs will likely be going
>> 70-85mph while Corvette's pass at 150. That is very dangerous.
>>
Michael A. Stone Jr.
> In article <39EEA5C2...@worldnet.att.net>,
> "Michael A. Stone Jr." <ma.s...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > Bill22 wrote:
>
> > >
> > > ### All you said is knowlegable to many who have traveled any
> > > interstate on a consistent bases...but appreciate the comment.
> > > But speed does kill?
> >
> > *******************************
> > http://mchs.fhwa.dot.gov/safetyprogs/hiway/speed2.htm
> > Does Speed Kill? This popular slogan suggests that the lower
> the speed limit is
> > set, the more safety will result.
> > Well, according to both the FHWA and the NHTSA, most fatal
> collisions occur in
> > "low speed" areas.
>
> Yes...Oka...
> I disagree.
> But why going through a construction area fines are doubled.,if the
> speed is above posted limit.
They are doubled because of all the various places to speed, one third of all
the fatal collisions in this particular area are due to speeding. Speeding on an
Interstate is not very dangerous. Following the speed limit might actually be
more dangerous than exceeding it. But, in a construction zone, speeding could
have fatal consequences. Especially for the government employees working in
them. Governments tend to be a bit protective of their own employees.
And, geez... if you're going to cut up my post.. please place <snip> in the
areas snipped. Also, you might want to have kept the sentence I had about
construction zones in there if that was what you were going to comment on.
> They must know something...I think?
> Your paying these people from your tax $ to make these calls.
--
Michael A. Stone Jr.
> Bill22 wrote:
> >
> > In article <39ED5B14...@pacbell.net>,
> > nicht2 <nic...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > <<I'm chopping all this stuff>>
> > Because it has been repitive on the usenet...but there is a URL :-)
> > Montana tried all this stuff.
> > I believe.
> > What have they done now? Yeap retracted.
>
> For a simple reason. Montana's Highway Police
> had a financial problem. Not enough tickets.
>
> Christian
Actually, the law that was used was overturned. So, an "actual" speed limit had
to be enacted. Also, there are more than a slight amount of Federal pressure
brought to bear.
Michael A. Stone Jr.
> "Bill22" wrote
>
> > "Michael A. Stone Jr." wrote:
>
> > > Bill22 wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > ### All you said is knowlegable to many who have traveled any
> > > > interstate on a consistent bases...but appreciate the comment.
> > > > But speed does kill?
> > >
> > > *******************************
> > > http://mchs.fhwa.dot.gov/safetyprogs/hiway/speed2.htm
> > > Does Speed Kill? This popular slogan suggests that the lower
> > the speed limit is
> > > set, the more safety will result.
> > > Well, according to both the FHWA and the NHTSA, most fatal
> > collisions occur in
> > > "low speed" areas.
> >
> > Yes...Oka...
> > I disagree.
> > But why going through a construction area fines are doubled.,if the
> > speed is above posted limit.
> > They must know something...I think?
> > Your paying these people from your tax $ to make these calls.
> >
> Yes, we do pay them our tax dollars. There is another entity that we also
> pay premiums to that has a great influence on current speed laws, namely
> auto insurance companies. Basically, those companies are proponents of
> lower speed limits. One in particular, the IIHS (Insurance Institute for
> Highway Safety) has manipulated data of vehicular accident statistics to
> show that their foregone conclusion of the "speed kills" theory is indeed
> true. These insurance companies fund lobbies in national and state
> governments that "suggest" to our representatives that their ideas are true
> and as a result, laws are passed that lower speed limits, allow insurance
> companies to charge higher premiums of drivers with speeding tickets on
> their records, etc.
Well, I would suspect that the massive campaign contributions divyed out plays a
much greater role in the influence of the IIHS than their facts do in getting
certain laws they are favorable to. They have billions in "flash cash" that is
used to "educate" our "elected" officals (that are appointed) to set speed
limits. There is also the "charitable donations" from the IIHS to police
departments for new radar and lidar equipment that plays a favorable role in
their ability to influence speed limit laws. They are quite active in issues
involving speed limits and certain related ares where they see profits. But,
they are strangly silent regarding seat belts and DUI. They do not profit from
either field so do not spend nearly as much in time or money on them. Even
though 40% of all fatal collisions involve alcohol use in some way and 63% of
all fatal collisions involve a failure to use proper seat restraints. They are
vastly more interested in the 4% of fatal "speed related" collisions.
> I don't remember the link in particular but one study that Michael Stone
> posted showed that increasing speed limits increased compliance and reduced
> speeds of the 99th percentile drivers, while lowering speed limits decreased
> compliance and actually led to an increase in speeds of 99th percentile
> drivers. If you take this a step further, lower compliance with speed
> limits leads to more violations and more speeding tickets issued. The
> insurance companies therefore get to charge higher premiums to a greater
> proportion to the people they insure than they would if speed limits were
> raised to a higher level. Now if you also consider studies that show that
> setting speed limits to the 85th percentile level leads to the lowest
> accident rates, then you can see that money and not safety is the primary
> reason insurance companies try to lobby for lower speed limits.
One of the links is listed below. I also have at least one more in Chapters 3
and 3a of my site.
Michael A. Stone Jr.
> "Mister" wrote
> > The problem with no speed limit is that you'll have VAST differences in
> the
> > speed of traffic which is very dangerous. SUVs will likely be going
> > 70-85mph while Corvette's pass at 150. That is very dangerous.
> >
> > Personally I dislike speed limits and only think people should be pulled
> > over for driving recklessly. Driving 120mph on a dry uncrowded interstate
> > isn't reckless.
> >
> > -M
>
> That is possibly true but to drive at 150 mph, you would need to have
> adequate sight lines. If the speed differential is 70 to 80+ mph then the
> Corvette driver will need to be able to see at least 1200 feet (at a
> minimum) ahead at all times (this gives you about 10 seconds to make a
> judgement in order to pass as well as it gives the SUV driver that much time
> to be able to observe the Corvette driver in the rear/side view mirrors,
> assuming an 80 mph speed differential). If the Corvette driver can't see
> that far, then that person is driving too fast for conditions. Why would
> that be? The reason is that the Corvette driver would not see a car to pass
> until its much closer than it should be and if the SUV driver needs to pass
> a slower vehicle, there would be no way that he/she would be able to observe
> the Corvette in his/her mirrors until its too late.
Actually, since the National average for 85th percentile speeds is only 75 MPH,
and since 85th percentile speeds do not very much based on the spee limit (or
lack of), it is exceedingly doubtful that anyone would drive near close to 150
MPH. This is well into the 99th percentile speed. It's quite likely that if a
speed limit is raised (or completely removed) such a person would actually slow
down to a more respectable speed. Perhaps 120 MPH, which is still in the 95th
percentile in most cases. But, a major reduction none the less. The maximum
speed of even the fastest of cars is only about 200 MPH. Most cars can't
seriously sustain cruising speeds of much more than about 130 MPH Some migh
garner a full 150. So, at 130 MPH, an 80 MPH differential would place the slower
vehicle at 50 MPH. This is only about 10 MPH over the current MINIMUM speed
limit on many Interstates.
Even a 20 MPH differential is exceedingly dangerous. But, while I don't think a
full repeal of speed limits is a good idea, certainly, having more realistic
limits is. Since 75 MPH is the average 85ht percentile speed, and since we are
discussing a *limit* and not an average, I would suggest a minimum limit of 60
and a maximum of 80. Both limits should be strictly enforced. Anyone going under
55 or over 85 would be given fines of at least $100. Anyone going under 40 or
over 100 would be fined a mimimum of $200, automatically jailed for at least a
week, and have a suspensed license for at least 30 days.
Then again, I also think the first DUI should be an automatic 180 suspension,
jail for a month, and a fine of $300... (and really, I wouldn't be totally
opposed to capital punishment for any DUI, al a Texas-style). so, perhaps the
punishments are a bit high.
Arif Khokar
"Michael A. Stone Jr." wrote
> Actually, since the National average for 85th percentile speeds is only 75
I think you'd have to have an exotic to drive at 200mph plus. I've driven
for a short time at 145 mph (not the smartest thing in the world, but eh, I
don't do it on a regular basis).
I really think (and this is based on personal opinion only) that a 20 mph
differential isn't quite as dangerous as one might think. You could suppose
that you are driving down a residential street at 20 mph with a line of
parked cars to your right. Supposing one of those parked cars pulls out in
front of you...you could easily stop or avoid it if you have to. Granted,
slowing from 20 to 0 mph is a bit different than slowing from 95 mph to 75
mph. The only real danger posed by a 20+ mph differential is the lack of
lane disipline in this country as well as people failing to check their
mirrors before moving into your lane.
I have driven at sustained speeds of 85 to 90 mph on interstates here but
that only leads to a differential of 10 to 15 mph. I still had people
switch lanes right in front of me right before I passed them but I was still
able to slow down to match their speed.
As for really strictly enforcing speed limits, that should be left to the
times that actually doing that would be dangerous (like in moderate
traffic). If police are doing that when you are the only car on the road,
then I feel its intrinsicly unfair. Then again, when are you most
vulnerable to a speed trap....when you're out and alone.
And, you're right about punishments pertaining to DUI's. I mean, what
person in their right mind would intentionally take a "depressant" (which is
what Alcohol essentially is) before driving. That would be akin to taking
sleeping pills before driving. I'd rather ingest something that would keep
me awake rather than put me to sleep.
C.R. Krieger
>
>Here are a few types of vehicles that should stay out of the left hand lanes
>PERIOD:
>
Apparently, you've never seen what my 535is can do while towing my bike.
>Drivers over the age of 65
Nor have you apparently seen one 75-year-old P.L. Newman driving a Porsche in
the American Le Mans Series.
--
C.R. Krieger
"Ignore 'em, m'dear, they're beneath your dignity." -W.C. Fields
C.R. Krieger
>The problem with no speed limit is that you'll have VAST differences in the
>speed of traffic which is very dangerous. SUVs will likely be going
>70-85mph while Corvette's pass at 150. That is very dangerous.
Only if (as is CERTAIN with the brain-dead occupants these all have in the US)
the SUV driver doesn't use the mirrors to stay the hell out of the way. You
don't see truck and 1.0 liter Fiats pulling this shit on the Autobahn because
they know better.
Bart Youngblood
couple of weeks ago. Of course, I'm referring to pubic roads, not
racetracks. Also, I didn't say they couldn't drive. If someone has the
reaction times to warrant racing at that age, hey, that's fine, they're not
tying up traffic on some downtown interstate for 30 minutes because they
refuse to yield to faster traffic in the left hand lane. Not to mention that
insurance reports have shown that drivers over the age of 65 have the same
risk factor as a 21 year old, but because of political pressure, no one ever
takes action to at least implement a more stringent testing standard for our
older drivers. Although, most driving tests in this country anyway are
laughable, dodge a few cones and parallel park and they hand you a license.
Bart
C.R. Krieger <war...@lakefieldDOT.net> wrote in message
news:0SZH5.2539$qR3.9...@homer.alpha.net...
> Bart Youngblood wrote in message ...
> >
> >Here are a few types of vehicles that should stay out of the left hand
lanes
> >PERIOD:
> >
> >Any vehicle with a trailer
>
> Apparently, you've never seen what my 535is can do while towing my bike.
>
> >Drivers over the age of 65
>
> Nor have you apparently seen one 75-year-old P.L. Newman driving a Porsche
in
> the American Le Mans Series.
Bart Youngblood
m.p.h like the current EZ-Pass system) to avoid impeding the flow of
traffic.
Georgia's cruise card system reliably works at 70 mph ;). Of course, there's
only one toll road in Georgia (I wouldn't mind more if it would reduce my
income taxes), but the speed at the toll plaza is 45, but people routinely
zip through there doing 65-70. Perhaps Jersey needs to come down here and
take a look at what they're using down there if its that much of a problem.
Bart
Surendar Jeyadev
>
>> Even a 20 MPH differential is exceedingly dangerous. But, while I don't
>
>
You should try Europe sometime. (Believe it or not, there are more countries
in the world than the US.) Speed differentials can be enormous there as there
are lots of small cars doing 45 or 50 mph and there are BMWs and and Mercs
doing 100+ and I have rarely been that safe in *any* interstate in the US.
The reason is ....
>mph. The only real danger posed by a 20+ mph differential is the lack of
>lane disipline in this country as well as people failing to check their
>mirrors before moving into your lane.
.... Hallelujah, somebody nails it on the head. Yes, Europeans are, simply,
superb drivers, signalling every move, moving over when faster cars need
to overtake them, checking their rear view mirrors, .... they just know
what is takes to drive. Part of that is because the licensing procedure
is tougher and part it is pure culture. So, they comments are true, but
not everywhere.
--
Surendar Jeyadev jey...@wrc.xerox.com
nmoberg
wrote:
>
>.... Hallelujah, somebody nails it on the head. Yes, Europeans are, simply,
>superb drivers, signalling every move, moving over when faster cars need
>to overtake them, checking their rear view mirrors, .... they just know
>what is takes to drive. Part of that is because the licensing procedure
>is tougher and part it is pure culture. So, they comments are true, but
>not everywhere.
>
Let's not go overboard here. The average driver in Europe certainly is
better than the average driver in the U.S. but there are still some
pretty bad drivers in Europe. Particularly when you get closer to the
former Eastern Bloc countries. Some very very bad drivers there.
Arif Khokar
"Surendar Jeyadev" <jey...@wrc.xerox.com> wrote in message
> .... Hallelujah, somebody nails it on the head. Yes, Europeans are,
simply,
> superb drivers, signalling every move, moving over when faster cars need
> to overtake them, checking their rear view mirrors, .... they just know
> what is takes to drive. Part of that is because the licensing procedure
> is tougher and part it is pure culture. So, they comments are true, but
> not everywhere.
>
> --
>
> Surendar Jeyadev jey...@wrc.xerox.com
Of course, there's driving in india and pakistan....lol ;^)....whats a
lane??
John F. Carr
Michael A. Stone Jr. <ma.s...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Actually, since the National average for 85th percentile speeds is only 75 MPH,
>and since 85th percentile speeds do not very much based on the spee limit (or
>lack of), it is exceedingly doubtful that anyone would drive near close to 150
>MPH. This is well into the 99th percentile speed. It's quite likely that if a
>speed limit is raised (or completely removed) such a person would actually slow
>down to a more respectable speed. Perhaps 120 MPH, which is still in the 95th
>percentile in most cases.
On 65 MPH zones on rural freeways in Massachusetts I measured 85th
percentile at 76-78 and 95th percentile around 80-81. Although I
didn't collect enough data to get reliable top percentile statistics,
I estimate the 99th percentile is close to where you would expect it
to be if speeds were normally distributed, near 88. The 85th-99th
percentile spread is probably higher out west but I doubt that the 99th
percentile is above 100 on any interstate highway.
I know somebody who would probably still drive 150-160 if speed limits
were repealed, but he is unusual.
Andy Chi
<akhok...@wvu.edu> wrote:
>That is possibly true but to drive at 150 mph, you would need to have
>adequate sight lines. If the speed differential is 70 to 80+ mph then the
>Corvette driver will need to be able to see at least 1200 feet (at a
Half a kilometer!? Then no one on the Autobahn would every be able to
go faster than 200km/h anytime.
>minimum) ahead at all times (this gives you about 10 seconds to make a
And you know this because you have experience driving at this speed?
Did you know that on the Autobahn, where there are guardrails to the
left of the #1 lane (instead of breakdown lane on American
Interstatre), when no stau, you can often see cars going at 120,
130mph, or even 160 plus, all the while trucks on the right lane are
going 55mph? And to top it off, the Autobahn fatality rate is similar
to our turtle speed Interstate.
>judgement in order to pass as well as it gives the SUV driver that much time
>to be able to observe the Corvette driver in the rear/side view mirrors,
>assuming an 80 mph speed differential). If the Corvette driver can't see
Most cars that can go 150mph can also shave off a large amount of
150mph quickly (case in point, E46 M3 takes only 2.6 seconds to go
from 60mph to 0). It is a regular occurence on the Autobahn to have to
brake from 220km/h to 100km/h to accomodate trucks going 95km/h
getting into the left lane to over take trucks going 90km/h.
>that far, then that person is driving too fast for conditions. Why would
>that be? The reason is that the Corvette driver would not see a car to pass
The biggest problem is that most NA drivers are just pathetic drivers.
99% of them don't even knwo how to setup mirror correctly (hint, not
pointing to the side of your car), let alone actually drive. SUV
rollover from a simple tire blow out? Patheitc, just pathetic. I have
had tire gone at 120mph in my car with not much fan fare.
Andy
98 M3 black/black
Andy Chi
<ma.s...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Actually, since the National average for 85th percentile speeds is only 75 MPH,
>and since 85th percentile speeds do not very much based on the spee limit (or
>lack of), it is exceedingly doubtful that anyone would drive near close to 150
>MPH. This is well into the 99th percentile speed. It's quite likely that if a
Haven't been to the western state much, have you? Or check out
www.tconl.com/~hartman for speedo pages. 150 is fast, but certainly
not as fast as you think.
>speed limit is raised (or completely removed) such a person would actually slow
>down to a more respectable speed. Perhaps 120 MPH, which is still in the 95th
Define "respectable."
>percentile in most cases. But, a major reduction none the less. The maximum
>speed of even the fastest of cars is only about 200 MPH. Most cars can't
>seriously sustain cruising speeds of much more than about 130 MPH Some migh
there's nothing like listening to your engine going at 6700RPM in 5th
gear, except perhaps 8200RPM in 6th at about 290km/h. Can't wait for
my E46 M3 (with limiter removed, of course).
>garner a full 150. So, at 130 MPH, an 80 MPH differential would place the slower
>vehicle at 50 MPH. This is only about 10 MPH over the current MINIMUM speed
>limit on many Interstates.
>Even a 20 MPH differential is exceedingly dangerous. But, while I don't think a
Really? So how come the Autobahn, with speed differential of up to
100mph at times (My high school friend did 300km/h in his 96 993TT,
the audible whooshing sound it generated as it passed trucks going
90km/h was just incredible), has the same fatality rate as our
pathetic turtle speed Interstate?
>55 or over 85 would be given fines of at least $100. Anyone going under 40 or
>over 100 would be fined a mimimum of $200, automatically jailed for at least a
>week, and have a suspensed license for at least 30 days.
Uh huh, and some of us have had real fahrer training. Some of us have
had experience driving at over 200km/h legally for hours on end on a
daily basis. 160km/h is really not that fast, especialy when you see a
mom doing it in her Opel POS with a baby seat.
Did you help write those Draconian speed laws in VA? You might
consider moving there, 80mph IS reckless driving in the People's
Republic of VA. You'll love ti there.
Andy
98 M3 black/black
Michael A. Stone Jr.
> I think you'd have to have an exotic to drive at 200mph plus. I've driven
> for a short time at 145 mph (not the smartest thing in the world, but eh, I
> don't do it on a regular basis).
Pretty much, there aren't more than a few dozen car models that can hit over
200, and most of those are quite beyond the means of most people. There are some
cars and many motorcycles that might manage to maintain cruising speeds of 130+
MPH, but I doubt that too many people would want to, given the cost of gasoline
and the MPG drop that such speeds would entail.
> I really think (and this is based on personal opinion only) that a 20 mph
> differential isn't quite as dangerous as one might think. You could suppose
> that you are driving down a residential street at 20 mph with a line of
> parked cars to your right. Supposing one of those parked cars pulls out in
> front of you...you could easily stop or avoid it if you have to. Granted,
> slowing from 20 to 0 mph is a bit different than slowing from 95 mph to 75
> mph. The only real danger posed by a 20+ mph differential is the lack of
> lane disipline in this country as well as people failing to check their
> mirrors before moving into your lane.
I think, just based on what and how the NHTSA and FHWA says, that the main
danger from speed differentials is in that high speed differentials mean you are
either passing or being passed more often. This means more interaction between
vehicles. Interactions aren't too good because the only time you'll really be in
danger of collision is if there is something close enough to hit. More passing
means more times of having a vehicle in close proximity to yours. Less passing
means less proximity and less chances for collision.
> I have driven at sustained speeds of 85 to 90 mph on interstates here but
> that only leads to a differential of 10 to 15 mph. I still had people
> switch lanes right in front of me right before I passed them but I was still
> able to slow down to match their speed.
That sounds about right. The dangers from differentials don't peak until about
10+ MPH differentials but they climb exponentially, from the looks of the charts
the NHTSA shows.
> As for really strictly enforcing speed limits, that should be left to the
> times that actually doing that would be dangerous (like in moderate
> traffic). If police are doing that when you are the only car on the road,
> then I feel its intrinsicly unfair. Then again, when are you most
> vulnerable to a speed trap....when you're out and alone.
I agree. Police discretion is still a good thing, but more needs to be done to
address speed variance and less on overall speed. So, I'd agree, in places where
the roads are sparsly driven, enforcement could be very relaxed.
> And, you're right about punishments pertaining to DUI's. I mean, what
> person in their right mind would intentionally take a "depressant" (which is
> what Alcohol essentially is) before driving. That would be akin to taking
> sleeping pills before driving. I'd rather ingest something that would keep
> me awake rather than put me to sleep.
Personally, I'd rather not have anything in my system when I drive. If I'm not
full awake and alert, without needing stimulants or depressants, then I don't
want to be and won't be driving. Anyone that makes a concious decision to drink
should already know, before the first sip, that they shouldn't be driving.
Period. So, there is no excuse for driving drunk. None. It is a choice that is
made before the first drink. And anyone that makes the intentional choice to
drink and then drive is too irresponsible to ever be allowed to drive. Maybe in
a few years, if the person has shown they have matured to the level of pre-teen,
then maybe give them a second chance. But it takes years, not months, for a
person to mature. And if they do it twice... no driving ever again. A third time
(which would be illegal under my thoughts...) would be like the sixth
shoplifting offense... removal of the offender's neck. If they can drive after
decapitation... they can do so drunk or any other way they want. ;)
Michael A. Stone Jr.
> In article <sv0jiqg...@corp.supernews.com>,
> Arif Khokar <akhok...@wvu.edu> wrote:
> >
> >"Michael A. Stone Jr." wrote
> >
> > [ .... stuff deleted ...]
> >
> >> Even a 20 MPH differential is exceedingly dangerous. But, while I don't
> >
> > [ .... stuff deleted ...]
> >
>
> You should try Europe sometime. (Believe it or not, there are more countries
> in the world than the US.) Speed differentials can be enormous there as there
> are lots of small cars doing 45 or 50 mph and there are BMWs and and Mercs
> doing 100+ and I have rarely been that safe in *any* interstate in the US.
> The reason is ....
Um, sure. And I'm King of England. Millionaire. I own a mansion and a yacht.
> >mph. The only real danger posed by a 20+ mph differential is the lack of
> >lane disipline in this country as well as people failing to check their
> >mirrors before moving into your lane.
>
> .... Hallelujah, somebody nails it on the head. Yes, Europeans are, simply,
> superb drivers, signalling every move, moving over when faster cars need
> to overtake them, checking their rear view mirrors, .... they just know
> what is takes to drive. Part of that is because the licensing procedure
> is tougher and part it is pure culture. So, they comments are true, but
> not everywhere.
Sure. Sure. "Superb" drivers. So are Americans. Ask any of them. They'll be glad
to tell you. The more "superb" they are, the more they claim it. And you seem to
be claiming that European drivers are the most superb of all. I'll even forego
the fact the the US Interstate system has the lowest fatality rate in the world.
Or the fact that no other country in the world has as many licensed drivers. Or
as many vehicle miles driven.
We still pay about $5 a gallon less than you.
Don't hate America just because America happens to be the leader of the free
world. Don't hate America just because America happens to be the most advanced
country in the world. Don't hate America just because America happens to be the
more successful country in the world. Don't hate America just because America
happens to have the most stable government in the world.
If you want to hate America, hate it because it's the only country in the world
where your race, creed, color, national hertiage, sex, etc.. doesn't matter. It's
WHO not WHAT you are that matters.
> Surendar Jeyadev jey...@wrc.xerox.com
Michael A. Stone Jr.
> On Fri, 20 Oct 2000 08:50:18 GMT, "Michael A. Stone Jr."
> <ma.s...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Actually, since the National average for 85th percentile speeds is only 75 MPH,
> >and since 85th percentile speeds do not very much based on the spee limit (or
> >lack of), it is exceedingly doubtful that anyone would drive near close to 150
> >MPH. This is well into the 99th percentile speed. It's quite likely that if a
>
> Haven't been to the western state much, have you? Or check out
> www.tconl.com/~hartman for speedo pages. 150 is fast, but certainly
> not as fast as you think.
Sorry, bud. I only look at the NHTSA and such for reliable information. A bunch of
photos of a few people that took a snapshot of their speedometers is hardly synomous
with the National average. I've driven at 150+ MPH myself (in my "youth"). I still
belt out 80 or so on a regular basis. But, the fact that a few people drive that fast
(hense the 99th percentile) doesn't mean everyone does. Most people won't drive at
150+ MPH even if all speed limits were repealed. A few, yes. Most, no.
> >speed limit is raised (or completely removed) such a person would actually slow
> >down to a more respectable speed. Perhaps 120 MPH, which is still in the 95th
>
> Define "respectable."
Under 150. Mostly, I'd say (read: my opinion) that something closer to the 85th
percentile is "respectable". Speeds under the 95th, at least. Not speeds that are far
into the 99th. That is basically speeds at or below 120 MPH. 200+ MPH is fine on a
race track. It's not quite as fine in a place where most cars can't hit those speeds.
150 MPH isn't even a really feasible "every day, all day" speed. Most engines built
for consumer use can't take those stresses. If you are wanting to race, go to a
track. If you want to drive, drive. I don't agree with the asinine low speed limits
we have now. But, I certainly wouldn't support people driving at 150 MPH speeds on
Interstates. They are normally too crowded for those speeds in all but the most
sparcely populated areas. People that try to drive at 150 MPH through downtown NJ are
precisely the people that the "speed kills" advocates point to to justify keeping
artifically low limits.
> >percentile in most cases. But, a major reduction none the less. The maximum
> >speed of even the fastest of cars is only about 200 MPH. Most cars can't
> >seriously sustain cruising speeds of much more than about 130 MPH Some migh
>
> there's nothing like listening to your engine going at 6700RPM in 5th
> gear, except perhaps 8200RPM in 6th at about 290km/h. Can't wait for
> my E46 M3 (with limiter removed, of course).
Except perhaps the sight of your piston making a nice round dent in the hood of your
car as the over-stressed engine goes kerplunk. (and I've done that) If you want to
race, go to a track. If you want to drive, drive. Don't race on a street and don't
"drive" on a race track... either one will get you dead. The reason that the "speed
kills" advocates are able to garner support for absurdly low speed limits is because
a rare few idiots think they can hold the Cannonball run (which only averaged a top
speed of about 120 MPH anyways) through the middle of downtown St. Louis. Racing is
best done at a race track. If you can't race at a racetrack, perhaps your racing
skills just aren't good enough to play with the big boys after all. They also realize
that racing is for race tracks. They don't race on streets. That little scene from
"Days of Thunder"... that would get a real driver blackballed permanently.
> >garner a full 150. So, at 130 MPH, an 80 MPH differential would place the slower
> >vehicle at 50 MPH. This is only about 10 MPH over the current MINIMUM speed
> >limit on many Interstates.
> >Even a 20 MPH differential is exceedingly dangerous. But, while I don't think a
>
> Really? So how come the Autobahn, with speed differential of up to
> 100mph at times (My high school friend did 300km/h in his 96 993TT,
> the audible whooshing sound it generated as it passed trucks going
> 90km/h was just incredible), has the same fatality rate as our
> pathetic turtle speed Interstate?
It doesn't. In fact, until just the past five to ten years, the Autobahn was known as
Europe's blood alley. Now, it's getting quite a bit better. But, it will never get to
the level of safety that is enjoyed on American Interstates. (maybe never is too
strong... it ~could~ happen) But...
Part of the reason is that European drivers do get slightly better training and
slightly better testing requirments. Part of the reason is that they are getting the
drunks off the road. Part of the reason is that they don't have Soccer Moms in SUVs
that think their "Lil Precious" gives them the right to drive in two lanes at once.
Part of the reason is that the idiots that get into the left lane and only drive at
50 MPH are going to get creamed in about two seconds. Part of the reason is that
there isn't a police car every third mile waiting to write out a ticket. Part of the
reason is that the government makes its money by charging $5 per gallon in gas taxes
(which must be a major income generator for people driving at 186 MPH!) rather than
$75 per speeding ticket.
Just a few parts of the reason.
> >55 or over 85 would be given fines of at least $100. Anyone going under 40 or
> >over 100 would be fined a mimimum of $200, automatically jailed for at least a
> >week, and have a suspensed license for at least 30 days.
>
> Uh huh, and some of us have had real fahrer training. Some of us have
> had experience driving at over 200km/h legally for hours on end on a
> daily basis. 160km/h is really not that fast, especialy when you see a
> mom doing it in her Opel POS with a baby seat.
"Some of us" are a bit hypocritical. "Some of us" are a bit overconfident in skills
they think they have. "Some of us" think the road is their personal race track. "Some
of us" are too damned inconciderate to remember they are sharing the road with 50
million other drivers. "Some of us" might not realize that 160 km/h is only 100 MPH
and 200 km/h is only 125 MPH. "Some of us" drive in wide open areas rather than in
places where there are over 50 cars in under a quarter mile stretch.
Some of us know where the race track ends and the street begins. When "some of us"
grow up, we'll all know it.
> Did you help write those Draconian speed laws in VA? You might
> consider moving there, 80mph IS reckless driving in the People's
> Republic of VA. You'll love ti there.
You have got to be kidding. LOOK AT MY SIG LINE!!! Do you think I run "The Definitive
Guide to Speeding Tickets" because I LIKE speed limits? Get real! Grow up a bit, man.
I think the People's Republic of Virginia is about the most totalitarian state there
is... although the red light cameras in DC give them a good run for the money and
Arizona's idiotic photo radar isn't far behind. I want to see speed limits RAISED.
People like you are the reason that the rest of us can't get them raised. All some
idiot at the IIHS has to do is point at you and say "See. Look what will happen if we
raise speed limits." Then they get some sob story about "Lil Precious" and about how
some moron like you got liquored up and killed their baby." (as they read their sob
story from a cue card, what's that about? Can't they remember it themeslves?)
And the idiot legislators, after hearing the sob story and being taken out to the
best resturant my insurance premiums can buy, looks at you, with your insane speed
thinking you're Jeff Gordon in #24 racing down his neighborhood street and hitting
some 2 year old.. walks back into the legislator floor and votes for the "safe"
choice. He feels good about how he has protected "Lil Precious" from the big bad
"race car on the street" driver. Meanwhile, the other 99% of the motoring public that
can drive at non-race track speeds and don't have a "need for speed", just a desire
to get from point A to point B in as quick and safe a manner as we can... we have to
endure these dangerously low limits.
This is the reason the rest of us have to suffer these God damn idiotic low speed
limits. End of my soap box.
> Andy
> 98 M3 black/black
Andy Chi
<ma.s...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Andy Chi wrote:
>> Define "respectable."
>
>Under 150. Mostly, I'd say (read: my opinion) that something closer to the 85th
>percentile is "respectable". Speeds under the 95th, at least. Not speeds that are far
>into the 99th. That is basically speeds at or below 120 MPH. 200+ MPH is fine on a
Sigh, please go get yourself some real driver training, it'll give you
a better perspective on what is fast and what is dangerous. BTW, what
is your credential? Have you attended any real driver school?
Bondurant, BMWCCA, PCA, etc? Have you driven on the Autobahn as a
non-tourist with German license? Or did you get your license by simply
passing the parallel parking test in your local mickey mouse licensing
department? We do have the most licensed drivers, but then, if Germany
lower their licensing standard by about ten fold, everyone there would
have a license, including most of the American expats who have
problems passing it on first try.
>race track. It's not quite as fine in a place where most cars can't hit those speeds.
You need a very very high powered car to hit anything above 150 on
most tracks in this country on the straight. There are only very few
places on the Nurburgring that given a 300+ HP car, would you be able
to hit 250km/h and above.
>150 MPH isn't even a really feasible "every day, all day" speed. Most engines built
>for consumer use can't take those stresses. If you are wanting to race, go to a
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Tell that to all the owners of Porsches,
Merc, BMW drivers on the Autobahn when there's no stau. Do you imagine
that they blow up their cars and throw rods due to "stress?" Even the
POS Opels with moms and their baby seats can easily sustain about
125mph, and with better mpg than your average AMerican V6 and V8's.
It's called small high cmopression engine. The E46 M3 will have 11:1
compression ratio out of a 3.2 liter that puts out 333HP.
>track. If you want to drive, drive. I don't agree with the asinine low speed limits
>we have now. But, I certainly wouldn't support people driving at 150 MPH speeds on
>Interstates. They are normally too crowded for those speeds in all but the most
On the eastern part of the country, probably. The west is quite
conducive to high speed crusing.
>sparcely populated areas. People that try to drive at 150 MPH through downtown NJ are
First of all, 150mph on the pathetic NJ turnpike is not the same as
150mph on most deserted part of wide open western Interstates.
Secondly, most Autobahns with (///) are narrow two lane each way
pavements with GAURDRAILS to the left of #1 lane. Adn you do see cars
going that speed and faster.
>> there's nothing like listening to your engine going at 6700RPM in 5th
>> gear, except perhaps 8200RPM in 6th at about 290km/h. Can't wait for
>> my E46 M3 (with limiter removed, of course).
>
>Except perhaps the sight of your piston making a nice round dent in the hood of your
>car as the over-stressed engine goes kerplunk. (and I've done that) If you want to
You obviously have no experience driving a modern high powered German
car, it is not a big deal. If the oil temp is normal, you can rev and
bounce off the rev limiter all day long, just remember to check the
oil regularly. "Butthead" M3 burnt 1 quart of oil after the 3.5 hour
LA-SFC "laptime."
>race, go to a track. If you want to drive, drive. Don't race on a street and don't
Since when does speeding on interstate=speeding on surface street?
Most trained drivers I know "speed" on the Interstate, they do not
"speed" on the local streets.
>"drive" on a race track... either one will get you dead. The reason that the "speed
>kills" advocates are able to garner support for absurdly low speed limits is because
>a rare few idiots think they can hold the Cannonball run (which only averaged a top
>speed of about 120 MPH anyways) through the middle of downtown St. Louis. Racing is
HUH? Who ever said anything about doing that on surface street? We
are talking about driving at 200km/h plus on limited access pavement
designed for speed (yes, that includes even our turtle speed
Interstate).
>best done at a race track. If you can't race at a racetrack, perhaps your racing
>skills just aren't good enough to play with the big boys after all. They also realize
>that racing is for race tracks. They don't race on streets. That little scene from
>"Days of Thunder"... that would get a real driver blackballed permanently.
NASCAR, BWAHAHAHAHAHA. Ever heard of F-1?
>> Really? So how come the Autobahn, with speed differential of up to
>> 100mph at times (My high school friend did 300km/h in his 96 993TT,
>> the audible whooshing sound it generated as it passed trucks going
>> 90km/h was just incredible), has the same fatality rate as our
>> pathetic turtle speed Interstate?
>
>It doesn't. In fact, until just the past five to ten years, the Autobahn was known as
Ohh, did you also get your precious info from NHTSA? Did you know that
they publicly apoligized for posting false information on the Autobahn
fatality? Fact is, the fatality rate IS about the same. Check out the
TUEV site.
>Europe's blood alley. Now, it's getting quite a bit better. But, it will never get to
Right, judging from your post, I am almost positive you have no
experience driving on the Autobahn (engine blowing up at 150mph,
Europe's bloody alley, etc), and is basing your opinion on false
information.
>the level of safety that is enjoyed on American Interstates. (maybe never is too
>strong... it ~could~ happen) But...
>Part of the reason is that European drivers do get slightly better training and
>slightly better testing requirments. Part of the reason is that they are getting the
German license is not something that is easy to get, most CURRENT
American licensed expat drivers when trying to obtain a German one
have a tough time passing. It's like fitrst grade math versus SAT. It
is that dramatic.
>drunks off the road. Part of the reason is that they don't have Soccer Moms in SUVs
>that think their "Lil Precious" gives them the right to drive in two lanes at once.
>Part of the reason is that the idiots that get into the left lane and only drive at
>50 MPH are going to get creamed in about two seconds. Part of the reason is that
>there isn't a police car every third mile waiting to write out a ticket. Part of the
>reason is that the government makes its money by charging $5 per gallon in gas taxes
I would GLADLY pay 3.75 a gallon like it was in Germany if it means
(///).
>(which must be a major income generator for people driving at 186 MPH!) rather than
>$75 per speeding ticket.
Yes, 140mph sustained would get you about 8mpg in a E36 American M3,
that 6th gear on E36 real M3's woudl really help.
>"Some of us" are a bit hypocritical. "Some of us" are a bit overconfident in skills
>they think they have. "Some of us" think the road is their personal race track. "Some
So tell me, where di you get your license? And what kind of fahrer
training have you had?
>of us" are too damned inconciderate to remember they are sharing the road with 50
>million other drivers. "Some of us" might not realize that 160 km/h is only 100 MPH
>and 200 km/h is only 125 MPH. "Some of us" drive in wide open areas rather than in
Really, if you think 125mph is fast for everyday driving, it leads me
to believe that you have never driven anywhere else but the eastern
seaboard.
>Arizona's idiotic photo radar isn't far behind. I want to see speed limits RAISED.
>People like you are the reason that the rest of us can't get them raised. All some
The real reason is that speeding tix and insurance surcharge is too
profitable a business. Why do you think Geico gives out FREE radar
guns to police departments? Or the IIHS contribute $$$ to hte
politicians favoring lowering the speed limit?
>idiot at the IIHS has to do is point at you and say "See. Look what will happen if we
>raise speed limits." Then they get some sob story about "Lil Precious" and about how
>some moron like you got liquored up and killed their baby." (as they read their sob
Very intelligent, you deduced that I drive drunk because I don't
believe in the 65mph speed limit? How did you manage to pass logic in
college?
>story from a cue card, what's that about? Can't they remember it themeslves?)
>And the idiot legislators, after hearing the sob story and being taken out to the
>best resturant my insurance premiums can buy, looks at you, with your insane speed
>thinking you're Jeff Gordon in #24 racing down his neighborhood street and hitting
Puleeze, Jeff Gordon is no race car driver, Hakinen, Schumacher, and
Senna are.
>some 2 year old.. walks back into the legislator floor and votes for the "safe"
>choice. He feels good about how he has protected "Lil Precious" from the big bad
>"race car on the street" driver. Meanwhile, the other 99% of the motoring public that
Even better! I don't belive in driving 65 on the Interstate therefore
I must speed on surface street too? Your reasoning ability is
astounding. Waht's next? I don't believe in the speed limit so I am a
pagan practicing witchcraft?
Andy
98 M3 black/black
6700RPM iin 5th will make my engine blow up, HAHAHAHAHAHA
Izzy...
Andy Chi <m3f...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:39f10ad5...@news.mindspring.com...
> On Fri, 20 Oct 2000 08:50:18 GMT, "Michael A. Stone Jr."
> <ma.s...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >speed limit is raised (or completely removed) such a person would
actually slow
> >down to a more respectable speed. Perhaps 120 MPH, which is still in the
95th
>
> Define "respectable."
I dunno, but 120mph can feel quite slow on the right roads.
It only feels fast to me because I've only been there twice, it takes
forever
to get to within 5% of a car's drag-limited top speed. In a car with good
acceleration, it's no problem. I remember a trip as a child, in my best
friend's
father's '72 Cutlass. I forgot what he had in the thing, but the 120mph
speedo
was completely buried and it felt like nothing.
Incidentally, they had recently immigrated to the US from Poland.
> >percentile in most cases. But, a major reduction none the less. The
maximum
> >speed of even the fastest of cars is only about 200 MPH. Most cars can't
> >seriously sustain cruising speeds of much more than about 130 MPH Some
migh
>
> there's nothing like listening to your engine going at 6700RPM in 5th
> gear, except perhaps 8200RPM in 6th at about 290km/h. Can't wait for
> my E46 M3 (with limiter removed, of course).
Now that I have a digital camera, I'll have to post up a double-bury pic of
my RX-7. The speedo needle hard against the stop at 85mph (wtf?) and the
tach pointing somewhat past 8,000. "F*ck Redline"
Of course it wouldn't be a top speed pic, as it only pulls to ~7,000 in 4th,
which is close to top speed of the car (~120-125mph). Not that it matters,
though, because of that pathetic speedo.
I'd normally cruise at 110 for about 5 miles on the way to work every
morning,
passing very few cars. I'm my Last Car, I'd cruise at top speed all the way
to
work, an amazing 87 or so mph, in the middle lane. *That* car has a speedo
that goes to 130. (again, wtf?)
Maybe I'll also get a pic of the roommate's Pontiac hitting the 108mph speed
limiter. It hits it like a brick wall.
Izzy...
>
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Tell that to all the owners of Porsches,
> Merc, BMW drivers on the Autobahn when there's no stau. Do you imagine
> that they blow up their cars and throw rods due to "stress?" Even the
> POS Opels with moms and their baby seats can easily sustain about
> 125mph, and with better mpg than your average AMerican V6 and V8's.
> It's called small high cmopression engine. The E46 M3 will have 11:1
> compression ratio out of a 3.2 liter that puts out 333HP.
Size has nothing to do with it - if you get the same V.E. it doesn't matter
if
you're turning a 3.2l at 6700 or a 5.7l at 3600 - the same amount of air is
flowing through the engine, and you need the same amount of fuel to mix
with it, and you'll be making pretty close to the same amount of power.
Now compresion ratio - THAT makes the difference. Higher CR means higher
thermal efficiency (in a nutshell) and more bang for your buck fuel-wise.
Unfortunately, the fuel available in the US isn't enough to support decent
compression ratios, at least not anymore. Not with current automotive
production engines anyway - check out http://www.theoldone.com for a
real eye-opener. Highly efficient swirl combustion techniques. They are
making 19:1 engines live on pump gas with no detonation issues, with the
resultant incredible amounts of torque, horsepower, and BSFC numbers.
> I would GLADLY pay 3.75 a gallon like it was in Germany if it means
> (///).
Sign me up too. Oh, and someone find me an E30 M3, some rust/body roughness
is okay.
> Puleeze, Jeff Gordon is no race car driver, Hakinen, Schumacher, and
> Senna are.
Hey! Don't forget Rod Millen or John Buffum.
> Andy
> 98 M3 black/black
> 6700RPM iin 5th will make my engine blow up, HAHAHAHAHAHA
Yeah, really. BMW had those conditions in mind when they designed the
engine and its supporting systems. They know what their clientele have in
mind!
Arif Khokar
"Andy Chi" wrote in message
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 16:53:14 -0400, "Arif Khokar"
> <akhok...@wvu.edu> wrote:
>
> >That is possibly true but to drive at 150 mph, you would need to have
> >adequate sight lines. If the speed differential is 70 to 80+ mph then
the
> >Corvette driver will need to be able to see at least 1200 feet (at a
>
> Half a kilometer!? Then no one on the Autobahn would every be able to
> go faster than 200km/h anytime.
>
> >minimum) ahead at all times (this gives you about 10 seconds to make a
>
> And you know this because you have experience driving at this speed?
> Did you know that on the Autobahn, where there are guardrails to the
> left of the #1 lane (instead of breakdown lane on American
> Interstatre), when no stau, you can often see cars going at 120,
> 130mph, or even 160 plus, all the while trucks on the right lane are
> going 55mph? And to top it off, the Autobahn fatality rate is similar
> to our turtle speed Interstate.
Actually, it was just based on theory. I have driven 145 mph for a total of
30 seconds (thats what my Audi S4 limiter kept me at) in sparse traffic. I
know that doesn't qualify me for experience of high speed driving. The
reason I gave the distance that I did was due to the pathetic NA drivers.
Unlike the autobahn (and this is based on what you as well as several other
posters who have driven there have said in the past) is that most drivers
there do check their mirrors before coming into the left lane (there are
notable exceptions that you have detailed in the past though).
Unfortunately, over here in NA, there are idiots that don't bother to check
or even care that there is a car coming up fast behind them. I take it that
you read my post detailing my experience of driving at 85 to 90 mph and
people coming right in front of me...maybe I could drive 130 to 140 mph but
I like to keep my rotors intact...unlike you ;^)
>
> Most cars that can go 150mph can also shave off a large amount of
> 150mph quickly (case in point, E46 M3 takes only 2.6 seconds to go
> from 60mph to 0). It is a regular occurence on the Autobahn to have to
> brake from 220km/h to 100km/h to accomodate trucks going 95km/h
> getting into the left lane to over take trucks going 90km/h.
But what about the rotors lol! Seriously, you're right. I have zero
experience with hard braking at high speeds. Thats because of the times I
did travel at high speeds (130+mph), it was a situation that I had plenty of
visibility and knew well in advance before I had to brake...so I could just
gently reduce my speed).
> The biggest problem is that most NA drivers are just pathetic drivers.
> 99% of them don't even knwo how to setup mirror correctly (hint, not
> pointing to the side of your car), let alone actually drive. SUV
> rollover from a simple tire blow out? Patheitc, just pathetic. I have
> had tire gone at 120mph in my car with not much fan fare.
I agree...precisely why I had to slow down so often just driving at 85 to 90
mph. It just saddens me when I'm sitting behind a car at a red light and I
can see the driver's face in both their rear view mirror and their driver
side mirror. BTW, I do know how to set my mirrors correctly.
Andy Chi
<akhok...@wvu.edu> wrote:
>Actually, it was just based on theory. I have driven 145 mph for a total of
>30 seconds (thats what my Audi S4 limiter kept me at) in sparse traffic. I
You mean, you haven't removed the limiter yet? And while your at it,
throw away those RE040 and put on real tires like S02PP...
>know that doesn't qualify me for experience of high speed driving. The
>reason I gave the distance that I did was due to the pathetic NA drivers.
Visibility is really not the issue, it's the anticipation. Drive your
car like your riding a motorcycle. And if you have your right foot
positioned correctly, you should be able to respond easily to people
changing lanes. Being proficient at heel and toe helps tremendously in
situations where max braking and manuvering is required.
>or even care that there is a car coming up fast behind them. I take it that
>you read my post detailing my experience of driving at 85 to 90 mph and
>people coming right in front of me...maybe I could drive 130 to 140 mph but
Actually, stock S4 tires are not very grippy, not good for high G
braking. You need something like S02PP or the original Pilot SX. BFG
KD is also one grippy tire good for high G braking. Just make sure
that in regular traffic you don't brake too hard or someone will
become one with your trunk.
>I like to keep my rotors intact...unlike you ;^)
Rotors are 100 bucks a pair (floating rotors for the M3's are 160 a
pair), pads are even cheaper. When you have a high power car that you
use on a regular basis to drive at speed, you treat rotors, pads, and
tires as pure consummables (that gets consumed very quickly).
>> Most cars that can go 150mph can also shave off a large amount of
>> 150mph quickly (case in point, E46 M3 takes only 2.6 seconds to go
>> from 60mph to 0). It is a regular occurence on the Autobahn to have to
>> brake from 220km/h to 100km/h to accomodate trucks going 95km/h
>> getting into the left lane to over take trucks going 90km/h.
>
>But what about the rotors lol! Seriously, you're right. I have zero
>experience with hard braking at high speeds. Thats because of the times I
You should attend the school put out by Quattro clubs then, or hell,
even BMWCCA. I can very easily get near maximum braking out of my car,
and no, that's without the ABS engaging.
Andy
98 M3 black/black
Arif Khokar
"Andy Chi" wrote
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2000 17:49:46 -0400, "Arif Khokar"
> <akhok...@wvu.edu> wrote:
>
> You mean, you haven't removed the limiter yet? And while your at it,
> throw away those RE040 and put on real tires like S02PP...
That's what I'll do when I finish up with the RE040's. Right now (at this
time of year), I'm looking for downsizing and getting a good set of winter
tires with steel rims. Other than that, I haven't found a chip that just
removes the limiter without altering the turbos. For now I'd rather keep my
warrenty. But if you know of a chip that removes just the limiter, please
tell me..
> Visibility is really not the issue, it's the anticipation. Drive your
> car like your riding a motorcycle. And if you have your right foot
> positioned correctly, you should be able to respond easily to people
> changing lanes. Being proficient at heel and toe helps tremendously in
> situations where max braking and manuvering is required.
Yeah...I'm still trying to get heel toe down...but haven't really been able
to make a smooth downshift yet.. (downshifing to second or third for sharp
turns). Still though, given that many more people here don't bother
checking before coming into your lane..I'll keep my speed down for now.
Come to think of it...in light of your experience...the distance can be cut
in 1/2 or even a 1/3 of the original that I posted.
>
> >or even care that there is a car coming up fast behind them. I take it
that
> >you read my post detailing my experience of driving at 85 to 90 mph and
> >people coming right in front of me...maybe I could drive 130 to 140 mph
but
>
> Actually, stock S4 tires are not very grippy, not good for high G
> braking. You need something like S02PP or the original Pilot SX. BFG
> KD is also one grippy tire good for high G braking. Just make sure
> that in regular traffic you don't brake too hard or someone will
> become one with your trunk.
I think I'll get one set of those tires when I finish up with the RE040's.
Actually, I traded in my A4 (with all season tires) for the S4 I have now.
Compared to those, the stock tires feel very grippy...but as you said, there
are much better tires out there. I've never really put the stock tires to
the limit so far (I need to get rid of that loose change I have first).
> Rotors are 100 bucks a pair (floating rotors for the M3's are 160 a
> pair), pads are even cheaper. When you have a high power car that you
> use on a regular basis to drive at speed, you treat rotors, pads, and
> tires as pure consummables (that gets consumed very quickly).
>
> You should attend the school put out by Quattro clubs then, or hell,
> even BMWCCA. I can very easily get near maximum braking out of my car,
> and no, that's without the ABS engaging.
Well, I don't have quite that much money on my hands (after getting the S4)
so I'd like to minimize maintenance costs for now.
BTW...anyone know the nearest driving school...I'm in WV.
Michael A. Stone Jr.
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2000 12:24:46 GMT, "Michael A. Stone Jr."
> <ma.s...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Andy Chi wrote:
>
> >> Define "respectable."
> >
> >Under 150. Mostly, I'd say (read: my opinion) that something closer to the 85th
> >percentile is "respectable". Speeds under the 95th, at least. Not speeds that are far
> >into the 99th. That is basically speeds at or below 120 MPH. 200+ MPH is fine on a
>
> Sigh, please go get yourself some real driver training, it'll give you
> a better perspective on what is fast and what is dangerous. BTW, what
> is your credential? Have you attended any real driver school?
> Bondurant, BMWCCA, PCA, etc? Have you driven on the Autobahn as a
> non-tourist with German license? Or did you get your license by simply
> passing the parallel parking test in your local mickey mouse licensing
> department? We do have the most licensed drivers, but then, if Germany
> lower their licensing standard by about ten fold, everyone there would
> have a license, including most of the American expats who have
> problems passing it on first try.
Two words... Grow up.
> >race track. It's not quite as fine in a place where most cars can't hit those speeds.
>
> You need a very very high powered car to hit anything above 150 on
> most tracks in this country on the straight. There are only very few
> places on the Nurburgring that given a 300+ HP car, would you be able
> to hit 250km/h and above.
Then, if as you now say, that speeds over 150 MPH aren't going to be common, why would
they even be an issue? Just don't drive that fast. Make the speed limit something that is
the average speed driven by the majority of drivers and everything should thus be fine.
AKA, the 85th percentile. AKA about 75 to 80.
> >150 MPH isn't even a really feasible "every day, all day" speed. Most engines built
> >for consumer use can't take those stresses. If you are wanting to race, go to a
>
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Tell that to all the owners of Porsches,
> Merc, BMW drivers on the Autobahn when there's no stau. Do you imagine
> that they blow up their cars and throw rods due to "stress?" Even the
> POS Opels with moms and their baby seats can easily sustain about
> 125mph, and with better mpg than your average AMerican V6 and V8's.
> It's called small high cmopression engine. The E46 M3 will have 11:1
> compression ratio out of a 3.2 liter that puts out 333HP.
Two words again.. Grow up. How many people in the United States own Porsches, Mercs, BMWs,
etc... Not the pissy cry baby models that can only hit 130 MPH going down hill, but the
"real" cars that can go over 150 MPH? 10% of the motorist? 5%? How many people in the U.S.
have even HEARD OF Opel? Ask an average U.S. citizen what "Opal" is and they will probably
think you're talking about some older lady from a daytime TV soap opera. If all you want
to do is rant and rave about the U.S. do like the rest of the third world... go to a
soccer game and start a riot or strap some dynamite on your chest and blow up some cafe in
Frankfurt. You aren't being forced to remain in the U.S. If you don't like it, leave.
In other words... grow up.
> >track. If you want to drive, drive. I don't agree with the asinine low speed limits
> >we have now. But, I certainly wouldn't support people driving at 150 MPH speeds on
> >Interstates. They are normally too crowded for those speeds in all but the most
>
> On the eastern part of the country, probably. The west is quite
> conducive to high speed crusing.
Sure. Sure. I'm sure that you can go flying through downtown Seattle on an Interstate at
180 MPH and nobody is going to be even the slightest bit shocked or worried.
Grow up.
> >sparcely populated areas. People that try to drive at 150 MPH through downtown NJ are
>
> First of all, 150mph on the pathetic NJ turnpike is not the same as
> 150mph on most deserted part of wide open western Interstates.
> Secondly, most Autobahns with (///) are narrow two lane each way
> pavements with GAURDRAILS to the left of #1 lane. Adn you do see cars
> going that speed and faster.
Sure. Sure. 350 MPH is safe on the Nevada Salt Flats, so it *must* be safe driving on the
LA freeway too.
Grow up.
There is a reason it's called an 85th percentile. It is not a set number. Likely, it would
be higher in California than in New Jersey. In some place where no one but queers and
steers live, it might not even be a measured number because steers don't drive. It could
be like some of the desolate places that have no daytime speed limit at all. Then, perhaps
200+ MPH is fine. That is what the 85th percentile would support, as well. But, in a place
where you have more than one person per square mile, I doubt that a 200+ MPH speed limit
would be safe.
> >> there's nothing like listening to your engine going at 6700RPM in 5th
> >> gear, except perhaps 8200RPM in 6th at about 290km/h. Can't wait for
> >> my E46 M3 (with limiter removed, of course).
> >
> >Except perhaps the sight of your piston making a nice round dent in the hood of your
> >car as the over-stressed engine goes kerplunk. (and I've done that) If you want to
>
> You obviously have no experience driving a modern high powered German
> car, it is not a big deal. If the oil temp is normal, you can rev and
> bounce off the rev limiter all day long, just remember to check the
> oil regularly. "Butthead" M3 burnt 1 quart of oil after the 3.5 hour
> LA-SFC "laptime."
Grow up. I've driven Thunderbirds that would dust your pathetic "I wanna be a grown up"
car. I've driven at speeds over 150 MPH. I've done it on tracks and I've done it on
highways. I've even done it in neighborhoods. If you want to prove what a macho and brave
guy you are, drive through downtown East St. Louis at 2:00 am with your pansymobile at 20
MPH and a KKK hood on your head. Give a nice German "Sieg Heil" as you drive past the guys
standing on the streetcorners. Be sure to give them a nice middle finger too. Otherwise...
grow up.
And again... how many American drivers own an M3?
> >race, go to a track. If you want to drive, drive. Don't race on a street and don't
>
> Since when does speeding on interstate=speeding on surface street?
> Most trained drivers I know "speed" on the Interstate, they do not
> "speed" on the local streets.
It doesn't. Which is what an 85th percentile helps to show. But, driving on an Interstate
STILL does not warrant 150+ MPH speeds. If you want to drive at those speeds, fine, have
fun. Do it where you can REALLY test yourself. At a track. Do it against someone that will
leave you sitting in a cloud of dust. Sure, you feel all hot and bad outrunning a Ford
Escort. Lets see how you feel against somebody running a Camaro with a $25,000 engine
under the hood when he runs past your little wussmobile. Because he sure won't be running
his prized racer on an Interstate.
> >"drive" on a race track... either one will get you dead. The reason that the "speed
> >kills" advocates are able to garner support for absurdly low speed limits is because
> >a rare few idiots think they can hold the Cannonball run (which only averaged a top
> >speed of about 120 MPH anyways) through the middle of downtown St. Louis. Racing is
>
> HUH? Who ever said anything about doing that on surface street? We
> are talking about driving at 200km/h plus on limited access pavement
> designed for speed (yes, that includes even our turtle speed
> Interstate).
First off... if you want to talk about AMERICAN roads (Interstates), use the proper
measurement. Miles per hour.
Second, who would be talking about your moronic speeds being driving on surface streets?
The IIHS... the "speed kills" advocates. Any idiot that is just as hell bent on keeping
speeds dangerously low as you are on dangerously exceeding them.
Third, "we" were not talking about speeds UNDER 120 MPH. "We" were discussing speeds in
excess of 130 MPH.
If you want an Autobahn... go to Germany. If you want a safe driving enviroment, then
drive on an American Interstate. Just don't do it over 130 MPH or under 50 MPH. (75 is the
average)
> >best done at a race track. If you can't race at a racetrack, perhaps your racing
> >skills just aren't good enough to play with the big boys after all. They also realize
> >that racing is for race tracks. They don't race on streets. That little scene from
> >"Days of Thunder"... that would get a real driver blackballed permanently.
>
> NASCAR, BWAHAHAHAHAHA. Ever heard of F-1?
How many F-1 rallies have you seen held on an open to traffic road. I've never seen them
race on anything other than closed tracks.
> >> Really? So how come the Autobahn, with speed differential of up to
> >> 100mph at times (My high school friend did 300km/h in his 96 993TT,
> >> the audible whooshing sound it generated as it passed trucks going
> >> 90km/h was just incredible), has the same fatality rate as our
> >> pathetic turtle speed Interstate?
> >
> >It doesn't. In fact, until just the past five to ten years, the Autobahn was known as
>
> Ohh, did you also get your precious info from NHTSA? Did you know that
> they publicly apoligized for posting false information on the Autobahn
> fatality? Fact is, the fatality rate IS about the same. Check out the
> TUEV site.
No. And can you show me where the NHTSA made such an apology? And, I tried to find this
"TUEV" site. Couldn't find it from Yahoo, Lycos, or Alta Vista. Closest things I found
were a site on some college, a role playing game called Car Wars, and an engineering firm.
So, I thought I'd look under Germany > Government... and find a German Transportation
Safety agency of some sort... Nope. None. I don't read German, but, I even tried to find
it in German.
I did find something.... http://www.statistik-bund.de/basis/e/verk/trafttab6.htm 7,792
people killed in 1998. Which, at a guess, I'd hazard to say is conciderably more per
vehicle mile driven than in the U.S. Of course, no one is stopping you from going back to
Germany.
I also sent an e-mail to the person they list as the contact for traffic collision
information requests. Hopefully, I will get a reply as to the fataility per million miles
driven on the Autobahn.
> >Europe's blood alley. Now, it's getting quite a bit better. But, it will never get to
>
> Right, judging from your post, I am almost positive you have no
> experience driving on the Autobahn (engine blowing up at 150mph,
> Europe's bloody alley, etc), and is basing your opinion on false
> information.
False? No. Just facts as given by the NHTSA and the KBA. Not on "When I gets all growed up
I'm gonna be a zoom zoom car driver, mommy".
> >the level of safety that is enjoyed on American Interstates. (maybe never is too
> >strong... it ~could~ happen) But...
> >Part of the reason is that European drivers do get slightly better training and
> >slightly better testing requirments. Part of the reason is that they are getting the
>
> German license is not something that is easy to get, most CURRENT
> American licensed expat drivers when trying to obtain a German one
> have a tough time passing. It's like fitrst grade math versus SAT. It
> is that dramatic.
Well, concidering the SAT was easy, I wouldn't compare the two based on that. But, I
accept that German and European standards are more stringent. Then again, if you like
Gemany so much... go back. No one is forcing you to drive in America.
> >drunks off the road. Part of the reason is that they don't have Soccer Moms in SUVs
> >that think their "Lil Precious" gives them the right to drive in two lanes at once.
> >Part of the reason is that the idiots that get into the left lane and only drive at
> >50 MPH are going to get creamed in about two seconds. Part of the reason is that
> >there isn't a police car every third mile waiting to write out a ticket. Part of the
> >reason is that the government makes its money by charging $5 per gallon in gas taxes
>
> I would GLADLY pay 3.75 a gallon like it was in Germany if it means (///).
And the increase in fatalities too? Now granted, I'm near the bottom of the list of people
to argue that speed limits really do anything other than make money for greedy
politicians. In fact, one of my strongest arguements against the "speed kills" advocates
is the fact that when 20 states that increased their limits the average fatality rate
decreased. And when the speed limit was completely elimiated in one, there was no "blood
bath" as several "safety" (sp) advocates prophesied. But, there is a HUGE difference
between raising speed limits and removing them completely.
> >(which must be a major income generator for people driving at 186 MPH!) rather than
> >$75 per speeding ticket.
>
> Yes, 140mph sustained would get you about 8mpg in a E36 American M3,
> that 6th gear on E36 real M3's woudl really help.
And again.. how many Americans own (or can afford) an M3?
> >"Some of us" are a bit hypocritical. "Some of us" are a bit overconfident in skills
> >they think they have. "Some of us" think the road is their personal race track. "Some
>
> So tell me, where di you get your license? And what kind of fahrer
> training have you had?
I have had no Fuhrer training. I did not go to a reeducation camp and am not remotely a
Nazi. <sarasm overload : error 404>
I don't need to prove my driving skill to you. I have had no collisions am a licensed
driver. That's all I *need*. Anything extra, which I do have (for whatever it's worth), is
mine. If you want to play "prove the ass" games with me, tell us all what Fuhrer training
you have gotten regarding driving 130+ MPH on American Interstates? (actually, I don't
even know of any advanced high-speed training courses for American traffic outside of some
rather limited offerings to emergency vehicle personel)
> >of us" are too damned inconciderate to remember they are sharing the road with 50
> >million other drivers. "Some of us" might not realize that 160 km/h is only 100 MPH
> >and 200 km/h is only 125 MPH. "Some of us" drive in wide open areas rather than in
>
> Really, if you think 125mph is fast for everyday driving, it leads me
> to believe that you have never driven anywhere else but the eastern
> seaboard.
Grow up. Grow up. Grow up.
> >Arizona's idiotic photo radar isn't far behind. I want to see speed limits RAISED.
> >People like you are the reason that the rest of us can't get them raised. All some
>
> The real reason is that speeding tix and insurance surcharge is too
> profitable a business. Why do you think Geico gives out FREE radar
> guns to police departments? Or the IIHS contribute $$$ to hte
> politicians favoring lowering the speed limit?
No shit, Sherlock. And how do you think those politicians justify their stance to Susy
Soccer Mom? They point at some teenang moron full of zits, piss, and shit for brains and
tell them a sob story about the idiot that got drunk (which doesn't belong in a speeding
horror story anyways) and flew down some road at 120 MPH and ran over a cat (or some other
such shit). Ms. Bleeding Heart Liberal gets all teary eyes and says "Yes, we must do
something about this."
They can't very well point to 85% of the population and try to say that they are all
"bad". They WANT AND NEED that 85% to vote them into their office. So, they point to the
morons driving at the 99th percentile and have someone give their horror story about Mr.
Iwanna Beagrownup flying down the Interstate at 130+ MPH. Ms. Susy Soccer Mom thinks "Gee.
My "Lil Precious" will become Mr. Iwanna Beagrownup someday. I better help get low speed
limits so he doesn't get killed." And the rest of us have to deal with dangerously low
speed limits.
> >idiot at the IIHS has to do is point at you and say "See. Look what will happen if we
> >raise speed limits." Then they get some sob story about "Lil Precious" and about how
> >some moron like you got liquored up and killed their baby." (as they read their sob
>
> Very intelligent, you deduced that I drive drunk because I don't
> believe in the 65mph speed limit? How did you manage to pass logic in
> college?
Grow up. That's EXACTLY the STORY (hense, not reality) that the profit mongers at the IIHS
will tell. They will grab the most sensational headline they can find. Then, they will
spruce it up a bit. Toss in drunk driving. No seat belts. Has radar detector. (the IIHS
hates radar detectors) Was a 17 year old (young kids get more tearjerk reactions) Hit a 5
year old (or such... again more tears) Toss it all together... and viola... instant
"speed kills" speech. Don't tell me that in high school they didn't show you those idiotic
"speed kills" and "drunk driving kills" videos. Wait, never mind, you're not Amercian
anyways. Maybe your German schools don't show the driver's ed horror films they show over
here.
> >story from a cue card, what's that about? Can't they remember it themeslves?)
> >And the idiot legislators, after hearing the sob story and being taken out to the
> >best resturant my insurance premiums can buy, looks at you, with your insane speed
> >thinking you're Jeff Gordon in #24 racing down his neighborhood street and hitting
>
> Puleeze, Jeff Gordon is no race car driver, Hakinen, Schumacher, and
> Senna are.
Puleeze.. it's not the driver.. it's the car. Put them into an Escort and they'd be lost.
Anyone can drive 200+ MPH in a Ferrari.
> >some 2 year old.. walks back into the legislator floor and votes for the "safe"
> >choice. He feels good about how he has protected "Lil Precious" from the big bad
> >"race car on the street" driver. Meanwhile, the other 99% of the motoring public that
>
> Even better! I don't belive in driving 65 on the Interstate therefore
> I must speed on surface street too? Your reasoning ability is
> astounding. Waht's next? I don't believe in the speed limit so I am a
> pagan practicing witchcraft?
Grow up. I also noticed you cut the entire part about my web site. What's the matter?
Don't want people to figure out that I am against ridiculously low speed limits?
And again, that is EXACTLY the STORY that will be told. Hell, Carl Taylor use to post that
shit in this NG all the time. He was constantly pointing at people just like you and
trying to relate Interstate speeds to driving in a school zone. And you know what, it
works. Some idiotic Soccer Mom will read the story (IE: fiction) and get all teary eyed
about her little darling s she is calling her Senator to ask for lower speed limits. I
don't want to have to endure 55 MPH speed limits for another day. Nothing could make me
happier than to see speed limits raised to the 85th percentile. But, as long as the IIHS
and the other "speed kills" advocate groups have morons that they can point to about
driving at 130+ MPH on open roads, they will do it. And as long as they do it, the
politicians and bleeding hearts will have a "justification" for protecting "us" from
drivers like you. True or not, they will do it.
Until such people grow up, that is.
> Andy
> 98 M3 black/black
> 6700RPM iin 5th will make my engine blow up, HAHAHAHAHAHA
It will if your driving an Escort. Grow up.
Michael A. Stone Jr.
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2000 17:49:46 -0400, "Arif Khokar"
> <akhok...@wvu.edu> wrote:
>
> >Actually, it was just based on theory. I have driven 145 mph for a total of
> >30 seconds (thats what my Audi S4 limiter kept me at) in sparse traffic. I
>
> You mean, you haven't removed the limiter yet? And while your at it,
> throw away those RE040 and put on real tires like S02PP...
And just how many Soccer Moms can get a limiter removed? You aren't the only
driver on the road.
> >know that doesn't qualify me for experience of high speed driving. The
> >reason I gave the distance that I did was due to the pathetic NA drivers.
>
> Visibility is really not the issue, it's the anticipation. Drive your
> car like your riding a motorcycle. And if you have your right foot
> positioned correctly, you should be able to respond easily to people
> changing lanes. Being proficient at heel and toe helps tremendously in
> situations where max braking and manuvering is required.
Agreed.
> >or even care that there is a car coming up fast behind them. I take it that
> >you read my post detailing my experience of driving at 85 to 90 mph and
> >people coming right in front of me...maybe I could drive 130 to 140 mph but
>
> Actually, stock S4 tires are not very grippy, not good for high G
> braking. You need something like S02PP or the original Pilot SX. BFG
> KD is also one grippy tire good for high G braking. Just make sure
> that in regular traffic you don't brake too hard or someone will
> become one with your trunk.
And just how many Soccer Moms can have after-market tires on their mini-vans?
(except for the Firestone recall ;) You aren't the only driver on the road.
> >I like to keep my rotors intact...unlike you ;^)
>
> Rotors are 100 bucks a pair (floating rotors for the M3's are 160 a
> pair), pads are even cheaper. When you have a high power car that you
> use on a regular basis to drive at speed, you treat rotors, pads, and
> tires as pure consummables (that gets consumed very quickly).
And just how many Soccer Moms can have after-market rotors on their mini-vans?
You aren't the only driver on the road.
And damn... $160 a pair... I know people that own cars (although calling it a car
is a serious stretch of the word) that cost less than that. You aren't the only
driver on the road.
> >> Most cars that can go 150mph can also shave off a large amount of
> >> 150mph quickly (case in point, E46 M3 takes only 2.6 seconds to go
> >> from 60mph to 0). It is a regular occurence on the Autobahn to have to
> >> brake from 220km/h to 100km/h to accomodate trucks going 95km/h
> >> getting into the left lane to over take trucks going 90km/h.
> >
> >But what about the rotors lol! Seriously, you're right. I have zero
> >experience with hard braking at high speeds. Thats because of the times I
>
> You should attend the school put out by Quattro clubs then, or hell,
> even BMWCCA. I can very easily get near maximum braking out of my car,
> and no, that's without the ABS engaging.
Near maximum? Why not AT maximum? Or... perhaps even.. past maximum. If you are
driving a car that has a couple hundred dollars worth of after market items
installed, that's great. But, there are people out there that only have the
absolute basics (if that) on their cars. And, driving means contending with
people that have bald tires and worn brakes. You aren't the only driver on the
road.
> Andy
> 98 M3 black/black
nmoberg
<ma.s...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Andy Chi wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 21 Oct 2000 12:24:46 GMT, "Michael A. Stone Jr."
>> <ma.s...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Andy Chi wrote:
>>
>> >> Define "respectable."
>> >
>> >Under 150. Mostly, I'd say (read: my opinion) that something closer to the 85th
>> >percentile is "respectable". Speeds under the 95th, at least. Not speeds that are far
>> >into the 99th. That is basically speeds at or below 120 MPH. 200+ MPH is fine on a
>>
>> Sigh, please go get yourself some real driver training, it'll give you
>> a better perspective on what is fast and what is dangerous. BTW, what
>> is your credential? Have you attended any real driver school?
>> Bondurant, BMWCCA, PCA, etc? Have you driven on the Autobahn as a
>> non-tourist with German license? Or did you get your license by simply
>> passing the parallel parking test in your local mickey mouse licensing
>> department? We do have the most licensed drivers, but then, if Germany
>> lower their licensing standard by about ten fold, everyone there would
>> have a license, including most of the American expats who have
>> problems passing it on first try.
>
>Two words... Grow up.
>
3 words...
answer the question.
Izzy...
Michael A. Stone Jr. <ma.s...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:39F297CF...@worldnet.att.net...
> Andy Chi wrote:
> > department? We do have the most licensed drivers, but then, if Germany
> > lower their licensing standard by about ten fold, everyone there would
> > have a license, including most of the American expats who have
> > problems passing it on first try.
>
> Two words... Grow up.
? They take driving seriously in Germany. It is hideously expensive and
difficult
to get a license there. When the US requires paramedic training to get a
driver's
license then you can tell him to "grow up".
>
> Then, if as you now say, that speeds over 150 MPH aren't going to be
common, why would
> they even be an issue? Just don't drive that fast. Make the speed limit
something that is
> the average speed driven by the majority of drivers and everything should
thus be fine.
> AKA, the 85th percentile. AKA about 75 to 80.
If nobody drove faster than the average speed, the average would drop.
If nobody drove fater than the 85th percentile, the 85th percentile would
drop.
> Two words again.. Grow up. How many people in the United States own
Porsches, Mercs, BMWs,
> etc... Not the pissy cry baby models that can only hit 130 MPH going down
hill, but the
> "real" cars that can go over 150 MPH? 10% of the motorist? 5%?
Probably a similar percentage as "over there".
You don't need a high pricd German car to top 150mph... any snot-nosed brat
in the Z28 that
his mommy bought him or her could technically do it. Or the old farts in
their Caddy STSs
(and yes they are old farts) if they ever pushed the gas pedal with their
canes hard enough.
>How many people in the U.S.
> have even HEARD OF Opel? Ask an average U.S. citizen what "Opal" is and
they will probably
> think you're talking about some older lady from a daytime TV soap opera.
Mension "Opel" and many people will think Saturn LS. Some more people will
think Isuzu
or Cadillac Catera or SAAB.
> Sure. Sure. I'm sure that you can go flying through downtown Seattle on an
Interstate at
> 180 MPH and nobody is going to be even the slightest bit shocked or
worried.
> Grow up.
Sure thing Carl.
> > First of all, 150mph on the pathetic NJ turnpike is not the same as
> > 150mph on most deserted part of wide open western Interstates.
> > Secondly, most Autobahns with (///) are narrow two lane each way
> > pavements with GAURDRAILS to the left of #1 lane. Adn you do see cars
> > going that speed and faster.
>
> Sure. Sure. 350 MPH is safe on the Nevada Salt Flats, so it *must* be safe
driving on the
> LA freeway too.
> Grow up.
Are you even reading what you're replying to or simply experiencing a
knee-jerk reaction?
> There is a reason it's called an 85th percentile. It is not a set number.
Likely, it would
> be higher in California than in New Jersey. In some place where no one but
queers and
> steers live, it might not even be a measured number because steers don't
drive. It could
> be like some of the desolate places that have no daytime speed limit at
all. Then, perhaps
> 200+ MPH is fine. That is what the 85th percentile would support, as well.
But, in a place
> where you have more than one person per square mile, I doubt that a 200+
MPH speed limit
> would be safe.
He wasn't advocating one.
> And again... how many American drivers own an M3?
It seems that every other car in many parts of Cleveland is an M3. Mostly
two-door
models, but some four-door and Convertible models have been seen.
The number's been dwindling, though, at about the same rate that M Roadster
and M Coupes have been popping up.
> > HUH? Who ever said anything about doing that on surface street? We
> > are talking about driving at 200km/h plus on limited access pavement
> > designed for speed (yes, that includes even our turtle speed
> > Interstate).
>
> First off... if you want to talk about AMERICAN roads (Interstates), use
the proper
> measurement. Miles per hour.
50kmh = ~30mph. 80km/h = ~50mph. It's not hard.
> Second, who would be talking about your moronic speeds being driving on
surface streets?
> The IIHS... the "speed kills" advocates. Any idiot that is just as hell
bent on keeping
> speeds dangerously low as you are on dangerously exceeding them.
The IIHS is not participating in this discussion.
> Third, "we" were not talking about speeds UNDER 120 MPH. "We" were
discussing speeds in
> excess of 130 MPH.
Sorry, not Carl. Lloyd.
> > I would GLADLY pay 3.75 a gallon like it was in Germany if it means
(///).
>
> And the increase in fatalities too?
The roads would be empty if fuel was $3.75/gallon, so nothing to hit.
And you think people are whining now because gasoline is at only $1.75 per!
I calculate that it'd cost me 22.5 cents per mile to drive. Worth it.
MPG wouldn't change much as I already keep the butterflies opened up
on open roads... it'd just be legalised.
> > Yes, 140mph sustained would get you about 8mpg in a E36 American M3,
> > that 6th gear on E36 real M3's woudl really help.
>
> And again.. how many Americans own (or can afford) an M3?
M3 only costs about $40-45k. Not much anymore. I see a lot of cars
on the road that cost as much if not more than $40-45k. Every time you
see a Corvette, it could be an M3. Every time you see a Navigator, it could
be an M3. Every time you see an STS, it could be an M3.
Used, you could pick one up for about $20-25k, for the E36 chassis.
Myself, I'm waiting for a nice E30 model, I like the E30 chassis a lot more
than the E36, and IMO the six is too torquey for the car's purpose.
I've yet to see an M5 on the roads, though. Those are close to $100k!
> No shit, Sherlock. And how do you think those politicians justify their
stance to Susy
> Soccer Mom? They point at some teenang moron full of zits, piss, and shit
for brains and
> tell them a sob story about the idiot that got drunk (which doesn't belong
in a speeding
> horror story anyways) and flew down some road at 120 MPH and ran over a
cat (or some other
> such shit). Ms. Bleeding Heart Liberal gets all teary eyes and says "Yes,
we must do
> something about this."
Yes. Work to eliminate drunk driving, place a stigma on drunkenness like
they've
placed a stigma on cigarette smoking (just TRY to have a smoke in a public
place
without getting beaten up!), increase driver training SUBSTANTIALLY so we
DON'T
have the prevailing attitudes of "Oh who gives a crap" behind the wheel.
> Puleeze.. it's not the driver.. it's the car. Put them into an Escort and
they'd be lost.
> Anyone can drive 200+ MPH in a Ferrari.
First you must find a Ferrari capable of 200+mph.
Escorts are lucky to break 100mph.
Marc Warden
> In article <39ED5B14...@pacbell.net>,
> nicht2 <nic...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> <<I'm chopping all this stuff>>
> Because it has been repitive on the usenet...but there is a URL :-)
> Montana tried all this stuff.
> I believe.
> What have they done now? Yeap retracted.
>
> > http://www.americanautobahn.com/
> >
> >
>
> --
> ***************************************************
> It is of immense importance to learn to
> laugh at ourselves.
> --Katherine Mansfield//////Question of the day.
> How fast do you have to go?
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Retracted because the courts were having a difficult time
prosecuting/convicting speeders, with no clearly defined speed limits,
not because of any problems with increased deaths due to speeding.
Sincerely,
MarcW.
BikrT
>
>It seems that every other car in many parts of Cleveland is an M3. Mostly
>two-door
>models, but some four-door and Convertible models have been seen.
>
>The number's been dwindling, though, at about the same rate that M Roadster
>and M Coupes have been popping up.
Yeah I gotta agree there Michael! I am in eastern OH, and I notice lots of
M3s around here too, and on my way to east side of Cleveland... Out here,
they are quite popular too; there are three 2doors, and a 4door at my kiddo's
Preschool and Kindergarten. Pretty good % considering only about 170 families
with kids enrolled.
T <---wishes he were one of those w/ M3
Marc Warden
> Bart Youngblood wrote in message ...
> >
> >Here are a few types of vehicles that should stay out of the left hand lanes
> >PERIOD:
> >
> >Any vehicle with a trailer
>
> Apparently, you've never seen what my 535is can do while towing my bike.
>
> >Drivers over the age of 65
>
> Nor have you apparently seen one 75-year-old P.L. Newman driving a Porsche in
> the American Le Mans Series.
> --
> C.R. Krieger
> "Ignore 'em, m'dear, they're beneath your dignity." -W.C. Fields
You maybe can drive a 535is with a bike trailer safely, but not everyone's
pulling a bike trailer wtih a 535is and not everyone is as good as a driver as
you.
From CA, I liked the law that restricted autos/trucks with trailers to the right
most lane except when passing and to 55MPH top speed.
Here in the midwest, you get every yayhoo pulling a trailer barreling down the
freeway, in dry or wet weather, at the limit or above, and then you have the
18-wheelers running 70MPH+ and whose drivers don't slow down too much because 1)
they don't want to lose momentum and 2) want to intimidate you to get out their
way be you in the fast lane or the slow lane.
I hate to say it, but I think CA's laws regarding auto/trucks with trailers the
lesser of the two evils.
Sincerely,
MarcW.
bi_teendude17
size sedan that gets around 30mpg @55mph ?
Matthew T. Russotto
bi_teendude17 <bi_tee...@usa.net> wrote:
}What kind of fuel economy do you get going 130mph with a typical mid
}size sedan that gets around 30mpg @55mph ?
Trick question; you can't get a typical mid size sedan to go 130mph...
--
Matthew T. Russotto russ...@pond.com
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."
Izzy...
Matthew T. Russotto <russ...@wanda.vf.pond.com> wrote in message
news:9lKI5.8548$mC.5...@monger.newsread.com...
> In article <39F350CE...@usa.net>,
> bi_teendude17 <bi_tee...@usa.net> wrote:
> }What kind of fuel economy do you get going 130mph with a typical mid
> }size sedan that gets around 30mpg @55mph ?
>
> Trick question; you can't get a typical mid size sedan to go 130mph...
Yeah, they all have speed limiters at 108mph because of the non
speed rated tires put on the car for more comfort. :-)
Arif Khokar
"Izzy..." wrote
> Yeah, they all have speed limiters at 108mph because of the non
> speed rated tires put on the car for more comfort. :-)
Just one question for my car in particular (2000 Audi S4)..considering that
the stock Bridgestone Potenzas are Y rated (up to 186 mph I believe), why is
the car limited to 145 mph?
Andy Chi
<akhok...@wvu.edu> wrote:
>Just one question for my car in particular (2000 Audi S4)..considering that
>the stock Bridgestone Potenzas are Y rated (up to 186 mph I believe), why is
>the car limited to 145 mph?
Beats me, stock M3 without limiter can go 155~160, and are fitted with
Z rated tires, but are limited to only 137mph... BMWNA is worse than
Audi USA in this case...
Andy
98 M3 black/black
Andy Chi
<ma.s...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>And just how many Soccer Moms can get a limiter removed? You aren't the only
>driver on the road.
News flash, life is not fair. I am sick of all the restrictions being
placed on the competent people because of what "those stupid people
might/could do." How about actually dealing with those stupid people
and get to the root of the damn problem.
>And just how many Soccer Moms can have after-market tires on their mini-vans?
>(except for the Firestone recall ;) You aren't the only driver on the road.
Didn't you learn long ago that life is not fair. You can give special
considreation to people because of extraneous circumstance, but in the
end, LIFE IS NOT F*&KING FAIR. That's why some cars have better
brakes, some cars have better handling, and gasp, some cars even cost
a lot of dough. And incidentally, Izzy is right, the percentage of
Germans who can afford machines capable of 150mph are probably about
the same as here, if that (since they tax by the engine size and
insurance for them are also exobitant). But plenty of moms with baby
seats can afford 1.3 liter Opel capable of about 120mph.
Oh and BTW, thanks for that racist "love it or leave it" crap, that's
really mature.
>And just how many Soccer Moms can have after-market rotors on their mini-vans?
Uh, we were talking about stock rotors on the M3's, FYI. Last I
checked, my friend's mom's Dodge Intrepid rotors cost close to a
hundred bucks a pair.
>Near maximum? Why not AT maximum? Or... perhaps even.. past maximum. If you are
They are stock, and yes, even stock American E36 M3's can do 60 to 0
in less than 3 seconds, not quite 2.6, but still out brakes just about
everything on the road. And there is no shame in having better tools
for the job, not if you got it fair and square.
>driving a car that has a couple hundred dollars worth of after market items
>installed, that's great. But, there are people out there that only have the
>absolute basics (if that) on their cars. And, driving means contending with
There are also people out there who can't read, who dropped out of
high school, blah blah blah. I am all for caring for the less
fortunate, but I am sick and tired of having my freedom (look it up,
it's in the Constitution) restricted because some stupid people might
do this, some stupid people might do that. I am sick of this lowest
common denominator bullshit.
Andy
98 M3 black/black
Michael A. Stone Jr.
> Oh boy...
Yep. Boy is right.
> Michael A. Stone Jr. <ma.s...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:39F297CF...@worldnet.att.net...
> > Andy Chi wrote:
> > > department? We do have the most licensed drivers, but then, if Germany
> > > lower their licensing standard by about ten fold, everyone there would
> > > have a license, including most of the American expats who have
> > > problems passing it on first try.
> >
> > Two words... Grow up.
>
> ? They take driving seriously in Germany. It is hideously expensive and
> difficult
> to get a license there. When the US requires paramedic training to get a
> driver's
> license then you can tell him to "grow up".
Paramedic training? As in full licensing or just basic classes? I'd be
completely in support of basic first aid training. But, I'd suspect they'd be
some pretty serious issues with having everyone become a fully licensed EMT.
Then again, if he loves Germany so much, he can move.
> > Then, if as you now say, that speeds over 150 MPH aren't going to be
> common, why would
> > they even be an issue? Just don't drive that fast. Make the speed limit
> something that is
> > the average speed driven by the majority of drivers and everything should
> thus be fine.
> > AKA, the 85th percentile. AKA about 75 to 80.
>
> If nobody drove faster than the average speed, the average would drop.
> If nobody drove fater than the 85th percentile, the 85th percentile would
> drop.
And if everyone drove faster, it would go up. The 85th percentile doesn't change
much based on speed limits. Raise it ten, drop it ten, eliminate it
completely... most people still drive about 75 MPH. Did you have a point?
> > Two words again.. Grow up. How many people in the United States own
> Porsches, Mercs, BMWs,
> > etc... Not the pissy cry baby models that can only hit 130 MPH going down
> hill, but the
> > "real" cars that can go over 150 MPH? 10% of the motorist? 5%?
>
> Probably a similar percentage as "over there".
So, what you are saying then is there really aren't that many people over there
driving at or over 130 MPH?
> You don't need a high pricd German car to top 150mph... any snot-nosed brat
> in the Z28 that
> his mommy bought him or her could technically do it. Or the old farts in
> their Caddy STSs
> (and yes they are old farts) if they ever pushed the gas pedal with their
> canes hard enough.
I'm sure every factory spec car rolling off the Detroit (mexico) lines is
capable of topping 150 right off the factory showroom, no modifications. Yep,
just walk into a showroom, plop down some cash, get a Chevy Silverado, and
whammo... the thing can top 150? Not.
Yes, they could "technically" do it. But most of them aren't technical people.
They just buy a car and drive. No modifications.
> >How many people in the U.S.
> > have even HEARD OF Opel? Ask an average U.S. citizen what "Opal" is and
> they will probably
> > think you're talking about some older lady from a daytime TV soap opera.
>
> Mension "Opel" and many people will think Saturn LS. Some more people will
> think Isuzu
> or Cadillac Catera or SAAB.
SAAB? A Swedish jet fighter SAAB? And Cadillac is Cadillac... not Opel.
> Sure. Sure. I'm sure that you can go flying through downtown Seattle on an
> Interstate at
> > 180 MPH and nobody is going to be even the slightest bit shocked or
> worried.
> > Grow up.
>
> Sure thing Carl.
Grow up. Do you really thing someone running a "Get out of your ticket" website
is anything near like Carl. Dream on.
> > > First of all, 150mph on the pathetic NJ turnpike is not the same as
> > > 150mph on most deserted part of wide open western Interstates.
> > > Secondly, most Autobahns with (///) are narrow two lane each way
> > > pavements with GAURDRAILS to the left of #1 lane. Adn you do see cars
> > > going that speed and faster.
> >
> > Sure. Sure. 350 MPH is safe on the Nevada Salt Flats, so it *must* be safe
> driving on the
> > LA freeway too.
> > Grow up.
>
> Are you even reading what you're replying to or simply experiencing a
> knee-jerk reaction?
No. I'm just ducking from yours.
> > There is a reason it's called an 85th percentile. It is not a set number.
> Likely, it would
> > be higher in California than in New Jersey. In some place where no one but
> queers and
> > steers live, it might not even be a measured number because steers don't
> drive. It could
> > be like some of the desolate places that have no daytime speed limit at
> all. Then, perhaps
> > 200+ MPH is fine. That is what the 85th percentile would support, as well.
> But, in a place
> > where you have more than one person per square mile, I doubt that a 200+
> MPH speed limit
> > would be safe.
>
> He wasn't advocating one.
Yes, he is.
> > And again... how many American drivers own an M3?
>
> It seems that every other car in many parts of Cleveland is an M3. Mostly
> two-door
> models, but some four-door and Convertible models have been seen.
I've never even seen an M3.
> The number's been dwindling, though, at about the same rate that M Roadster
> and M Coupes have been popping up.
Never seen any M series. (not counting photos and such)
> > > HUH? Who ever said anything about doing that on surface street? We
> > > are talking about driving at 200km/h plus on limited access pavement
> > > designed for speed (yes, that includes even our turtle speed
> > > Interstate).
> >
> > First off... if you want to talk about AMERICAN roads (Interstates), use
> the proper
> > measurement. Miles per hour.
>
> 50kmh = ~30mph. 80km/h = ~50mph. It's not hard.
But, he's talking about having AMERICAN sped limits and driving at 130+ MPH on
AMERICAN roads. So, don't use European numbers to try and brag about how fast
you are driving on American roads.
> > Second, who would be talking about your moronic speeds being driving on
> surface streets?
> > The IIHS... the "speed kills" advocates. Any idiot that is just as hell
> bent on keeping
> > speeds dangerously low as you are on dangerously exceeding them.
>
> The IIHS is not participating in this discussion.
Point, if any? They ARE the ones (or some of them, anyways) that are pushing to
keep speed limits dangerously low. They ARE they ones that would throw right
back into any argument that this guy is talking (or bragging?) about driving at
130+ MPH on Interstates and how that should be what everyone drives.
> > Third, "we" were not talking about speeds UNDER 120 MPH. "We" were
> discussing speeds in
> > excess of 130 MPH.
>
> Sorry, not Carl. Lloyd.
Grow up. Again, do you really thing that Carl's most vehement opponent would
suddenly support reduced limits. Not in my lifetime. My site is devoted to the
ideal of getting speed limits raised. Idiots that propose that driving 130+ MPH
is "safe" is one of the reasons that those limits don't get raised. (the main
reason os that idiots driving at 130+ MPH also are a great source of revenue for
ticket writers)
> > > I would GLADLY pay 3.75 a gallon like it was in Germany if it means
> (///).
> >
> > And the increase in fatalities too?
>
> The roads would be empty if fuel was $3.75/gallon, so nothing to hit.
> And you think people are whining now because gasoline is at only $1.75 per!
Perhaps. Maybe that's why the Autobahn is "safe". They keep the roads empty.
> I calculate that it'd cost me 22.5 cents per mile to drive. Worth it.
> MPG wouldn't change much as I already keep the butterflies opened up
> on open roads... it'd just be legalised.
You drive 130+ MPH every day? Sure you do. Grow up. Let's see.... 22.5 cents per
mile. About 8 or so MPG... yep... $1.80 a gallon. At $3.75 a gallon, it would
cost you almost 50 cents a gallon. To drive 30 miles to work, you'd be spending
almost $30 a day... about $140 a week. Hell, right now, it's costing you about
$14 a day.. you're spending $70 a week on gas. Sucker.
I'll continue right on driving at 80 MPH (legal or not), thank you very much.
> > > Yes, 140mph sustained would get you about 8mpg in a E36 American M3,
> > > that 6th gear on E36 real M3's woudl really help.
> >
> > And again.. how many Americans own (or can afford) an M3?
>
> M3 only costs about $40-45k. Not much anymore. I see a lot of cars
> on the road that cost as much if not more than $40-45k. Every time you
> see a Corvette, it could be an M3. Every time you see a Navigator, it could
> be an M3. Every time you see an STS, it could be an M3.
Only? Only 40K? Damn, that's double the cost of my house. My truck, brand new,
only cost about $29K.. after financing. And just how many Vettes do you see
people driving? Sure, there are really stupid people out there spending tons of
cash for ultra-high priced cars. But, there are also people out there that can
buy a car for under $1,000. But, this much I can safely say... the $1,000 car...
won't come close to touching the performance of the M3. But, that same $1,000
junker will be sharing the same road as the M3. And who do you think stands more
to lose if there is a collision between the two?
> Used, you could pick one up for about $20-25k, for the E36 chassis.
> Myself, I'm waiting for a nice E30 model, I like the E30 chassis a lot more
> than the E36, and IMO the six is too torquey for the car's purpose.
>
> I've yet to see an M5 on the roads, though. Those are close to $100k!
Me either. But, I have seen a Viper or two. Listed top speed of 192 (with the
V10?). But, none of the Vipers I saw were even remotely close to driving faster
than 130 MPH.
> > No shit, Sherlock. And how do you think those politicians justify their
> stance to Susy
> > Soccer Mom? They point at some teenang moron full of zits, piss, and shit
> for brains and
> > tell them a sob story about the idiot that got drunk (which doesn't belong
> in a speeding
> > horror story anyways) and flew down some road at 120 MPH and ran over a
> cat (or some other
> > such shit). Ms. Bleeding Heart Liberal gets all teary eyes and says "Yes,
> we must do
> > something about this."
>
> Yes. Work to eliminate drunk driving, place a stigma on drunkenness like
> they've
> placed a stigma on cigarette smoking (just TRY to have a smoke in a public
> place
> without getting beaten up!), increase driver training SUBSTANTIALLY so we
> DON'T
> have the prevailing attitudes of "Oh who gives a crap" behind the wheel.
Having a drink is fine. Having a whole case of scotch is fine. Having a drink
and then sitting behind the wheel of a car.. is not.
The reason we have the "Oh, who gives a crap" attitudes is three fold.
#1: "Everyone" knows that 55 MPH is "safe". A total load of crap, but the sheep
hear, listen, and obey to the powers that be.
#2: "Everyone" knows that speed limits won't be raised to the 75-80 MPH 85th
percentile speeds because it's all about money anyways. And besides (as the
sheep are told) if the limits are raised to 75-80, then some people would start
driving "way too fast", and that's "bad" (as the sheep are told).
#3: "Everyone" knows that "everyone" drives at 75-80 MPH, so it's okay to do it.
Perhaps, someday, after the current limits are raised to 75 and 80, people will
see and begin to realize that 75 to 80 is a safe speed. They might even begin to
realize that even higher speed might be safe if driver training were improved.
Then, they'd seek it becuase after all, limits were raised once, they could be
raised again. And then, on that glorious day, speed limits just might not even
be needed. People could be trusted to drive responsibly.
But right now... no.. people can't be trusted to drive reponsibly. Just ask them
and they'll tell you about how bad "everyone else" drives.
> > Puleeze.. it's not the driver.. it's the car. Put them into an Escort and
> they'd be lost.
> > Anyone can drive 200+ MPH in a Ferrari.
>
> First you must find a Ferrari capable of 200+mph.
Okay. Give him a call. He can build one.
> Escorts are lucky to break 100mph.
But, they can still be driven on Interstates. Probably in the left lane. Why?
Because "it's safe" since "everyone" knows that 55 is "safe" and that speed
limits won't be raised anyways. (was that too much sarcasm again?)
Until the majority of the driving public can accept that raising speed limits
will #1: not cause a bloodbath, #2: not cause some people to drive like
banshees, and #3: understand that proper driver training would allow for safer
and faster speeds... they will not accept (or to be more accurate, force) them
to be enacted.
Michael A. Stone Jr.
A tractor trailer going over 70? I don't see it often, but if or when they do...
Hell yes get out of their way. First off, if they are going faster than you... move.
Don't block them. Then, get behind them. Then, press the long thin petal on the left
side of the vehicle. Speed up.
Tractor trailers don't exactly turn on a dime and aren't well know for the amazing
levels of visibility they have, either. So, I can understand why they don't want to
change lanes too much. And I can also understand why they want to keep their speed
as constant as they can. Gas isn't cheap and they use a bunch of it. Every drop they
save is money in their pockets. (unless the company pays for gas) So, cut em a break
and don't block them. You can go around them easily in most cases, unless some
granny is blocking the other lane(s). And if they are going around you... hit the
gas slowpoke.
> I hate to say it, but I think CA's laws regarding auto/trucks with trailers the
> lesser of the two evils.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> MarcW.
--
Michael A. Stone Jr.
> In article <39F350CE...@usa.net>,
> bi_teendude17 <bi_tee...@usa.net> wrote:
> }What kind of fuel economy do you get going 130mph with a typical mid
> }size sedan that gets around 30mpg @55mph ?
>
> Trick question; you can't get a typical mid size sedan to go 130mph...
> --
> Matthew T. Russotto russ...@pond.com
> "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
> of justice is no virtue."
Not really a trick question. (well sort of). The thread from the disagreement
was about a person that thinks 130+ MPH is a safe speed limit and driving speed
on American roads. Think about it. Would you really want Susy Soccer Mom, who
can't drive for crap at 65 MPH... driving at 130+ MPH?
Michael A. Stone Jr.
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2000 08:51:03 GMT, "Michael A. Stone Jr."
> <ma.s...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >And just how many Soccer Moms can get a limiter removed? You aren't the only
> >driver on the road.
>
> News flash, life is not fair. I am sick of all the restrictions being
> placed on the competent people because of what "those stupid people
> might/could do." How about actually dealing with those stupid people
> and get to the root of the damn problem.
I wish you luck. Unfortunately... stupid people vote. And worse still... the
stupiest of the run for office.
> >And just how many Soccer Moms can have after-market tires on their mini-vans?
> >(except for the Firestone recall ;) You aren't the only driver on the road.
>
> Didn't you learn long ago that life is not fair. You can give special
> considreation to people because of extraneous circumstance, but in the
> end, LIFE IS NOT F*&KING FAIR. That's why some cars have better
> brakes, some cars have better handling, and gasp, some cars even cost
> a lot of dough. And incidentally, Izzy is right, the percentage of
> Germans who can afford machines capable of 150mph are probably about
> the same as here, if that (since they tax by the engine size and
> insurance for them are also exobitant). But plenty of moms with baby
> seats can afford 1.3 liter Opel capable of about 120mph.
And 120 would be fine. Well, sort of. Given how most of them drive, I don't relish
the though of them trying to go that fast. And, while life might not be fair, those
people that can't afford those cars and extra goodies... vote too.
> Oh and BTW, thanks for that racist "love it or leave it" crap, that's
> really mature.
Any time. If you think Germany is so superior, go. Don't hang around complaining
about America if you'd rather be in Germany. What did they do, force you to leave?
> >And just how many Soccer Moms can have after-market rotors on their mini-vans?
>
> Uh, we were talking about stock rotors on the M3's, FYI. Last I
> checked, my friend's mom's Dodge Intrepid rotors cost close to a
> hundred bucks a pair.
No, we were talking about having a speed limit where everyone would be driving 130+
MPH. And, "close to $100" is not the same as $150.
> >Near maximum? Why not AT maximum? Or... perhaps even.. past maximum. If you are
>
> They are stock, and yes, even stock American E36 M3's can do 60 to 0
> in less than 3 seconds, not quite 2.6, but still out brakes just about
> everything on the road. And there is no shame in having better tools
> for the job, not if you got it fair and square.
Then there should be no problem in braking faster than the maximum listed rate,
should there?
> >driving a car that has a couple hundred dollars worth of after market items
> >installed, that's great. But, there are people out there that only have the
> >absolute basics (if that) on their cars. And, driving means contending with
>
> There are also people out there who can't read, who dropped out of
> high school, blah blah blah. I am all for caring for the less
> fortunate, but I am sick and tired of having my freedom (look it up,
> it's in the Constitution) restricted because some stupid people might
> do this, some stupid people might do that. I am sick of this lowest
> common denominator bullshit.
You don't have a freedom to drive. There is nothing in the Constitution regarding
your freedom to drive. I'm just as sick of the "common denominator" bullshit as
you.. .likely more so. But, you aren't going to convince anyone that speed limits
should be raised by talking about driving at 150 MPH in the Western States. All that
will do is give the "speed kills" advocates yet more ammunition to toss onto their
cause. If you want to promote something, you don't push for the most radical of
options. You go a little at a time. Today, get speed limits raised to the current
85th percentile speeds. Then, when people begin to realise that driving at 75 MPH
isn't an instant death sentence... when the fatality rate drops... then push for
better driver education and for safer vehicles. As the fatality rate drops lower,
the "pleas" of the IIHS and other "speed kills" groups will be more and more lame
and have less and less actual weight. They won't be able to "prove" that higher
speeds are bad, because after all, fatalities are down. Their greed will be overly
apparant (as opposed to just blatantly apparant, as now) and even politicans
couldn't justify lower speed limits.
When speed limits were raised, fatalities didn't increase. When one state completely
eliminated them, there was no "blood bath". In fact, for the most part, collisions
and fatalities decreased. So did overall speeds. The reason the limit had to be
reinstated was that a "reasonable and safe" speed limit could be defined as
"reasonable and safe". Some people said 120. Others (read: greedy police departments
and insurance companies) said 60. But, they had to have a number of some sort. They
picked 75. When people said 60, the response was.. {come on... that's too slow}.
When they said 120.. {come on... that's too fast}.
America is a "majority rules" country where the speed limit is not set by the
majority (usually). The majority says 75. They could say faster, they could say
slower. But for now, the majority says 75. I see no reason why the majority should
not have 75. The only real reasons twe don't have 75 is that speed limits = revenue
and that certain people (read: Carl Taylor) will be more that willing to point at
everyone or anyone that claims to drive over 100 and relate that to driving 100 in a
school zone. I know (and I think you know) that is about as stupid as one can get.
But, stupid is as stupid does. And when you claim to drive at triple digit speeds,
others are going to use it to "show" how dangerous raising speed limits would be.
Even if it's not.
> Andy
> 98 M3 black/black
nmoberg
<ma.s...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>I wish you luck. Unfortunately... stupid people vote. And worse still... the
>stupiest of the run for office.
And you are running for what? <G>
John David Galt
> From CA, I liked the law that restricted autos/trucks with trailers to the right
> most lane except when passing and to 55MPH top speed.
>
> Here in the midwest, you get every yayhoo pulling a trailer barreling down the
> freeway, in dry or wet weather, at the limit or above, and then you have the
> 18-wheelers running 70MPH+ and whose drivers don't slow down too much because 1)
> they don't want to lose momentum and 2) want to intimidate you to get out their
> way be you in the fast lane or the slow lane.
I doubt you'd feel this way if you'd driven much in California.
The laws restricting trucks have a nasty result: Many firms that operate trucks,
especially the local ones, are pressured by CHP into putting speed governors in
the trucks. So on otherwise uncrowded sections of I-5 (where it is two lanes
each way) you often get stuck for 5-10 minutes because Truck A felt like getting
into the fast lane at 55 mph to pass Truck B going 54 mph. In harvest season
this can and will happen over and over again for hundreds of miles!
We could do some good by absolutely banning any truck with a speed governor from
entering the fast lane, even to pass. But far better would be to scrap the truck
restrictions altogether. It's amazing how much easier driving gets, and how much
everyone's lane discipline improves, when you cross into Arizona on I-10 or I-40
and the limit goes up to 75 for everybody.
Bill22
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2000 11:37:23 GMT, "Michael A. Stone Jr."
> <ma.s...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
#### nmoberg wrote:
> >I wish you luck. Unfortunately... stupid people vote. And worse
still... the
> >stupiest of the run for office.
>
> And you are running for what? <G>
Hummm...interesting...a regular contributor?
But hey...he does make a good contribution...yeap
--
***************************************************
It is of immense importance to learn to
laugh at ourselves.
--Katherine Mansfield//////Question of the day.
Do we get carried away or you have strong feeling?
Brent Peterson
>
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2000 08:51:03 GMT, "Michael A. Stone Jr."
> <ma.s...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >And just how many Soccer Moms can get a limiter removed? You aren't the only
> >driver on the road.
> News flash, life is not fair. I am sick of all the restrictions being
> placed on the competent people because of what "those stupid people
> might/could do." How about actually dealing with those stupid people
> and get to the root of the damn problem.
At least there is somebody else in the world that believes that....
I was begining to loose hope....
> And incidentally, Izzy is right, the percentage of
> Germans who can afford machines capable of 150mph are probably about
> the same as here, if that (since they tax by the engine size and
> insurance for them are also exobitant). But plenty of moms with baby
> seats can afford 1.3 liter Opel capable of about 120mph.
Yep. Most of the cars I saw in germany had 1.6L or smaller engines.
Yet the bulk managed to get to 160kph. (100mph). But that doesn't matter
because lane discipline and signalling are so good a 200mph porsche and
a 2CV can share the same road without difficultly.
> >driving a car that has a couple hundred dollars worth of after market items
> >installed, that's great. But, there are people out there that only have the
> >absolute basics (if that) on their cars. And, driving means contending with
> There are also people out there who can't read, who dropped out of
> high school, blah blah blah. I am all for caring for the less
> fortunate, but I am sick and tired of having my freedom (look it up,
> it's in the Constitution) restricted because some stupid people might
> do this, some stupid people might do that. I am sick of this lowest
> common denominator bullshit.
Agreed.
Arif Khokar
"Michael A. Stone Jr." message
> But, stupid is as stupid does. And when you claim to drive at triple digit
speeds,
> others are going to use it to "show" how dangerous raising speed limits
would be.
> Even if it's not.
>
The way I see this is that if someone claims to drive (or have driven at)
triple digit speeds (that includes, Andy, you, myself, and several other
people who have posted in the past), they really don't take the posted limit
into consideration whatsoever.
The road that I took my car up to 145 mph is posted at 65 mph. About 2 and
1/2 years ago, the same road was posted at 55 mph. I normally drive that
road at 75 to 80 mph (its a 4 lane divided highway). I personally decided
that since I could see for at least 1/4 mile and it was broad daylight,
sparse traffic, I thought (at the time) that it was a good opportunity to
see what my car was capable of.
I don't really think that the way Andy drives is really going to be used
against us. I mean, how many people do you personally know that drive that
way. Where I live, I drive faster than pratically all other traffic I
encounter on the highway. Its extremely rare for me to get passed (but it
has happened). I'm sure that if Andy encountered me, he'd leave me in the
dust...but then again...what proportion of the population would do
that....0.01% or something like that. That type of driver is too rare to
even garner the publicity it would need to even have an effect on speed
limit laws as they now stand. From my experience, its usually collisions
due to driver error that get a section of road classified as dangerous and
result in lower speed limits and stricter enforcement.
Just my 2 cents.
Arif Khokar
"Andy Chi" wrote
In light of what you said about the z rated tires on the M3, I think that
may be the same reason that the limiter on the S4 was set at 145 mph. Its
probably in place for the time when the (stupid) owner (not me ;) replaces
the stock tires with just V rated tires. I had read somewhere that z rated
tires were either unspecified or combined with W or Y ratings (therefore
giving it a top rated speed). The S4 (according to car and driver) can top
out at 162 mph. This means that the tires should have a minimum rating of
W.
Here are the tire speed ratings I found at the tire rack site.
P=93 MPH, 150km/h H=130 MPH, 210km/h
Q=99 MPH, 160km/h V=149 MPH, 240km/h
S=112 MPH, 180km/h W=168 MPH, 270km/h
T=118 MPH, 190km/h Y=186 MPH, 300km/h
U=124 MPH, 200km/h Z=149 MPH, 240km/h and over
Arif Khokar
"Michael A. Stone Jr." wrote
> Not really a trick question. (well sort of). The thread from the
disagreement
> was about a person that thinks 130+ MPH is a safe speed limit and driving
speed
> on American roads. Think about it. Would you really want Susy Soccer Mom,
who
> can't drive for crap at 65 MPH... driving at 130+ MPH?
Well, a soccer mom driving an SUV will never be able to attain that speed.
I posted earlier that the top speed I got with an Isuzu Trooper (1996) was
95 mph (nowhere near 130). I think that most other SUV's are the
same...well if you count the LEO's version of the Chevy Tahoe...that might
be an exception.
John F. Carr
Car and Driver mentioned American S4 speed limiters briefly in a couple
stories. I don't remember details. The speed limiter came late; they
either tested or reported on an early version with no limiter.
Brad Ackerman
<ma.s...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Don't hate America just because America happens to be the leader of
> the free world. Don't hate America just because America happens to be
> the most advanced country in the world. Don't hate America just
> because America happens to be the more successful country in the
> world. Don't hate America just because America happens to have the
> most stable government in the world.
I'll give you the "leader of the free world" bit, but how are you
defining "advanced"? Not in any terms that make sense -- the US doesn't
use standard units, doesn't have intercity train service of acceptable
speed (i.e., > 250 km/h), produces high school graduates who can't even
come close to passing O levels and believe that Uri Geller can bend
spoons, only recently approved RU-486, treats Scientology as a religion,
etc.
> If you want to hate America, hate it because it's the only country in
> the world where your race, creed, color, national hertiage, sex,
> etc.. doesn't matter. It's WHO not WHAT you are that matters.
You're completely full of it here. What matters is who you know (just
ask Dubya), and people are stopped all the time for driving (or flying,
or being) while black. There are a large number of countries which do a
worse job in this area, but the US is by no means a paragon of
achievement.
--
Brad Ackerman N1MNB "[GWB is] prissy, arrogant, brittle, not terribly bright,
Wandering Gweep and if he gets anywhere near the White House the damage
bs...@cornell.edu he will do the country will, I believe, be *substantial*."
PGP: 0x62D6B223 -- J. Michael Straczynski, on r.a.s.t.b5.moderated
Bill22
>
> > There are also people out there who can't read, who dropped
out of
> > high school, blah blah blah. I am all for caring for the less
> > fortunate, but I am sick and tired of having my freedom (look it
up,
> > it's in the Constitution) restricted because some stupid people
might
> > do this, some stupid people might do that. I am sick of this
lowest
> > common denominator bullshit.
>
>
Talk to to NRA??
--
***************************************************
It is of immense importance to learn to
laugh at ourselves.
--Katherine Mansfield//////Question of the day.
Standards have two meaning?
Marc Warden
> <snip
>
> A tractor trailer going over 70? I don't see it often, but if or when they do...
> Hell yes get out of their way. First off, if they are going faster than you... move.
> Don't block them. Then, get behind them. Then, press the long thin petal on the left
> side of the vehicle. Speed up.
> Tractor trailers don't exactly turn on a dime and aren't well know for the amazing
> levels of visibility they have, either. So, I can understand why they don't want to
> change lanes too much. And I can also understand why they want to keep their speed
> as constant as they can. Gas isn't cheap and they use a bunch of it. Every drop they
> save is money in their pockets. (unless the company pays for gas) So, cut em a break
> and don't block them. You can go around them easily in most cases, unless some
> granny is blocking the other lane(s). And if they are going around you... hit the
> gas slowpoke.
>
<snip>
Oh, yeah I see it often. In fact I can generally tell when the road ahead is clear of
smokies because the truckers speed up to 70mph+.
I'm not talking about me slowpoking in the fast lane but driving the limit or sometimes
just a skosh over and trying to get around a slower car in the slow lane and a trucker
comes up behind me running fast.
Sometimes they get real close before I can get around the other car and back over to the
slow lane to let the truck by.
I'm very careful to not block a truck and give them a wide berth. I'm probably only one
of a handful of car drivers who will let a trucker pull out in front of him, even
sometimes when space is tight signaling the way is clear by flashing my lights on and
off like I see truckers do for one another. More than once I've gotten flashed back as a
thank you acknowledgement once the driver is safely over into my lane.
After driving across the southwest several times in the last year or so, I've developed
a deeper respect for truck drivers. However, some of them, and hear this over the CB
radio that I carry with me on the freeway on long trips (and sometimes even short trips
of around 100 miles or so), have a somewhat understandable hatred of '4-wheelers' (and I
can't put the derision into the word that some of the truckers manage to put into it)
but some take it to the extreme.
On one occasion, I heard one trucker bragging about running a 4-wheeler off the road,
for reasons I managed not to hear. But to the defense of truckers, I heard many truckers
come on the air to chastise this trucker and his behavior as being negative for truckers
all over.
Sincerely,
MarcW.
Marc Warden
I spent 30+ years driving in CA.
And I have seen what you report and understand the cause. However, every time I've
been on I5 (between Sacto and LA area) I've yet to see it uncrowded. Most of the time
the slow lane is moving around 50 to 60mph and is pretty jammed with traffic (cars and
trucks) and the fast lane is not quite as full, but vehicles are moving at quite a bit
above the limit.
Driving manners do improve when one crosses into Az. In fact, I see a noticable
improvement on I40 or I10 even before AZ. (Driving I40 from Barstow to Needles is one
nice drive, very relaxing.)
Anyhow, I attribute this to the drop off in traffic, not the easing of the 55mph limit
on 18-wheelers and trucks/autos with trailers.
But here in teh mid-west, with no limit on 18-wheelers or trucks/autos with trailers,
I see a noticable increase in agressive driving by truckers. They are meek in CA, but
make up for it here in MO.
Maybe it is Mo. Mo has lots of roads (5th in the nation in miles of road) but most are
terrible. Rough, poorly laid out, poorly marked if they're marked at all, all kinds of
goofy signs -- Pass with Care every mile or so for instance -- but heavily patroled.
Smokies and city kitties everywhere with radar and just a-pulling over drivers as fast
as they can.
Tax collecting, don't you know, because you can for a fee get the citation dropped to
an equipment violation from a moving violation.
Sincerely,
MarcW.
Marc Warden
> <snip>
>
> I don't remember the link in particular but one study that Michael Stone
> posted showed that increasing speed limits increased compliance and reduced
> speeds of the 99th percentile drivers, while lowering speed limits decreased
> compliance and actually led to an increase in speeds of 99th percentile
> drivers. If you take this a step further, lower compliance with speed
> limits leads to more violations and more speeding tickets issued. The
> insurance companies therefore get to charge higher premiums to a greater
> proportion to the people they insure than they would if speed limits were
> raised to a higher level. Now if you also consider studies that show that
> setting speed limits to the 85th percentile level leads to the lowest
> accident rates, then you can see that money and not safety is the primary
> reason insurance companies try to lobby for lower speed limits.
And they charge higher premiums for 3 years until the point(s) decay off one's
driving record.
The fine is a spike in one's budget, but the insurance hit is a plateau that one
must live on for 3 years.
Sincerely,
MarcW.
El Kabong
unstable at speeds >100mph, and few cars have the suspension needed to deal with
any sort of maneuvering at those speeds.
From what I understand, there's little performance or handling advantage in
using up-rated tires well beyond what a car is capable of.. But it's good
marketing, I guess - sort of like putting a spoiler on an SUV....
Surendar Jeyadev
>
>> In article <sv0jiqg...@corp.supernews.com>,>> > [ .... stuff deleted ...]
>> >
>> >> Even a 20 MPH differential is exceedingly dangerous. But, while I don't
>> >
>> > [ .... stuff deleted ...]
>> >
>>
>> You should try Europe sometime. (Believe it or not, there are more countries
>> in the world than the US.) Speed differentials can be enormous there as there
>> are lots of small cars doing 45 or 50 mph and there are BMWs and and Mercs
>> doing 100+ and I have rarely been that safe in *any* interstate in the US.
>> The reason is ....
>
>Um, sure. And I'm King of England. Millionaire. I own a mansion and a yacht.
>
>> >mph. The only real danger posed by a 20+ mph differential is the lack of
>> >lane disipline in this country as well as people failing to check their
>> >mirrors before moving into your lane.
>>
>> .... Hallelujah, somebody nails it on the head. Yes, Europeans are, simply,
>> superb drivers, signalling every move, moving over when faster cars need
>> to overtake them, checking their rear view mirrors, .... they just know
>> what is takes to drive. Part of that is because the licensing procedure
>> is tougher and part it is pure culture. So, they comments are true, but
>> not everywhere.
>
>Sure. Sure. "Superb" drivers. So are Americans. Ask any of them. They'll be glad
>to tell you. The more "superb" they are, the more they claim it. And you seem to
>be claiming that European drivers are the most superb of all. I'll even forego
>the fact the the US Interstate system has the lowest fatality rate in the world.
>Or the fact that no other country in the world has as many licensed drivers. Or
>as many vehicle miles driven.
>We still pay about $5 a gallon less than you.
Ease up mate. I *am* American. Why the sensitivity? I know we hate to be
anything but the first in everything (why do you think that we are the
world capital of ..... ). I do not think we need be that insecure as to
go off the handle over a comment like that.
>Don't hate America just because America happens to be the leader of the free
>world. Don't hate America just because America happens to be the most advanced
>country in the world. Don't hate America just because America happens to be the
>more successful country in the world. Don't hate America just because America
>happens to have the most stable government in the world.
>
>If you want to hate America, hate it because it's the only country in the world
>where your race, creed, color, national hertiage, sex, etc.. doesn't matter. It's
>WHO not WHAT you are that matters.
Ha, ha, ha, ha.
--
Surendar Jeyadev jey...@wrc.xerox.com
Surendar Jeyadev
Arif Khokar <akhok...@wvu.edu> wrote:
>
>"Surendar Jeyadev" <jey...@wrc.xerox.com> wrote in message
>
>
>> .... Hallelujah, somebody nails it on the head. Yes, Europeans are,
>simply,
>> superb drivers, signalling every move, moving over when faster cars need
>> to overtake them, checking their rear view mirrors, .... they just know
>> what is takes to drive. Part of that is because the licensing procedure
>> is tougher and part it is pure culture. So, they comments are true, but
>> not everywhere.
>>
>>
>> Surendar Jeyadev jey...@wrc.xerox.com
>
>Of course, there's driving in india and pakistan....lol ;^)....whats a
>lane??
Who cares, as long as you get through, eh? The last time in India, I was
on one of those new fangled divided highways and there was a lorry
heading straight towards us!
And, I can tell you about a thiry something roadworker with two young
children who was killed by an eighty something, right here is upstate NY.
--
Surendar Jeyadev jey...@wrc.xerox.com
Surendar Jeyadev
nmoberg <nmo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 20 Oct 2000 15:12:45 GMT, jey...@wrc.xerox.com (Surendar Jeyadev)
>wrote:
>
>
>>
>>.... Hallelujah, somebody nails it on the head. Yes, Europeans are, simply,
>>superb drivers, signalling every move, moving over when faster cars need
>>to overtake them, checking their rear view mirrors, .... they just know
>>what is takes to drive. Part of that is because the licensing procedure
>>is tougher and part it is pure culture. So, they comments are true, but
>>not everywhere.
>>
>
>
>better than the average driver in the U.S. but there are still some
>pretty bad drivers in Europe. Particularly when you get closer to the
>former Eastern Bloc countries. Some very very bad drivers there.
Agreed! Shows my age, ain't it? In my salad days, Europe was a lot
smaller .... I know what you mean, though, ......
--
Surendar Jeyadev jey...@wrc.xerox.com
Surendar Jeyadev
Andy Chi <m3f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>German license is not something that is easy to get, most CURRENT
>American licensed expat drivers when trying to obtain a German one
>have a tough time passing. It's like fitrst grade math versus SAT. It
>is that dramatic.
Actually, it is so difficult to get one that Germans are crossing borders
to get licensed in other EC countries! Netherlands is a favourite.
--
Surendar Jeyadev jey...@wrc.xerox.com
Izzy...
Andy Chi <m3f...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:39f3d7fb...@news.mindspring.com...
Really? I thought they were limited to 137 because they couldn't hit BMW's
"gentleman's agreement" 155 max speed, so they put in an articifial limiter
to save face.
With only 240-odd HP, I doubt they could hit 155mph with their aerodynamics
and frontal area. I have the formula somewhere, if I could obtain the aero
cd
and the frontal area, would be nothing at all to calculate how much HP is
required to push 155mph worth of air.
As for Audi... no clue at all.
Izzy...
>
> News flash, life is not fair.
Oh don't you know? It's the latest Amendment. "The pursuit of happiness"
has been interpreted as the RIGHT to happiness, and so it's need legislated
that life will be fair to everyone.
I remember reading short story, cannot remember the title, but the story was
about the US turning into the Lowest Common Denominator, where everyone
is made equal by law. If you were strong, you were weakened. If you were
intelligent, you were dumbed. If you were, say, a talented violinist, your
fingers
and arms were repeatedly broken, all until everyone was equal and nobody
was substandard.
It appears that this fiction may have been a prophecy.
>I am sick of all the restrictions being
> placed on the competent people because of what "those stupid people
> might/could do." How about actually dealing with those stupid people
> and get to the root of the damn problem.
But... that's rational!
> Oh and BTW, thanks for that racist "love it or leave it" crap, that's
> really mature.
I wouldn't say "racist"... and IIRC this country was created by people
who didn't "love it or leave it" but DID SOMETHING ABOUT THEIR
SITUATION. "Love it or leave it" has got to be the OPPOSITE of
the "American Spirit".
> >And just how many Soccer Moms can have after-market rotors on their
mini-vans?
>
> Uh, we were talking about stock rotors on the M3's, FYI. Last I
> checked, my friend's mom's Dodge Intrepid rotors cost close to a
> hundred bucks a pair.
I guess the rear discs on a piece of shit Capri XR2 are better than the M3
brakes because they cost about $150 a pop, eh? <g>
I didn't know M3 rotors were so cheap. Very *interesting*... I wonder
how hard an M3 brake swap onto a lesser E36 car would be.
> There are also people out there who can't read, who dropped out of
> high school,
Hey now. High school doesn't teach common sense.
- Pete (Progressing nicely on the Evil Engine for my '80 RX-7... heh heh
heh)
nmoberg
<izz...@bge.ton-em-maps.net> wrote:
>
>Andy Chi <m3f...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
I'm going to guess 150 on a very long straight. I show a 97 M3 with
20.2 Sq. feet of frontal area, a Cd of .32 and a ground clearance of
4.3 inches.
C.R. Krieger
>
> "Andy Chi" wrote
> >
> > You should attend the school put out by Quattro clubs then, or hell,
> > even BMWCCA. I can very easily get near maximum braking out of my car,
> > and no, that's without the ABS engaging.
>
> Well, I don't have quite that much money on my hands (after getting the S4)
> so I'd like to minimize maintenance costs for now.
>
> BTW...anyone know the nearest driving school...I'm in WV.
Right there at Summit Point. If you're in northern WVa, don't overlook
the possibilities of going to Watkins Glen, Nelson Ledges, and Mid Ohio,
either.
Simplest way to find all these is to join the Q Club and use their
connections to the BMW club. The BMW CCA website will guide you to most
of the individual chapters' schools while the Q Club runs theirs all
pretty much out of the national office in MN. I'd start planning NOW
for next summer.
--
C.R. Krieger
"Ignore 'em, m'dear; they're beneath your dignity." - W.C. Fields
C.R. Krieger
> If you can't race at a racetrack, perhaps your racing
> skills just aren't good enough to play with the big boys after all. They also realize
> that racing is for race tracks. They don't race on streets. That little scene from
> "Days of Thunder"... that would get a real driver blackballed permanently.
You mean like BMW Williams Team's Jenson Button getting nailed TWICE
this past year driving his DIESEL BMW at over 140 mph? If you think HE
won't work in F1 again, you're not quite as smart as Junior Johnson ...
Izzy...
Michael A. Stone Jr. <ma.s...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:39F3ECB4...@worldnet.att.net...
> "Izzy..." wrote:
> > ? They take driving seriously in Germany. It is hideously expensive
and
> > difficult
> > to get a license there. When the US requires paramedic training to get
a
> > driver's
> > license then you can tell him to "grow up".
>
> Paramedic training? As in full licensing or just basic classes? I'd be
> completely in support of basic first aid training. But, I'd suspect they'd
be
> some pretty serious issues with having everyone become a fully licensed
EMT.
> Then again, if he loves Germany so much, he can move.
I think it's only basic classes, but even that is a whole hell of a lot more
than
what is required in the US. If you are 18 or over in my state (Ohio), you
are not even required to have driver's training! Many people I know waited
to turn 18 before getting their license to save the expense. The classes
were
a complete joke, too.
What this country needs is driver *training*, by accredited schools, with
real-world education and not spending half of the time preparing for the
dreaded maneuverability test <scoff>. And real driver's tests. And
mandatory
re-tests when renewing a license, instead of just signing a form every four
or
so years from the age of 16 until you die.
> > If nobody drove faster than the average speed, the average would drop.
> > If nobody drove fater than the 85th percentile, the 85th percentile
would
> > drop.
>
> And if everyone drove faster, it would go up. The 85th percentile doesn't
change
> much based on speed limits. Raise it ten, drop it ten, eliminate it
> completely... most people still drive about 75 MPH. Did you have a point?
Yes. You can't have an 85th percentile without numbers higher or lower.
You can't deny what is already happening out there. The fact that most
people
are driving at 75mph or so proves that people will drive at what they
percieve
as a safe speed, regardless of what the numbers on the sign are.
> > Probably a similar percentage as "over there".
>
> So, what you are saying then is there really aren't that many people over
there
> driving at or over 130 MPH?
Yes.
> > You don't need a high pricd German car to top 150mph... any snot-nosed
brat
> > in the Z28 that
> > his mommy bought him or her could technically do it. Or the old farts
in
> > their Caddy STSs
> > (and yes they are old farts) if they ever pushed the gas pedal with
their
> > canes hard enough.
>
> I'm sure every factory spec car rolling off the Detroit (mexico) lines is
> capable of topping 150 right off the factory showroom, no modifications.
Yep,
> just walk into a showroom, plop down some cash, get a Chevy Silverado, and
> whammo... the thing can top 150? Not.
> Yes, they could "technically" do it. But most of them aren't technical
people.
> They just buy a car and drive. No modifications.
Eh? Did not mention Silverado or "every factory spec car". Just that it's
not only
higher end German cars that atre capable of 150mph+ speeds. As before,
anyone
plunking down $25k on a new Z28 can hit nearly 160. I could get a used 3.0l
SHO
and run 145mph, or I could get a used stock '89ish 5.0 'Stang, if there are
any '89
5.0 Stangs left that are still stock. (Top speed tested 144-145mph...)
But would I? No. (Especially not in a Mustang... eew) I feel most
comfortable
driving about 95-105 in my '7, or ~85-95 in either of my T-birds.
But then again, I'm not the rest of the world. Many people want to drive
75mph.
Some people want to drive 135mph. It depends on road conditions, traffic
conditions, car condition, driver condition. That is what (///) means.
The problem is, it wouldn't fly in this country because people are so used
to
butting their heads on a speed-limit ceiling that they'd get dizzy and freak
out
if they were suddenly exposed to the open air.
> > Mension "Opel" and many people will think Saturn LS. Some more people
will
> > think Isuzu
> > or Cadillac Catera or SAAB.
>
> SAAB? A Swedish jet fighter SAAB? And Cadillac is Cadillac... not Opel.
SAAB and Caddy are doing platform-sharing with Opel.
> > Sure. Sure. I'm sure that you can go flying through downtown Seattle on
an
> > Interstate at
> > > 180 MPH and nobody is going to be even the slightest bit shocked or
> > worried.
> > > Grow up.
> >
> > Sure thing Carl.
>
> Grow up. Do you really thing someone running a "Get out of your ticket"
website
> is anything near like Carl. Dream on.
I see the knee-jerk reaction, the attitude present, and identify it
accordingly.
Nothing more.
> > > And again... how many American drivers own an M3?
> >
> > It seems that every other car in many parts of Cleveland is an M3.
Mostly
> > two-door
> > models, but some four-door and Convertible models have been seen.
>
> I've never even seen an M3.
Sorry to hear that. They look pretty interesting, a bit more purposeful
than
a standard 3-series, but with the German understatedness, the subtlety.
The drive pretty nice too, although IMO they're too torquey for the
car's intended purpose.
> > The number's been dwindling, though, at about the same rate that M
Roadster
> > and M Coupes have been popping up.
>
> Never seen any M series. (not counting photos and such)
Again, sorry to hear that. The M Coupe is quite startling, especially
from the 3/4-rear view.
> > 50kmh = ~30mph. 80km/h = ~50mph. It's not hard.
>
> But, he's talking about having AMERICAN sped limits and driving at 130+
MPH on
> AMERICAN roads. So, don't use European numbers to try and brag about how
fast
> you are driving on American roads.
Are they American roads he's bragging about?
> > The IIHS is not participating in this discussion.
>
> Point, if any? They ARE the ones (or some of them, anyways) that are
pushing to
> keep speed limits dangerously low. They ARE they ones that would throw
right
> back into any argument that this guy is talking (or bragging?) about
driving at
> 130+ MPH on Interstates and how that should be what everyone drives.
It's not what everybody "should" do. But it's also not what everybody
"shouldn't"
do.
> > > Third, "we" were not talking about speeds UNDER 120 MPH. "We" were
> > discussing speeds in
> > > excess of 130 MPH.
> >
> > Sorry, not Carl. Lloyd.
>
> Grow up. Again, do you really thing that Carl's most vehement opponent
would
> suddenly support reduced limits. Not in my lifetime. My site is devoted to
the
> ideal of getting speed limits raised. Idiots that propose that driving
130+ MPH
> is "safe" is one of the reasons that those limits don't get raised. (the
main
> reason os that idiots driving at 130+ MPH also are a great source of
revenue for
> ticket writers)
Are you sure? Costs an awful lot of money to keep someone incarcerated...
unless you mean to say that there are places where a ticket about 25-over
will
only result in a higher fine, and not license suspension and jail time, in
which
case I'm moving.
> > > > I would GLADLY pay 3.75 a gallon like it was in Germany if it means
> > (///).
> > >
> > > And the increase in fatalities too?
> >
> > The roads would be empty if fuel was $3.75/gallon, so nothing to hit.
> > And you think people are whining now because gasoline is at only $1.75
per!
>
> Perhaps. Maybe that's why the Autobahn is "safe". They keep the roads
empty.
And people know their place, and are trained to operate their vehicles
instead of
taught how to parallel park them before being released into the wild.
> > I calculate that it'd cost me 22.5 cents per mile to drive. Worth it.
> > MPG wouldn't change much as I already keep the butterflies opened up
> > on open roads... it'd just be legalised.
>
> You drive 130+ MPH every day? Sure you do. Grow up. Let's see.... 22.5
cents per
> mile. About 8 or so MPG... yep... $1.80 a gallon. At $3.75 a gallon, it
would
> cost you almost 50 cents a gallon.
My car tops out about 125 or so MPH. (I round to 200km/h, seeing that most
of the
people I communicate with are Metric, I get used to it) I cruise around
95-105,
sometimes I let it wide open. 22.5cents/mile is at 3.75/gallon, with my
current average
of 12 gallons to a 200-mile range, or 16.667mpg. Again, that is with mostly
driving
and accelerating at or near WOT. Lightly cruising in 5th can get as much as
24mpg.
Bonus.
>To drive 30 miles to work, you'd be spending
> almost $30 a day... about $140 a week. Hell, right now, it's costing you
about
> $14 a day.. you're spending $70 a week on gas. Sucker.
> I'll continue right on driving at 80 MPH (legal or not), thank you very
much.
Actually, I drive (did drive) a lot... I'd have to fill the tank roughly
every other
day. I don't even worry about it, I spend more money to feed myself than to
feed my car, I spend more money on tools. I don't have a car payment.
> > M3 only costs about $40-45k. Not much anymore. I see a lot of cars
> > on the road that cost as much if not more than $40-45k. Every time you
> > see a Corvette, it could be an M3. Every time you see a Navigator, it
could
> > be an M3. Every time you see an STS, it could be an M3.
>
> Only? Only 40K? Damn, that's double the cost of my house. My truck, brand
new,
> only cost about $29K.. after financing. And just how many Vettes do you
see
> people driving?
Way too many. Lots of Miatas, S2000s, big Mercedes, Camaros for the kids,
BMW 5-series and 3-series...
>Sure, there are really stupid people out there spending tons of
> cash for ultra-high priced cars. But, there are also people out there that
can
> buy a car for under $1,000. But, this much I can safely say... the $1,000
car...
> won't come close to touching the performance of the M3. But, that same
$1,000
> junker will be sharing the same road as the M3. And who do you think
stands more
> to lose if there is a collision between the two?
I've never spent more than one paycheck on a car. I consider rust to be
inevitable so I don't bother getting a perfect body; as long as it's
structurally
sound and the mechanicals are in good shape then it's a keeper.
I paid $750 for my RX-7 and it's been trouble-free for the 20k miles that
I've thrown on it in the eight months that I've been driving it. Due for
another
new set of tires, and I think I'll throw in a CD changer before the winter.
A/C still works, has ferocious heat, good brakes, incredibly good handling,
and has pretty minor rust. Definite keeper.
http://www.geocities.com/izzmus/images/POSand7.jpg
The bad side.
> > Used, you could pick one up for about $20-25k, for the E36 chassis.
> > Myself, I'm waiting for a nice E30 model, I like the E30 chassis a lot
more
> > than the E36, and IMO the six is too torquey for the car's purpose.
> >
> > I've yet to see an M5 on the roads, though. Those are close to $100k!
>
> Me either. But, I have seen a Viper or two. Listed top speed of 192 (with
the
> V10?). But, none of the Vipers I saw were even remotely close to driving
faster
> than 130 MPH.
Vipers are parade floats. The small wannabe-burb where I lived as a teen
had
about 5 or 6 different ones when I moved out. The GTSs (coupe) are the ones
that hit that high of a speed, the much more common RT/10 will hit only
about
160 before hitting an aerodynamic wall.
Sorry to say this, but most 'Vettes are parade floats too. There are
exceptions
but for the most part they're owned by inseceure newly-rich.
> > Yes. Work to eliminate drunk driving, place a stigma on drunkenness
like
> > they've
> > placed a stigma on cigarette smoking (just TRY to have a smoke in a
public
> > place
> > without getting beaten up!), increase driver training SUBSTANTIALLY so
we
> > DON'T
> > have the prevailing attitudes of "Oh who gives a crap" behind the wheel.
>
> Having a drink is fine. Having a whole case of scotch is fine. Having a
drink
> and then sitting behind the wheel of a car.. is not.
Depends on who you talk to. How can we ratonalise anti drunk driving if
we condone drunkenness?
> The reason we have the "Oh, who gives a crap" attitudes is three fold.
> #1: "Everyone" knows that 55 MPH is "safe". A total load of crap, but the
sheep
> hear, listen, and obey to the powers that be.
Unfortunately true. My own mother is one of these. We simply do not
discuss
Interstate driving.
> #2: "Everyone" knows that speed limits won't be raised to the 75-80 MPH
85th
> percentile speeds because it's all about money anyways. And besides (as
the
> sheep are told) if the limits are raised to 75-80, then some people would
start
> driving "way too fast", and that's "bad" (as the sheep are told).
Ah, the old "tacking on" myth.
Actually, I do tend to "tack on"... but for different reasons. I want to
drive at roughly
95-105mph, but the penalties get VERY steep if caught doing more than 25
over, so
I try to keep in in the "merely getting a fine" zone.
Actually, I'll probably be more brazen in my speeding, now that I'm insured
and
a traffic ticket won't mean a 90-day suspension and $125 fine in addition to
the
speeding fine. (only 1 more month...)
> #3: "Everyone" knows that "everyone" drives at 75-80 MPH, so it's okay to
do it.
Only when no cops are around! The most dangerous thing on the Interstate is
a speedtrap, when everyone slams on their brakes when they see it...
> Perhaps, someday, after the current limits are raised to 75 and 80, people
will
> see and begin to realize that 75 to 80 is a safe speed. They might even
begin to
> realize that even higher speed might be safe if driver training were
improved.
> Then, they'd seek it becuase after all, limits were raised once, they
could be
> raised again. And then, on that glorious day, speed limits just might not
even
> be needed. People could be trusted to drive responsibly.
*snif* It sounds so beautiful...
> But right now... no.. people can't be trusted to drive reponsibly. Just
ask them
> and they'll tell you about how bad "everyone else" drives.
Aye.
> > First you must find a Ferrari capable of 200+mph.
>
> Okay. Give him a call. He can build one.
Not a street-legal one. The F40 topped at 197mph, the F50
a hair under that.
> > Escorts are lucky to break 100mph.
>
> But, they can still be driven on Interstates. Probably in the left lane.
Why?
> Because "it's safe" since "everyone" knows that 55 is "safe" and that
speed
> limits won't be raised anyways. (was that too much sarcasm again?)
I've gone 87mph flat-out in the left lane. Passing traffic.
And yes, I moved over when faster traffic came up behind me.
(Usually... you guessed it... M3s)
> Until the majority of the driving public can accept that raising speed
limits
> will #1: not cause a bloodbath, #2: not cause some people to drive like
> banshees, and #3: understand that proper driver training would allow for
safer
> and faster speeds... they will not accept (or to be more accurate, force)
them
> to be enacted.
NIMBY syndrome.
C.R. Krieger
>
> "C.R. Krieger" wrote:
>
> > Bart Youngblood wrote in message ...
> > >
> > >Here are a few types of vehicles that should stay out of the left hand lanes
> > >PERIOD:
> > >
> > >Any vehicle with a trailer
> >
> > Apparently, you've never seen what my 535is can do while towing my bike.
> >
> > >Drivers over the age of 65
> >
> > Nor have you apparently seen one 75-year-old P.L. Newman driving a Porsche in
> > the American Le Mans Series.
> > --
> > C.R. Krieger
> > "Ignore 'em, m'dear, they're beneath your dignity." -W.C. Fields
>
> You maybe can drive a 535is with a bike trailer safely, but not everyone's
> pulling a bike trailer wtih a 535is and not everyone is as good as a driver as
> you.
Thank you for that. The point I'm trying to make is that any law this
broad cuts deeply for those on the fringes - like me. Maybe a total
weight limit might be in order. Or, even more accurately, a power to
weight ratio for the tow vehicle and its load.
>
> From CA, I liked the law that restricted autos/trucks with trailers to the right
> most lane except when passing and to 55MPH top speed.
>
> I hate to say it, but I think CA's laws regarding auto/trucks with trailers the
> lesser of the two evils.
Yeah; well, the good thing is, California ain't on the way to DAYTONA!
[And I think it's about time to hit Bike Week again next February.
Anyone else?]
Izzy...
Marc Warden <marc....@att.net> wrote in message
news:39F49D07...@att.net...
>
> Oh, yeah I see it often. In fact I can generally tell when the road ahead
is clear of
> smokies because the truckers speed up to 70mph+.
Funny story:
Was cruising home from Columbus late one night, trying to keep a good speed
without getting in the truckers' way, which meant maintaining their speed,
which
meant 75-80mph in a 65. On a stretch of road LINED with statie stations.
Got blown away by a Greyhound bus, of all things. Guy must've been hauling
at around 90mph, didn't know they went that fast.
Ten miles later, see red-n-blue flashing party lights on the side of the
road.
Behind the Greyhound bus. Had a good laugh and sped up; the sharks had
their feast. Saw no more speedtraps for the rest of the trip.
C.R. Krieger
>
> Tires aren't the only limiting factor on speed. Most cars are aerodynamically
> unstable at speeds >100mph, and few cars have the suspension needed to deal with
> any sort of maneuvering at those speeds.
>
> From what I understand, there's little performance or handling advantage in
> using up-rated tires well beyond what a car is capable of.. But it's good
> marketing, I guess - sort of like putting a spoiler on an SUV....
So I'm guessing you don't QUITE know what you're talking about. Most
cars ARE stable above 100, but not much beyond 125 or so. At that
speed, there isn't much maneuvering ANY car can do without exceeding the
usual 0.8-0.9 G lateral force most are capable of generating on decent
tires.
As for the tires, the higher speed rating requires a stiffer
construction that's quite noticeable to a reasonably discerning driver -
not that I know many of those. It's why I switched to H rated snow
tires for my winter Audi Quattro. The Blizzaks were too flimsy feeling.
Izzy...
nmoberg <nmo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9pl9vsgankpgv7gpg...@4ax.com...
>
> I'm going to guess 150 on a very long straight. I show a 97 M3 with
> 20.2 Sq. feet of frontal area, a Cd of .32 and a ground clearance of
> 4.3 inches.
>
"Thank you my friend"
I calculate, to achieve 155mph, roughly 165rwhp are required. This
can work out to anything like 180hp to 225hp at the flywheel,
depending on who you talk to as far as drivetrain losses under
full throttle/no acceleration are concerned.
The next question then becomes, what does the engine's power
curve look like in relation to the vehicle's power *requirement*
curve? Does the engine power fall off at a certain point where
it's needed aerodynamically? (This can happen with some types
of boats)
This also is only taking aero into account, nothing as far as
rolling resistance, or aerodynamic changes due to any lift or
body angle change at speed, which will affect top speed.
It all boils down to: We shoulda got the *real* M engine
instead of a reworked 328i.
Izzy...
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2000 20:21:23 -0400, "Izzy..."
> <izz...@bge.ton-em-maps.net> wrote:
> >Oh don't you know? It's the latest Amendment. "The pursuit of
happiness"
> >has been interpreted as the RIGHT to happiness, and so it's need
legislated
>
> off (but couldn't since most of their cars are too hampster powered).
> Whenever I get into a cookie cutter econo box, I notice none of the
> behavior. Also another point raised by Roundel this month, it seems
> because of this "right to happiness" attitude, being cut off by a BMW
> is much much more offensive than being cut off by a Saturn. Hmm, how
> profound.
Really... when driving either of my 'Birds (2.5 tons and a big block each)
people would never get out of my way. When driving the '7, people move
out of my way well in advance. It's... uncanny. Here's the irony: The '7
has less accelerative power and a *much* lower top speed.
Then again, maybe they figure that once I get up a good head of speed,
it's difficult to regain momentum once slwoed down, so they're accomodating.
NBL though...
> >I wouldn't say "racist"... and IIRC this country was created by people
> >who didn't "love it or leave it" but DID SOMETHING ABOUT THEIR
> >SITUATION. "Love it or leave it" has got to be the OPPOSITE of
> >the "American Spirit".
>
> Right, that was my point. But strangely enough, whenever people with
> non-WASP last name say something they would like changed about
> America, invariably the "love it or leave it" line gets fired off to
> them. Examples abound in ng's.
If someone tells me to "love it or leave it"... ugh. Probably would
make some comment about we'd still be a bunch of colonies with
that attitude. (And I'm sure in retrospect, many Englishmen are
relieved that we're not. <g>)
> >I didn't know M3 rotors were so cheap. Very *interesting*... I wonder
> >how hard an M3 brake swap onto a lesser E36 car would be.
>
> Actually, 150,160 a pair is the price for the floating rotors. The
> "sinking" ones that came stock on American M3's are only about a
> hundred bucks a pair.
HMM. Makes new brakes for my other '7 positively cheap!
> > - Pete (Progressing nicely on the Evil Engine for my '80 RX-7... heh heh
> >heh)
>
> Pleased to meet you, let us know when your done how high you can rev
> that sucker...
I'm still deciding. 8500 will be the max without spending a lot more
money and losing a lot of durability. It'd cost a few thou' more to get
an extra 1000-1500 more, after which point you simply don't go any
higher for any length of time, not with what is available currently.
(Eccentric whip leads to catastrophic internal engine contact at
roughly 10,5) I think I could be happy with 8500, and "only"
about 200hp, in the interests of tightfistedness and durability.
DPH
> Should someone faster than me come up behind
> me, there's never an issue, move over at the first possible
> opportunity. Very simple.
Not at all simple, because its what happens next that counts.
What happens next is that he will get 2/3rds of the way around you, and then...
hover.
Yep, they slow down and match your speed. Then, when you're faced with the slow
truck in the right lane ahead, you have to race like crazy to get back in front of
them to avoid being trapped behind, because when you get to the truck, the dope will
slow down to match the truck's speed.
I'm usually going so fast anyway that anyone that catches me is almost always
concerned with passing me, not going faster than me. Its a mental set that they
think they have to pass me, so when they do it, then they slow down and are an
obstacle.
That's why I force everyone to pass on the right. They will have to do it at 10 mph
or so above the speed limit to get by me at all. If they're willing to do that,
then they're really serious, and I can expect them to go over the horizon after a
while instead of just hover. The ones that pull up and just follow? Well, they'd
have been an obstacle anyway...
DPH
DPH
> In article <39F42C91...@kg.hsanet.net>,
> DPH <rall...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> }
> }That's why I force everyone to pass on the right. They will have to do it at 10 mph
> }or so above the speed limit to get by me at all. If they're willing to do that,
> }then they're really serious, and I can expect them to go over the horizon after a
> }while instead of just hover. The ones that pull up and just follow? Well, they'd
> }have been an obstacle anyway...
>
> Guess what: You're a Left Lane Blocker.
Yeah? So sue me. The cops never have / never will enforce anything to do with this.
And I don't _block_ the whole _road_ because I take pains to keep the right lane open,
not traveling alongside someone else doing the same speed.
People can go around on the right, or follow. Up to them. I don't care.
DPH
DPH
Brent Peterson wrote:
> DPH wrote:
>
> > I'm usually going so fast anyway that anyone that catches me is almost always
> > concerned with passing me, not going faster than me. Its a mental set that they
> > think they have to pass me, so when they do it, then they slow down and are an
> > obstacle.
> >
> > That's why I force everyone to pass on the right. They will have to do it at 10 mph
> > or so above the speed limit to get by me at all. If they're willing to do that,
> > then they're really serious, and I can expect them to go over the horizon after a
> > while instead of just hover. The ones that pull up and just follow? Well, they'd
> > have been an obstacle anyway...
>
> In other words, you block to prevent another person who might be a
> blocker too from *gasp* blocking. So how are you any better than them?
I get delayed less often.
DPH
DPH
> DPH <kgc...@kg.hsanet.net> wrote in message
> news:39F42C91...@kg.hsanet.net...
> > Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> >
> > > Should someone faster than me come up behind
> > > me, there's never an issue, move over at the first possible
> > > opportunity. Very simple.
> >
> > Not at all simple, because its what happens next that counts.
> >
> > What happens next is that he will get 2/3rds of the way around you, and
> then...
> > hover.
>
> That has so rarely happened to me that the solution os obvious: Pass 'em
> back.
>
That's frustrating and a bit more dangerous than just forcing them to pass me on
the right.
>
> > Yep, they slow down and match your speed. Then, when you're faced with
> the slow
> > truck in the right lane ahead, you have to race like crazy to get back in
> front of
> > them to avoid being trapped behind, because when you get to the truck, the
> dope will
> > slow down to match the truck's speed.
>
> They weren't interested in passing then. They were driving with cruise
> control on
> and didn't want to turn it off.
No, if they were on cruise, they wouldn't have slowed after passing me.
> > That's why I force everyone to pass on the right.
>
> Many an imaginary TOW missile has been aimed at you.
Yeah. Such fun.
DPH
DPH
> DPH wrote:
>
> >Brandon Sommerville wrote:
> >
> >> Should someone faster than me come up behind
> >> me, there's never an issue, move over at the first possible
> >> opportunity. Very simple.
> >
> >Not at all simple, because its what happens next that counts.
> >
> >What happens next is that he will get 2/3rds of the way around you, and then...
> >hover.
>
> I have *never* had anything remotely like this happen to me.
This happens extremely consistently here.
Maybe:
1) U don't drive in Virginia, where the sleepy-eyed unaware seem to be out in force
or
2) U don't travel speed limit + 8 consistently.
DPH
DPH
> Nope. Did travel from Detroit up to Winnipeg though and never
> encountered it.
Well, that explains it. I was, no kiddin', relating to another person at work where the
drivers are ultra competent, and was relating my driving experiences in Detroit. Those
people seem to thread the needle on their interstates with inches to spare, never leave
up on the gas even in the dark and/or rain, and don't wreck their cars much anyway. I
consider myself above average but have always been impressed with the way people in
Detroit drive. No namby-pambys in that crowd. A light turns green, people go - RIGHT
NOW. No, you're not going to run into the sleepy unaware up there...
Can't say one way or the other about the Canadians.
DPH
>
>
> >2) U don't travel speed limit + 8 consistently.
>
> Usually a little faster.
> --
> Brandon
>
> To alleviate suffocation, breath normally.
>
> Remove ".gov" to e-mail
DPH
> Jeremy, Kathy & Clan <jp...@wxc.com.au> wrote in message
> news:8t81cv$p11$1...@perki.connect.com.au...
> >
> > DPH <
> > > And I don't _block_ the whole _road_ because I take pains to keep the
> > right lane open,
> > > not traveling alongside someone else doing the same speed.
> > >
> > > People can go around on the right, or follow. Up to them. I don't
> care.
> > >
> > > DPH
> >
> > Unbelievable.
>
> Bumper-mounted TOW missiles...
Unbelievable overreaction to trifles.
DPH