Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Inconsiderate Drivers (share your stories, etc.)

1108210831085108710881113

Comments

  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,284
    The reason you don't see "real" speeders pulled over is because the cops are only interested in the non-speeders.

    Basically, it's hard work to pull over someone going 90+ MPH, but it's easy pickings getting someone going 15 over.

    Since most speed limits are set about 15 under the real limit, I refer to it as non-speeders.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 32,943
    Makes perfect sense. 15 under seems to be about it, too. I swear. 35mph roads in my area are 50 in FL.

    Same reason I won't see a local in a high end car pulled over for the same infraction committed by the driver of a worn older car from several towns over. One is capable of more fight than the other.
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 8,279
    So, after a transcontinental trek of 12,641 miles during the month of September, I can confidently say that the following awards are due! These awards are from a pool of eligible candidates spanning the northern portion (~40th parallel and above) of the continent.

    Most Pushy Award: Massachusetts
    Most Inconsistent Award: New York
    Most Clueless Award: Seattle Area (that's right, it's not a Washington-wide phenomenon!)
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,632
    The officer probably perfectly positioned himself at the center point on the down hill between the previous light and the next so that he could laser cars at their peak speed.

    The unmitigated gall of that officer, to be positioned perfectly to laser cars at their peak speed! :)

    It appears you were driving too fast to notice important objects alongside the roadway... like the police cruiser. I wonder if that could be considered (by a judge) as driving in an imprudent or unsafe manner?

    So, if you were in a hurry you might tend to drive 65+ in a 35 zone? Say, let me know the next time you're driving in SD, I'll make a point not to visit there then.
  • fintailfintail Posts: 32,943
    I can agree with the latter part, for sure.

    I'm going on an 8 day road trip next week, and much of it will be spent east of the mountains. I'm looking forward to it.
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,284
    It was police motorcycle, not a cruiser. I don't know where he was hiding, but for all I know he could of been beyond the sidewalk given he was on motorcycle.

    Either way he was purposely hiding; if he wasn't, I'd of seen him. I wasn't going so fast that if he pulled in front of me, I couldn't stop. I had the whole right lane to my right, in addition to the width of the parked cars alongside the right lane (and no, the parked cars do not invade the space of the right lane). It is a very wide road; hence the safeness of my speed.

    As to pulling in front of me; there aren't any side roads/side driveways, so what are the chances of that happening without it being done on purpose as well.

    Did you hear about the motorcyclist that brake checked the SUV in Manhattan and got charged with reckless driving. Video camera's are swinging the tide against brake checkers and left lane campers. Soon they will all be facing reckless driving charges. No longer will insurance companies be able to say 100% of rear-end collisions are so black and white. That alone will probably scare the brake-checkers out there.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,632
    What is the stopping distance (including think time) of a car at 35 mph? At 50 mph? At 65+ mph (since you said you might drive that fast if you're in a hurry)?

    Speed increases the risk of a collision. Doubling speed quadruples stopping distance.

    Where was the police bike parked and where did it come from if there aren't any side roads/driveways? Parked on someone's lawn? You really don't know because you didn't see it until it was behind you.

    I have no idea what the brake checking incident in Manhattan has to do with your situation. Enjoy your court battle. You seem to revel in them.
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,284
    A good car can stop from 60 MPH in about 120'. According to your numbers then, a car going 30 should be able to stop in 30'. But not all emergency maneuvers require emergency braking; an emergency lane change could work just as well.

    Your comment about speed increasing the risk of a collision is falling on deaf ears. That statement makes no sense whatsoever. Have any studies or statistics to back that up? More collisions per vehicle mile at 60 MPH vs. 30 MPH for instance? I think you'll find the opposite is true (I know... streets more dangerous than freeways so unfair comparison, blah blah blah).

    Say speed increases the risk of a collision is like saying 10 light years is a long time. Someone mentioned light-years are a distance measurement, not a time measurement. Speed is a velocity measurement, not a collision measurement. Do fast moving asteroids hit the Earth more often than slow moving asteroids, for instance?
  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,284
    I do not revel in court battles. I hate them. I'm procrastinating my case as we speak.

    Part of the problem is in the change of computers and flash drives over the years I think some of my Word Document files may have been lost in the shuffle, and I'm dreading having to re-write and redo things.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,632
    It's not rocket science. Any situation that could involve an accident and involves braking to avoid the accident has higher risk of an accident as speed increases, which increases braking time/distance. What about that formula don't you understand?

    Yes, lane changes can avoid accidents sometime also. But sometimes that isn't possible, and braking is the way out.

    It has nothing to do with asteroids. It has to do with basic physics. Which apparently you don't believe apply to you in your own little universe where you should be able to drive as fast as YOU want to drive.
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel a Certified Edmunds Poster.Posts: 11,571
    Backy, don't even try to argue with him on this. He thinks he is right and that's all that counts with him. Would you believe that he once told me he was safer driving faster as it means that he is on the road a shorter amount of time and therefore less likely to be in an accident?

    Of course you are right that as speed increases it takes longer to stop a car (by the square of the increase of speed) and it increases the force of an impact if the accident cannot be avoided. And while you can steer around an object the faster you are going the harder it is to move a vehicle out of a straight line and increases the likelihood that such an action could cause an accident.

    There are three types of people in this world. Those who are good at math and those who are not.

  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 8,279
    snakeweasel! Good to see you around! ;-)
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,632
    Would you believe that he once told me he was safer driving faster as it means that he is on the road a shorter amount of time and therefore less likely to be in an accident?

    You know, I can actually see some logic in that. Taken in isolation, no other factors considered, the shorter a time you are on the road, the less chance you have to be in an accident. Similar to, the less you fly, the less chance you have of being in an airplane accident.

    Unfortunately, there ARE other factors to be considered. Otherwise we'd all drive at 100+ mph to spend as little time on the road as possible. ;)
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Crossroads of America: I70 & I75Posts: 17,738
    >Backy, don't even try to argue...

    Right spot on. Great post.

    >as speed increases

    May I add that the distance covered during the reaction time also increases in addition to the stopping distance for the vehicle once the braking is invoked.

    This message has been approved.

  • andres3andres3 CAPosts: 5,284
    edited October 2013
    There was more to it then that. For example, you are less likely to be rear-ended going 100 MPH than you are going 55 MPH.

    Also, you are less likely to have someone camping in your blind spot at 100 MPH than you are at 55 MPH; so therefore if you make a smooth lane change even if someone was in your blind spot by the time you complete the lane change your a safe distance in front of them.

    The fact is, most accidents are not from objects suddenly darting out in front of you (especially in controlled access freeways where high speeds are more likely).

    Also, an emergency avoidance maneuver could never be the cause of an accident, unless it was performed in a negligent manner. The person or object forcing the emergency maneuver in the first place is the cause of the accident, the speed is irrelevant. I don't cut off vehicles as a pedestrian going 10 MPH, nor 100 MPH. In either case, the pedestrian is the one flinging themselves in front of the car.

    If I throw my body in front of a car going 10 MPH; I'll probably live.

    If I throw my body in front of a car going 100 MPH I'll likely die.

    Neither result changes the cause of the accident. I don't understand why this simple logic escapes some of you.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 9,459
    Why don't you see if you can get your case transferred to Judge Judy?
    Then you can make that argument and we call all watch it on youtube.
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel a Certified Edmunds Poster.Posts: 11,571
    Even in isolation I would find that not to be the case. I am out on vacation right now (a family reunion of sorts) and I took a back road way in. One road I took was rather rustic, narrow hilly and lots of curves but absolutely no traffic on it for the 8 or so miles it ran. It was a beautiful road. Now I could have driven that road at maybe 10 MPH or so faster but it would have left no room for error. Just one misjudged curve and I would have been in trouble.

    There are three types of people in this world. Those who are good at math and those who are not.

  • xrunner2xrunner2 Posts: 3,062
    Just what is this infatuation with speed? Seems immature and infantile? Why not just obey the speed limit and not have to worry about police and tickets and going to court? What is the reason, rationale for wanting to break speed limits? And by more than just 5 over? Is there a thrill? A high? Like on a drug?
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel a Certified Edmunds Poster.Posts: 11,571
    you are less likely to be rear-ended going 100 MPH than you are going 55 MPH.

    And you are less likely to rear-end someone going 55 MPH than you are at 100 MPH.

    Also, an emergency avoidance maneuver could never be the cause of an accident, unless it was performed in a negligent manner.

    You go right ahead and go on believing that but the fact of the matter is that the faster you are going the harder and more dangerous avoidance maneuvers are.

    If I throw my body in front of a car going 10 MPH; I'll probably live.

    That's because that at 10 MPH the driver can better stop or avoid you. Say you jump out 25 feet in front of the car the 10 MPH car has 1.7 seconds to react and can stop the car or turn in that distance. The 100 MPH drive has only 0.17 seconds before hitting you. That means that as soon as he realizes you are there he hit you. Even if his reactions were instantaneous he wouldn't be able to stop or avoid you.

    I don't understand why this simple logic escapes you.

    There are three types of people in this world. Those who are good at math and those who are not.

  • fintailfintail Posts: 32,943
    edited October 2013
    What's the fear of speed? Seems immature and infantile. I can look back and find roads that my grandfather was driving on 60 years ago that carry the same limits now. The speed limit system in the US must be 90% for revenue. What's the reason to blindly conform and submit to arbitrary, obsolete, and asinine regulations created and enforced by groups with no accountability? Is it a warm feeling, patriotic to the ignorant? There needs to be more widespread questioning and disobedience - as it took an eon to do away with 55 when it became irrelevant. Oh yeah, think of the children!
Sign In or Register to comment.