NationStates Jolt Archive

This I agree with

I wouldn't. Simply based on the stopping distances, distance travelled versus think times, and effective velocities in the event there IS an accident, no matter how small.

It's 'truthy', but it's not 'true'.

Oh please, next time you think you see a drunk driver weaving on the road let me know if you dont speed up to get past him. Cause i guarantee you thats the reaction of 99% of the people who encounter that situation. If your that 1% freak well then there is nothing i can do for you.
Normally, people back the fuck off, not try and get closer to him.

I kind of hope you're trolling the thread, to be honest. If you really drive the way you claim you do, you really need those driving lessons.

Go back to playing with your Tonka Trucks in your sandbox and leave the driving to the adults.

Exceeding the speed limit is not inherently dangerous


Yes, it is.


...whats actually far more dangerous is having a different speed then the rest of the "flow" of traffic regardless if that flow is going 55 or 75mph. Everyone sort of spaces themselves out and gives themselves a safety sphere...


No, they don't. One of the reasons I hate driving into Atlanta is because people give themselves the illusion of safety, whilst not actually employing any safety at all. Example - a car driving two whole car lengths off the back bumper of another car, both doing 80 mph.

Illusion of safety. Not safe.


... and if everyone travels at the relative same speed regardless what that actual speed it is the safest driving situation.


No, it isn't. Everyone driving at the same relative speed is only safer if the road conditions (weather, etc, also) permit it.


This is why people who are driving 40 mph on a highway are just as dangerous as someone driving 95mph.

Which is bullshit.

Normally, people back the fuck off, not try and get closer to him.

The usual reaction is to just get past him and far away from him. Ive seen this occur nearly universally, regardless of who is driving.

Go back to playing with your Tonka Trucks in your sandbox and leave the driving to the adults.

That was a response?

I'm not tring to pick a fight or be unfair. I'm pointing out that you (apparently) really do NOT know how to drive. If I were you I would (as I've said, in all seriousness) learn to drive before someone got hurt.

I'm an adult. I'm a qualified driver. It's not me that is making the ridiculous claims and statements.

The usual reaction is to just get past him and far away from him. Ive seen this occur nearly universally, regardless of who is driving.

I haven't.

I've seen some people drive like that, of course.

But then, an appeal to popularity doesn't make it right.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7803997.stm

This strikes me as an utterly idiotic idea. Aside from the fact that it is inviting Big Brother into the car to drive for us, there is an obvious and very real safety risk - what can you do it you actually need to get above the speed limit in an emergency?

If you're caught on the wrong side of the road with traffic coming at you, I very much doubt anyone is going to want to put their foot down and find that there isn't any more power.
Onstar has a communication device in your car that monitors where you are and the condition of the car. so you have a chip that keeps someone from speeding? what's the big deal?

No we don't need to get rid of seat belts. I don't like the idea of installing a computer chip that makes cars though; too easy to abuse. not really. someone steals your car, you know they won't be driving fast. unless they are off road.

Oh please, next time you think you see a drunk driver weaving on the road let me know if you dont speed up to get past him. Cause i guarantee you thats the reaction of 99% of the people who encounter that situation. If your that 1% freak well then there is nothing i can do for you. considering that the safest thing to do is slow down and get as far away from that drunk driver as possible? trying to pass him has a higher chance of creating an accident.

This is why people who are driving 40 mph on a highway are just as dangerous as someone driving 95mph.
wrong again. the far right lane (in the US) is for the slow drivers. someone driving 40 MPH on a highway will be less likely to get into an accident than someoen driving 95 MPH. now should that 40 MPH driver suddenly swerve into the middle lanes, then I would agree with you. but only in that situation.


BTW, the Usual reaction to driving behind a drunk is to stay behind him and call the cops on his/her ass. then you get some entertainment as the cops pull him over.

The usual reaction is to just get past him and far away from him. Ive seen this occur nearly universally, regardless of who is driving.

this deserves a poll. I've never heard of the advice of driving fast to get around a drunk driver. all the advice I've heard and seen done is to slow down and let the driver gain distance on you. if possible, get off the road and use an alternate route.

No, they don't. One of the reasons I hate driving into Atlanta is because people give themselves the illusion of safety, whilst not actually employing any safety at all. Example - a car driving two whole car lengths off the back bumper of another car, both doing 80 mph.

Oddly enough i gave my example of people using relative speed to give them a sphere of safety and you inexplicably turned that sphere of safety into the danger flow from hell where following 2 car lengths away at 80 mph is the exact opposite of my entire point. People dont flow in traffic so they can tailgate at 80mph.





Which is bullshit.

No your just ignorant.

My one fender bender i ever had, i was driving down the highway at night and i was coming to the top of a hill, when i reached the top, i practically drove into a cars trunk ahead of me. There was an elderly couple in thier 80s puttering along the interstate, the male driver had just had a heart operation weeks before . At night there is very little way to gauge speed by rear brake lights that quickly. I reacted and pulled car into left lane but like 4 inches of the front right of my car hit 4 inches of the left back of thiers. Now a rear end collision is almost automatically a ticket for a person who hits another car in the ass but the police determined that the elderly man was not operating at a safe speed and i was not faulted in the accident.

considering that the safest thing to do is slow down and get as far away from that drunk driver as possible? trying to pass him has a higher chance of creating an accident.

I agree with you in theory but in the real world people just hurry up and pass. So if you want to show in the poll what you should do vs what in real life people ACTUALLY do...

Plus slowing down doesnt get you away from the problem, its still ahead of you. You still have to concentrate on the swerving maniac and also to the reactions of the other cars etc. Driving past it means your in a higher risk for a second or two but then its gone from your worries for the whole rest of the time.

Oddly enough i gave my example of people using relative speed to give them a sphere of safety and you inexplicably turned that sphere of safety into the danger flow from hell where following 2 car lengths away at 80 mph is the exact opposite of my entire point. People dont flow in traffic so they can tailgate at 80mph.


Yes, they do. That's EXACTLY why they do it.


No your just ignorant.


Awesome argument.


My one fender bender i ever had, i was driving down the highway at night


Which is one hazard, thus requiring you to remain one extra carlength behind the vehicle in front of you.


...and i was coming to the top of a hill


Which is a second hazard, requiring you to keep another extra carlength behind the vehicle in front of you.


...when i reached the top, i practically drove into a cars trunk ahead of me.
There was an elderly couple in thier 80s puttering along the interstate, the male driver had just had a heart operation weeks before . At night there is very little way to gauge speed by rear brake lights that quickly.


If you couldn't tell their speed, you shouldn't have been so close. Driving without due care and attention.


I reacted and pulled car into left lane but like 4 inches of the front right of my car hit 4 inches of the left back of thiers.


The fact that you actually collided with them is proof positive that you were driving too fast for the conditions.


Now a rear end collision is almost automatically a ticket for a person who hits another car in the ass but the police determined that the elderly man was not operating at a safe speed and i was not faulted in the accident.

It sounds like you got a lucky break from a cop who wanted to make sure that the damage got put on the other driver's insurance. That doesn't mean you weren't at fault.

You shouldn't be using that as a justification for your lack of ability to drive, now - you should be thanking your lucky stars that you didn't get busted for any of the several crimes you were committing.

I agree with you in theory but in the real world people just hurry up and pass. So if you want to show in the poll what you should do vs what in real life people ACTUALLY do... and people have piped up here saying they would slow down.

Plus slowing down doesnt get you away from the problem, its still ahead of you. You still have to concentrate on the swerving maniac and also to the reactions of the other cars etc. Driving past it means your in a higher risk for a second or two but then its gone from your worries for the whole rest of the time.
*sigh* Slowing down does not mean STOMPING ON THE BREAKS, or RAPIDLY SLOWING DOWN you can gradually slow down. Gental taps on the breaks alert drivers behind you that for SOME REASON you are decreasing your speed and that would alert other drivers to be more alert. so guess that means that you don't have to worry about what the people behind you are doing unless they too are speeding like maniacs and not paying attention.

and the fact that slowing down to you means to stomp on the breaks makes me scared of your driving skills.

and while he's infront of you, he won't hit you since he would first have to put HIS CAR into REVERSE. while all he has to do is step on the gas to speed up to hit you if you're infront of him.

Which is one hazard, thus requiring you to remain one extra carlength behind the vehicle in front of you.

I hesitate to get into this because your wrong wrong wrong and i suspect your beyond hope but here goes. There WAS no vehicle in front of me to get an extra car length behind. There was open road then at the top of the hill there was a car suddenly in front of me going far far far too slowly. Im not good at seeing thru millions of tons of asphault and soil and i was going the speed limit.


Which is a second hazard, requiring you to keep another extra carlength behind the vehicle in front of you.

Again was no car in front of me to give a length to.


If you couldn't tell their speed, you shouldn't have been so close. Driving without due care and attention.

The instant i saw them they were already to close. Not much i can do there now is there.



The fact that you actually collided with them is proof positive that you were driving too fast for the conditions.

No the reason i hit them is they were practically stopped in the middle of a superhighway. Their fault, not mine.



It sounds like you got a lucky break from a cop who wanted to make sure that the damage got put on the other driver's insurance. That doesn't mean you weren't at fault.

Sorry NYS has no fault insurance, so nice attempt at a plausible story but no dice. How about a more reasonable scenario, perhaps the cop didnt ticket me because IT WASNT MY FAULT?

You shouldn't be using that as a justification for your lack of ability to drive, now - you should be thanking your lucky stars that you didn't get busted for any of the several crimes you were committing.

Cite one crime i committed please. I didnt commit any and the police agree. So youll pardon me if i think your full of shit.

I hesitate to get into this because your wrong wrong wrong and i suspect your beyond hope but here goes. There WAS no vehicle in front of me to get an extra car length behind.


What did you crash into then, a cloud?


There was open road then at the top of the hill there was a car suddenly in front of me going far far far too slowly. Im not good at seeing thru millions of tons of asphault and soil...


Which is why a hill counts as a (serious) hazard, and you should drive slower and more carefully.


...and i was going the speed limit.


Which was, in this case, far too fast.

The speed limit is not permission. It's not a target. It's a maximum, which you should drive slower than, if the conditions call for it. Clearly, if you were approaching a hill, in the dark, you should have been driving more slowly.


The instant i saw them they were already to close. Not much i can do there now is there.


No. Which is why you should have been driving more slowly.

Also - what happened to the bullshit about not being able to judge speed from tail-lights?


No the reason i hit them is they were practically stopped in the middle of a superhighway.


Which is irrelevent.

If a tree falls, it's not going to wait until it's convenient for you. You are supposed to be ready and prepared to SAFELY negotiate ANY obstacle - even actually static ones.

If you can't, you're driving too fast.


Their fault, not mine.


Not at all. Totally your fault. You were driving too fast, and without care and attantion.


Sorry NYS has no fault insurance,


Which still means the police might give you a break - if he had reported it as your fault (which he should have, since you were out of control) your premiums would probably have climbed.

He gave you a break which you didn't deserve. That wasn't an affirmation of your ability.


...so nice attempt at a plausible story but no dice. How about a more reasonable scenario, perhaps the cop didnt ticket me because IT WASNT MY FAULT?


No, it was your fault.

It may ALSO have been another driver's fault, but that is irrelevent.


Cite one crime i committed please. I didnt commit any and the police agree. So youll pardon me if i think your full of shit.

Well, for a start, by your own admissions, you were in breach of New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law VAT Title 7 Article 30 1180e.

the real problem, i feel, lies in the discrepancy between speeds. driving at 80mph isn't unsafe if you leave a little extra distance in front, are alert, and have a modern car. the problem comes when you're happily and safely doing 80 and somebody pulls out in front of you doing 55. braking 25 or 30mph in a short time is dangerous.

now, either i could be going slower, or they could be going faster. either way the speed difference is less.

personally, i feel that 70 is quite slow. when i do go 60-70 in the inside lane, i really do find my mind wandering, not paying attention and getting into 'zombie driving' mode... which is actually less safe than when i'm going 80+

its anecdotal, but most of the near-misses i've had (and the two crashes) have been caused by the other driver not paying attention... apart from one of the crashes where the guy was drunk, of course...

Why do cars need to go faster than the speed limit?
Because, believe it or not, there are still places that have no speed limit.

But most modern cars have built-in inhibitors that won't let your car go faster than 250km/h.

Anyway, with even Germany introducing more and more speed limits on the Autobahn, you don't really need cars that can go faster than what's allowed.

Yet, the idea is stupid in my opinion. What the car industry should be forced to do is develop better more fuel-efficient engines and an extra gear or two so you wouldn't hit the high RPMs even if you go fast.

Whenever I go faster than 160km/h I really wish I had a 6th gear because that's where the car gets really thirsty.

the real problem, i feel, lies in the discrepancy between speeds. driving at 80mph isn't unsafe if you leave a little extra distance in front, are alert, and have a modern car. the problem comes when you're happily and safely doing 80 and somebody pulls out in front of you doing 55. braking 25 or 30mph in a short time is dangerous.

now, either i could be going slower, or they could be going faster. either way the speed difference is less.

personally, i feel that 70 is quite slow. when i do go 60-70 in the inside lane, i really do find my mind wandering, not paying attention and getting into 'zombie driving' mode... which is actually less safe than when i'm going 80+

its anecdotal, but most of the near-misses i've had (and the two crashes) have been caused by the other driver not paying attention... apart from one of the crashes where the guy was drunk, of course...

Driving at 80mph is pretty unsafe under any circumstances, actually. Not just because of the reason you suggested (the guy 'pulling in' to your lane at 55), but also because of the amount of distance you can see, versus the process time, the physical reaction time, and the intrinsic force of any collision.

Even if it's just a car in front of you shredding a tire, and flinging parts of it back at a softball lob... that softball lob is going to be hitting your windshield at 80 mph.

If there's a dip in the road, by the time you see it, it's too late to avoid it - and you hit it at 80mph.

You say either you could be going slower, or the other car could be going faster. Let's look at the math. If you hit the tail end of a car, you doing 80mph, them doing 55mph - you have an effective collision velocity with that car of 25mph. Now, obviously, you're transmitting an equivalent force forward, that you experience, so you're potentially bouncing someone off the road at 55mph PLUS the force you exerted.

Braking suddenly, 25mph or 30mph, is dangerous, you're right. On the other hand - being involved in a collision with a vehicle doing 80mph is far more dangerous.

The other point is - though we allocate blame - it's unlikely for only one of two colliding vehicles to be at fault. This is especially true when collisions take place in some situation other than head-on... because the argument can ALWAYS be made that, if you were going sufficiently lower than your current speed, it wouldn't have happened - you could have avoided/gone offroad/missed/stopped, etc.

But most modern cars have built-in inhibitors that won't let your car go faster than 250km/h.A lot of vehicles that I know of are much more limited than that.
(The 2009 Dodge Challenger being one of the exceptions that I know of.)

Driving at 80mph is pretty unsafe under any circumstances, actually. Not just because of the reason you suggested (the guy 'pulling in' to your lane at 55), but also because of the amount of distance you can see, versus the process time, the physical reaction time, and the intrinsic force of any collision.

Even if it's just a car in front of you shredding a tire, and flinging parts of it back at a softball lob... that softball lob is going to be hitting your windshield at 80 mph.

If there's a dip in the road, by the time you see it, it's too late to avoid it - and you hit it at 80mph.

You say either you could be going slower, or the other car could be going faster. Let's look at the math. If you hit the tail end of a car, you doing 80mph, them doing 55mph - you have an effective collision velocity with that car of 25mph. Now, obviously, you're transmitting an equivalent force forward, that you experience, so you're potentially bouncing someone off the road at 55mph PLUS the force you exerted.

Braking suddenly, 25mph or 30mph, is dangerous, you're right. On the other hand - being involved in a collision with a vehicle doing 80mph is far more dangerous.

The other point is - though we allocate blame - it's unlikely for only one of two colliding vehicles to be at fault. This is especially true when collisions take place in some situation other than head-on... because the argument can ALWAYS be made that, if you were going sufficiently lower than your current speed, it wouldn't have happened - you could have avoided/gone offroad/missed/stopped, etc.

that's certainly all true... going slower is safer, no doubt, regarding the physics. but what i was trying to say (in my tired way) was that i agree with the notion that going slower leads to being less alert. that, in my experience at least, the least alert drivers are more than usually the slowest ones.

i don't really know... both sides of this arguement have merits. maybe most people don't find going slow and mostly sitting in one lane to cause the apathy, drifting-off and lack of attention that i do. maybe most people haven't had more problems with slow drivers than fast ones, as i have found. maybe i'd get used to driving more slowly and not find it a problem.

but, if i had a car that would drive itself, it could go at 50 or 200mph for all i care, but when i'm behind the wheel i want to be sure i'm 100% there and focused. that's my main issue with this. i'm not saying driving faster is better, or safer, just that driving slower for me causes more problems than it solves.


Whenever I go faster than 160km/h I really wish I had a 6th gear because that's where the car gets really thirsty.

*has 6th gear*

cruising at 80 the car gets about 50mpg, dropping to 40 by the time you get to 90mph. i don't go at ~160kph (well, hardly ever ;)) so i have no idea what the consumption is like at that speed :p

A lot of vehicles that I know of are much more limited than that.
(The 2009 Dodge Challenger being one of the exceptions that I know of.)
I'm talking from a German perspective.

Most bigger cars that could run higher speeds made by Audi, VW, BMW, or Mercedes usually have that limiter in their chip sets.

I'm talking from a German perspective.

Most bigger cars that could run higher speeds made by Audi, VW, BMW, or Mercedes usually have that limiter in their chip sets.Oh, German. Ok, got it. It's generally lower in the US.

Oh, German. Ok, got it. It's generally lower in the US.
I drove home to my parents today. On the Autobahn there were several streches without speed limit, so the memory is pretty fresh. :)

I drove home to my parents today. On the Autobahn there were several streches without speed limit, so the memory is pretty fresh. :)I need to go to Germany and try that out.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7803997.stm

This strikes me as an utterly idiotic idea. Aside from the fact that it is inviting Big Brother into the car to drive for us, there is an obvious and very real safety risk - what can you do it you actually need to get above the speed limit in an emergency?

If you're caught on the wrong side of the road with traffic coming at you, I very much doubt anyone is going to want to put their foot down and find that there isn't any more power.
Yeah, I mean, if I'm going to let something take over control, I'd rather it be a full on A.I. doing all the driving and everything. Smart Car, as it were. None of these half-assed stupid measures which will only make safety issues worse.

Because, believe it or not, there are still places that have no speed limit.

But most modern cars have built-in inhibitors that won't let your car go faster than 250km/h.

Anyway, with even Germany introducing more and more speed limits on the Autobahn, you don't really need cars that can go faster than what's allowed.

Yet, the idea is stupid in my opinion. What the car industry should be forced to do is develop better more fuel-efficient engines and an extra gear or two so you wouldn't hit the high RPMs even if you go fast.

Whenever I go faster than 160km/h I really wish I had a 6th gear because that's where the car gets really thirsty.
You don't hit them if you accelerate properly. By properly, I mean slowly and efficiently. That's how I do it whenever I drive, and as far as I can tell, I get better gas mileage than my parents. (Probably also because I stick to the speed limit rather than following the traffic which tends to drive above it on the highways and such.)

Of course, the only vehicle I've ever driven is a minivan...

You don't hit them if you accelerate properly. By properly, I mean slowly and efficiently. That's how I do it whenever I drive, and as far as I can tell, I get better gas mileage than my parents. (Probably also because I stick to the speed limit rather than following the traffic which tends to drive above it on the highways and such.)

Of course, the only vehicle I've ever driven is a minivan...

90% sure he's talking about driving a stick.

Though you don't really need a sixth gear, a very tall fifth would do it.

What a retarded idea.

Seriously.

Limiting the speed limit a car can go? What about emergencies?

Also, sometimes its fun to go fast.