Speed limits

2010-05-17 16:37:08

#51

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,820|6497|eXtreme to the maX

JohnG@lt wrote:
Every study has shown that speed cameras are completely ineffective in reducing automobile accidents. They actually increase them because people slow down suddenly once they realize they are in a speed trap. They're nothing more than revenue generators.

Please link these studies - I've never seen one which proves they increase accidents.

Fuck Israel

2010-05-17 16:43:04

#52

Jaekus: I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose; +957|5570|Sydney

There was a link on the previous page.

2010-05-17 16:45:03

#53

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,990|7023|949

mikkel wrote:
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
mikkel wrote:
Abolishing highway speed limits in a country where the majority of drivers are educated in the operation of motor vehicles through nothing more than driving with their parents and answering a simple multiple choice test would be patently moronic. People may go 80 MPH in a 70 MPH zone, but it's a whole lot better than having 16 year old kids fresh off the training wheels blasting past you at 120 MPH in their mothers' Suburbans.
Actually the majority of drivers take a drivers education class before they are eligible to gain their driver's license. Plus you have to pass a driving test where you are actually in the car with an instructor. Granted it's not much, but it's markedly different than what you think.
I can't speak for anywhere but the Southeast, but I've experienced the system in South Carolina. It took all of five minutes driving down a road, turning right three times, turning left once, and going back down the same road to complete the "driving test", and then a 20 minute multiple choice test that was about as basic as it gets. I don't think I know a single person around these parts who took a driver's education course before acquiring their license.

Well then you must only meet people who get their license after they turn 18. If you want to get your license before you are 18 I think you have to take drivers ed. classes. But then those that wait until they are 18 wouldn't really fall into your catagory of "16 year old kids fresh off the training wheels blasting past you at 120 MPH in their mothers' Suburbans"

2010-05-17 16:48:52

#54

Jaekus: I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose; +957|5570|Sydney

Here in Aus you need to clock up I believe it's now 100 hours supervised driving, a certain minimum needs to be at night and in wet conditions. Then after your logbook is complete you're allowed to test for your provisional licence.

2010-05-17 17:06:52

#55

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5749|London, England

Jaekus wrote:
Here in Aus you need to clock up I believe it's now 100 hours supervised driving, a certain minimum needs to be at night and in wet conditions. Then after your logbook is complete you're allowed to test for your provisional licence.

Each state has it's own laws here.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-05-17 17:30:29

#56

Jaekus: I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose; +957|5570|Sydney

Yeah each state is different here too but I believe (not 100%) this is pretty much across the board.

2010-05-17 17:33:23

#57

mikkel: Member; +383|6993

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
mikkel wrote:
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Actually the majority of drivers take a drivers education class before they are eligible to gain their driver's license. Plus you have to pass a driving test where you are actually in the car with an instructor. Granted it's not much, but it's markedly different than what you think.
I can't speak for anywhere but the Southeast, but I've experienced the system in South Carolina. It took all of five minutes driving down a road, turning right three times, turning left once, and going back down the same road to complete the "driving test", and then a 20 minute multiple choice test that was about as basic as it gets. I don't think I know a single person around these parts who took a driver's education course before acquiring their license.
Well then you must only meet people who get their license after they turn 18. If you want to get your license before you are 18 I think you have to take drivers ed. classes. But then those that wait until they are 18 wouldn't really fall into your catagory of "16 year old kids fresh off the training wheels blasting past you at 120 MPH in their mothers' Suburbans"

You don't have to take driver's education classes in this state to get either a beginner's license or a full license. Nor is that a requirement in North Carolina or in Georgia. I haven't researched the requirements in other states. I think telling me how things work is a little unwarranted in this situation.

Last edited by mikkel (2010-05-17 17:34:14)

2010-05-17 17:37:51

#58

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|6093|College Park, MD

Considering how shitty most drivers are, I'd rather have them crashing into me at 35MPH instead of 120.

Also:

inb4evilbritishandaustraliancommunistpropaganda

and don't get me started on what should be done to drunk drivers

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg

2010-05-17 17:39:44

#59

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,820|6497|eXtreme to the maX

JohnG@lt wrote:
Here's 5: http://blog.motorists.org/red-light-cam … -prove-it/

Those are all red light cameras, not speed cameras.
Please prove speed cameras cause accidents since thats what you claimed and thats the discussion here.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-05-17 17:47:02)

Fuck Israel

2010-05-17 17:43:28

#60

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,820|6497|eXtreme to the maX

Hurricane2k9 wrote:
Considering how shitty most drivers are, I'd rather have them crashing into me at 35MPH instead of 120.

Also:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9VWF1DXQ8s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qm8yyl9ROEM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhV5O-it9kY

inb4evilbritishandaustraliancommunistpropaganda

and don't get me started on what should be done to drunk drivers

This basically. People calling for unlimited speed either don't understand or choose to ignore the physics and the statistics.

Fuck Israel

2010-05-17 17:45:01

#61

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|6093|College Park, MD

I remember getting into a car crash. The car (Ford expedition) went out of control at around 65MPH but I think it hit the guardrail at like 45. It sideswiped it first which helped slow down the speed a lot. Nobody was injured but the truck was completely wrecked.

2010-05-17 17:46:05

#62

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5749|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:
This basically. People calling for unlimited speed either don't understand or choose to ignore the physics and the statistics.

I was never calling for unlimited speed, I was saying that if they are serious about controlling peoples speed on the road, why do they allow car companies to sell cars that can do 200 mph on public roads? Since they obviously aren't serious about enforcing speed limits, they should be abolished. Just another scofflaw that destroys peoples respect for the law.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-05-17 17:47:13

#63

mikkel: Member; +383|6993

JohnG@lt wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
This basically. People calling for unlimited speed either don't understand or choose to ignore the physics and the statistics.
I was never calling for unlimited speed, I was saying that if they are serious about controlling peoples speed on the road, why do they allow car companies to sell cars that can do 200 mph on public roads? Since they obviously aren't serious about enforcing speed limits, they should be abolished. Just another scofflaw that destroys peoples respect for the law.

What's the difference between not having a speed limit, and abolishing the current speed limit?

2010-05-17 17:47:44

#64

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,820|6497|eXtreme to the maX

JohnG@lt wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
This basically. People calling for unlimited speed either don't understand or choose to ignore the physics and the statistics.
I was never calling for unlimited speed, I was saying that if they are serious about controlling peoples speed on the road, why do they allow car companies to sell cars that can do 200 mph on public roads? Since they obviously aren't serious about enforcing speed limits, they should be abolished. Just another scofflaw that destroys peoples respect for the law.

No need for that, just put speed limiters in cars, as they do with trucks and coaches.

Who says they aren't serious about enforcing the limit?

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-05-17 17:49:28)

Fuck Israel

2010-05-17 17:51:37

#65

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5749|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
This basically. People calling for unlimited speed either don't understand or choose to ignore the physics and the statistics.
I was never calling for unlimited speed, I was saying that if they are serious about controlling peoples speed on the road, why do they allow car companies to sell cars that can do 200 mph on public roads? Since they obviously aren't serious about enforcing speed limits, they should be abolished. Just another scofflaw that destroys peoples respect for the law.
No need for that, just put speed limiters in cars, as they do with trucks and coaches.

Who says they aren't serious about enforcing the limit?

Well then why haven't they legislated governors into vehicles limiting their top speed yet? Sure, there's the libertarian free will argument that can be made but I think the primary reason is become speeding tickets are such a fantastic revenue generator. Speed limits have become less about protecting the public and more about funding the local police force. This makes them a scofflaw and simple extortion.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-05-17 17:52:06)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2010-05-17 17:52:46

#66

Jaekus: I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose; +957|5570|Sydney

Hurricane2k9 wrote:
Considering how shitty most drivers are, I'd rather have them crashing into me at 35MPH instead of 120.

Also:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9VWF1DXQ8s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qm8yyl9ROEM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhV5O-it9kY

inb4evilbritishandaustraliancommunistpropaganda

and don't get me started on what should be done to drunk drivers

What the fuck are you talking about? I've been saying speed cameras and red light cameras are a good thing.

Learn to read, cheesewheel.

2010-05-17 17:54:28

#67

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|6093|College Park, MD

Jaekus wrote:
Hurricane2k9 wrote:
Considering how shitty most drivers are, I'd rather have them crashing into me at 35MPH instead of 120.

Also:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9VWF1DXQ8s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qm8yyl9ROEM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhV5O-it9kY

inb4evilbritishandaustraliancommunistpropaganda

and don't get me started on what should be done to drunk drivers
What the fuck are you talking about? I've been saying speed cameras and red light cameras are a good thing.

Learn to read, cheesewheel.

I wasn't even addressing you. Calm the fuck down.

2010-05-17 17:55:26

#68

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,820|6497|eXtreme to the maX

JohnG@l wrote:
tWell then why haven't they legislated governors into vehicles limiting their top speed yet? Sure, there's the libertarian free will argument that can be made but I think the primary reason is become speeding tickets are such a fantastic revenue generator. Speed limits have become less about protecting the public and more about funding the local police force. This makes them a scofflaw and simple extortion.

People want powerful cars which aren't tedious to drive, are comfortable and stable at 70, will zip up to 70 in a blink, will cruise at 70 on tickover for economy. The sde effect is the top speed is high.

Don't speed -> Don't pay the stupid tax. Its really simple.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-05-17 17:57:27)

Fuck Israel

2010-05-17 18:04:38

#69

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|6093|College Park, MD

I think it's also a question of mechanics. The size of the engine and car and tires and who knows what else all make you end up with a certain theoretical top speed.

edit: I agree with Dilbert, just don't speed. There are some stretches of road in DC that ought to have higher speed limits but I'm still not gonna speed. The most I do is maybe 10MPH above the limit (which is the buffer for speed cameras in my county anyway). I always stay on the right or second-to-rightmost lane as well, so don't nobody come bitching at me about taking up the "fast" lane (which is actually the "passing" lane but ok).

Last edited by Hurricane2k9 (2010-05-17 18:05:49)

2010-05-17 18:21:37

#70

ghettoperson: Member; +1,943|7041

Dilbert_X wrote:
Hurricane2k9 wrote:
Considering how shitty most drivers are, I'd rather have them crashing into me at 35MPH instead of 120.

Also:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9VWF1DXQ8s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qm8yyl9ROEM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhV5O-it9kY

inb4evilbritishandaustraliancommunistpropaganda

and don't get me started on what should be done to drunk drivers
This basically. People calling for unlimited speed either don't understand or choose to ignore the physics and the statistics.

I'm only talking about highways though.

2010-05-17 18:32:20

#71

S3v3N: lolwut?; +685|6910|Montucky

Speed limit on the Interstates is 75MPH, (I90 and I15). Two lane State highways are 70mph daytime and 65mph night time.

Safety aspect; Tire speed ratings. (if you don't know what they are, google it ya lazy bastards).

Yes your speedometer may say 120MPH, doesn't mean the actual drivetrain was designed for 120mph for an extended distance.

You know how much wear and tear occurs with High RPM, caused by excessive speed?

2010-05-17 18:33:06

#72

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|7066|Canberra, AUS

Jaekus wrote:
Yeah each state is different here too but I believe (not 100%) this is pretty much across the board.

Not here... but then technically we aren't a state.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2010-05-17 19:00:57

#73

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,820|6497|eXtreme to the maX

S3v3N wrote:
Speed limit on the Interstates is 75MPH, (I90 and I15). Two lane State highways are 70mph daytime and 65mph night time.

Safety aspect; Tire speed ratings. (if you don't know what they are, google it ya lazy bastards).

Yes your speedometer may say 120MPH, doesn't mean the actual drivetrain was designed for 120mph for an extended distance.

You know how much wear and tear occurs with High RPM, caused by excessive speed?

Its more that the dynamic system isn't really designed for 120MPH.

The average car, even 'performance cars' can just about cruise in a straight line at top speed, and brake very gently from it, not much else.
A bump, gust of wind, truck slipstream, jam the brakes on, blow a tire and you're off the road on your roof.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-05-17 19:02:33)

Fuck Israel

2010-05-17 19:57:13

#74

Diesel_dyk: Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears; +178|6386|Truthistan

As much as I rant about liberty, having a speed limiter on the car where the car would sense what the speed limit was on the road and keep to that speed no matter how far you depressed acelerator pedal, would be a real convenience. If there were a button that allowed to turnt he feature on or off that would be ideal. And if you had it on and a cop tried to give you ticket for speeding and you could use the speed limiter as being a defense against tickets and the cops word then that would be perfect. Imagine just having to hold the pedal to the floor and automatically giong the correct speed.

As far a redlight cameras go, safety studies show that a standing red light makes intersections safer. And there was a case where documents surfaced that showed that the red light camera company helped pick intersection based on the fact that the intersections had the shortest yellow lights. I've had the experience of trying to stop on the short yellow where I literally had to lock up my brakes and I still couldn't stop in time and I wound up with my front end over the line. I never received a ticket although I went over the line but that's because the red light companies review the pictures and the video tape. If I had received a ticket or if I had been rear ended by another car I would have sued that company. IMO it only a matter of time before one of these cameras causes a really severe rear end collision because people are desperately trying to stop their car to avoid a ticket and I expect to see a huge lawsuit that will eventually kill these companies here in the US. Now I hear that these companies are having trouble making money and in some cases the red light cameras are not even functioning.

Anyway, not sure if this has been posted here before but here's an article about cities caught shortening the yellow lights to make more revenue. So really isn't about safety, its about the money.
http://blog.motorists.org/6-cities-that … or-profit/

2010-05-17 20:08:43

#75

rdx-fx: ...; +955|6983

The old Montana signs set a speed limit of "Reasonable and Prudent" for automobile traffic;

http://gastiresoil.blogsome.com/images/ … rudent.jpg

The current speed limit is 75 on open highway, 65 on highway through major cities (Billings, etc).

Personally, I set my cruise control to something between 75-77mph. If the speed limit is a reasonable speed, I've no problem sticking to the posted speed limits.

Although, I am older and mellower now. In my younger, unmarried, not-a-father years, I was a little less likely to follow posted speed limits.
'Best' speeding ticket was for 110mph in a 55mph zone. Damn good thing that Texas Highway Patrol has a soft spot in their hearts for G.I.'s on motorcycles blowing off some steam on an otherwise empty highway.

I was actually going over 165mph when they clocked me. I say 'over 165mph', as the speedometer on my motorcycle had a limit of 165mph. The little needle thingy stopped at 165mph, and I had buried the needle right about the time I shifted from 4th to 5th.
(So I was working off some residual stress that year....)

Last edited by rdx-fx (2010-05-17 20:26:15)

BF2S Forums Speed limits

JohnG@lt wrote:

mikkel wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

mikkel wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

mikkel wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

JohnG@l wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

S3v3N wrote:

Board footer