The phenomenon I describe never happens, or rarely happens, because on the highway almost nobody drives with that 4 second distance between them and the car ahead. I gave the figure 300 feet, but 4 seconds at 65 mph is actually 380 feet. How many people do you see on the highway that ALWAYS have 380 feet between them and the car ahead? The people that leave the most room are still only 100 feet behind the car in front of them, and the average driver only has around 25 feet before the car ahead.
I would like to avoid rattling your cage, but I can't sit by and see you blame your tailgating on the way others drive and not respond. What you're doing is a classic passive-aggressive behavior, CHOOSING to tailgate and blaming it one other people.
CHOOSING to tailgate…All I can say is you didn’t read any of my posts. Sorry but you couldn’t have if you THINK I CHOOSE to tailgate.
Based on your comments it’s easy to conclude that you’ve never driven in areas with real aggressive drivers. Sorry that’s a fact.
The ONLY thing you say you have to do is drive the speed limit…that’s just plane stupid…SORRY…but it is. You have no concept of real aggressive drivers if you think that.
So you tell me HOW you stop a vehicle from cutting in front of you when you try to maintain a safe distance from the vehicle in front of you. This I’ve GOT to hear. All of Massachusetts and New Hampshire is waiting for this one.
"This will keep on happening and happening over and over again until you are driving so slow, the cars entering within a couple hundred feet of your car get out of this area so fast you don't need to slow down anymore."This phenomenon you describe never happens.
This happens ALL THE TIME. I’ve seen it time and time again. Drive in MA or NH during moderate rush hour traffic…and you’ll see it almost every single minute. And I’m NOT kidding. It happens all the time. All I can say is you drive in Shangri-La. Wish I could drive there. But I live in the real world.
@kmccune
The F-750 I drove had a GVWR of around 35,000 pounds, it was much a more substantial vehicle than F-250/350. But yes it was brand new with about 12 miles on the clock, and drove like an extra wide F-250/350.
Anybody got anything new to add? Anybody? I for one have disagreed with the posted speed limits. I think a 55 limit on rural Minnesota highways are silly and dangerous in themselves. I don’t disagree with the 70 freeway limit but do disagree with the 45 mph limit in St. Paul. Driving 50 or 60 is not unsafe. Some people just like strick rules in their lives and try to justify it. Rules iz rules they say. Can we move on with something more useful?
“My first 20 miles of the trip I’m keeping up with the prevailing speed of the moderate traffic of about 75mph. Then the next 20 miles traffic gets heavier and my speed has dropped down to about 50…then the last 10 miles were at a crawl of no more then 10mph. That last 10 miles takes over an hour in the heavy traffic. So YUP…in order for me to AVERAGE 75mph…that first leg in moderate traffic I’d have to be going about 140mph.”
Wasn’t this a puzzler? The correct answer is: “There is NO speed you can go on the first 20 mile leg such that you would average 75 mph for that trip.”
"There is NO speed you can go on the first 20 mile leg such that you would average 75 mph for that trip."
Probably…I didn’t sit down to try and figure it out.
A loose chronological view of the OP’s posts (I wish they had post numbers to reference):
Speeders and fast drivers are a major pet peeve of mine. I drive the speed limit, its there for a good reason.
See why I don’t speed??
(Very next post in thread-)
I admit I speed at times as well, for many of the same reasons as you.
How many wrecks have you had? I have had none, pretty amazing for a driver that refuses to speed.
It appears that even the most ardent proponent of obeying speed limits admits to violating the laws, when it seems fitting…
@TwinTurbo, we are complicated beings. Some of us occasionally speed, but would prefer if people did it less because we believe it would make the roads safer for everyone. I’m pretty sure once you pick the corn out of his crap, @WheresRick’s theory is that if gas prices go up, and everyone slows down as a result, the roads will be a safer place. Unfortunately, this theory was embedded within a bunch of crap about Priuses and “Alcoholic Attitudes,” and doesn’t acknowledge the detrimental effect of high fuel prices on the economy.
Bing, I too will move on from this thread. All the arguments are old and well-worn. There’s nothing new in the entire thread.
@starman1
“Or consider a good driver going 45 mph and an elderly driver with a slower reaction time going 30mph. In the extra 2 seconds it takes to react, the worse driver has already traveled 90 feet. In order to be safer, the aware driver has to be able to brake to slow from 45mph to 30mph in 90 feet, not a problem.”
Perhaps I’m reading too much into this . . .
But I suspect you consider yourself to be the good driver going 45 in a 30
In that case, you’re simply trying to rationalize your speeding
I say trying because your arguments have not convinced me
But I suppose you don’t have to convince me
You just have to convince the patrolman who pulls you over and intends to hand you a ticket
@db4690 I wouldn’t bother trying to change your mind about speed limit laws because that can involve plenty of ethical questions and political opinions there is no way to fully analyze via this communication medium.
Instead, I only seek your agreement on one statement, or the individual components logically used to make that statement.
Would you agree that there are some good drivers that can drive at 45mph and be safer than some very bad drivers at 30 mph.
If not that, do you agree that the reaction time of a very alert driver could be 2 seconds faster than an unaware 80 year old driver?
The latter question is enough, and would be enough even at 1 second slower - there are plenty of equations and sources to say that a vehicle can reasonably be slowed from 45 to 30 in 50 feet.
On the subject of speed limits and other driving laws, the whole system seems backwards to me. But the reason is evident: ticketing for speeding and movement violations is an easy way to make money for the police department.
We have these speed limits and other laws as preventative safety measures, and enforce them on all drivers without discrimination. However, when an accident does occur, there is no police investigation that follows. No fines or criminal penalty for the driving that actually caused the accident, only tickets for behavior that statistically is more likely to cause an accident.
Someone gets fined for driving fast, but nothing happens to the person who foolishly drove into a parked car?
@spaceman1
Nothing happens to the person who foolishly drove into a parked car ?
Two totally unrelated incidents. And yes. Their insurance Rates go up if they are in a no fault state, they possibly loose the use of their car if damaged and if the police are involved, they can easily get cited for one or more if a number of reasons. At this point, we are beating a dead horse. Police DO NOT get to keep the money they make from citations. The smaller the town the more likely they don’t have their own court system and the money goes directly there. If it does, the tax payers of that town still collect money for the general fund which is where the money goes which along with these fees, pays for everything…not just law enforcement !
IT’s not a money making scheme ! It’s an enforcement at the request of the town and their residents. Local townships have the right to establish speed limits within their boundaries on their roads for their perceived safety. If you live anywhere near a road and have kids or have to back out of your drive or work or shop on that road…you “may” be like some people who appreciate having local control of that road. It’s call maintaining personal liberty, not to be infringed upon by those who feel they have a need to exercise thier right to speed anywhere !
Everyone has the right to exercise their personal rights and freedoms guaranteed them under state, local and federal constitutions and laws. The problem is, personal freedoms stops when it does infringe upon the rights of others. Police work for other people trying to protect thier rights from people who infringe upon them…like speeders.
They aren’t an end unto themselves. Someone needs a civics lesson…badly ! ;)))))
man, I ve been away from this thread long enough for there to be 43 new posts. nothing new was said. you can t make this a black and white issue. there are too many variables. I vary my driving to suit the road and traffic conditions, and to suit the vehicle I m driving
I m with bing and mountainbike. have fun beating the dead horse.
@dagosa
The problem is, personal freedoms stops when it does infringe upon the rights of others.I agree. However how do we consider personal freedoms on a public road? One person might consider it wrong to be driving 30 on the public road in front of their home, and their neighbor might consider it wrong to be driving 50 on the same road, but 40 to be okay. The road is public, so their own personal opinions aren't as important. So at what speed is a driver violating the personal liberties of a resident on a road? Can't say. And anyone who claims they can clearly say exactly what speeds are infringing on the personal liberties of others has a god complex.
Personal liberties ARE clearly violated in an accident. I should be free to drive my car on a road and not have anyone crash into me. Police may often be involved after an accident, but rarely is there any criminal penalty. Yes the insurance rates go up, but as far as the governments role in protecting the rights of its citizens, not much if anything happens.
My problem is that so much effort is put into fining people who are statistically at higher risk to violate someone else’s liberties (cause an accident) because statistics mean nothing to the individual. However when somebody does cause an accident, the criminal penalties, if they do occur at all, are not greater than the penalty for the “risky” behavior itself.
I believe there should be much less focus on penalizing people who “may infringe on someone else’s liberties” and an increased focus on penalizing people who HAVE infringed on another’s rights.
“Here is a better experiment: Get on the interstate, stay in the right lane, and set your cruise control on the speed limit. This is the VERY safest way you can possibly drive.”////I call bovine scatology. @whitey…and others…this is a “solved” problem, and has bee for some time! Google “Hurt report.” It shows (at least W/R/T motorcycles): 1) Accident rate increases, from a minimum, in a roughly parabolic fashion with increased OR decreased speed, relative to traffic. 2) The minimum occurs a few MPH FASTER than prevailing traffic speed. So, if you take the bike on the Schuylkill Expressway…and proceed to drive 55…you’re accepting a sizable risk of bodily harm to obey the law.
So, rather than have an “Is the Earth flat?” debate, why not discuss something that hasn’t already been proven?
"Here is a better experiment: Get on the interstate, stay in the right lane, and set your cruise control on the speed limit. This is the VERY safest way you can possibly drive."
Maybe where you live…but NOT in MA or NH. You keep making general statements on road safety based on where you live. I suggest you drive in other states to find out what traffic is really like.
"Here is a better experiment: Get on the interstate, stay in the right lane, and set your cruise control on the speed limit. This is the VERY safest way you can possibly drive."
Maybe where you live...but NOT in MA or NH. You keep making general statements on road safety based on where you live. I suggest you drive in other states to find out what traffic is really like.
@MikeinNH is right, I don’t know where you are driving but in MA, we have other cars on the highway.
Here is a better experiment. Get on a highway in new england with comparatively “light” traffic, say Saturday at 10AM on I-90. Set your cruise control and drive 10 miles and try to not have to take manual control of the vehicle speed at any time. If you don’t make it 10 miles without having to take manual control, try again at 2mph slower than the last time. Keep repeating.
At what speed do you think you’ll be able to drive 10 miles on cruise control without having to take manual control of the car at any point? I bet its well below the speed limit.
Everyone has the right to exercise their personal rights and freedoms guaranteed them under state, local and federal constitutions and laws. The problem is, personal freedoms stops when it does infringe upon the rights of others.
But…the problem with the bolded statement is that, broadly interpeted, it can be a mechanism to permit ANY level of repression of personal freedom. Every action a person takes influences that person in some way or another…and, as “no man is an island,” unless the person in question is a hermit, there is always a potential for it to ultimately influence somebody or something else.
Under the “personal freedoms stops when it does infringe upon the rights of others” doctrine, speeding is forbidden. All right. Controlled substances are forbidden, too, because of the associated crime, health care costs, etc. Okay…so, does that mean alcohol ought to be forbidden on roughly the same grounds? Smoking? Eating fatty foods–obviously, society has to pay for health care in many cases? How about how your hang gliding/rock climbing/bungee jumping activities? Music and books HAVE encouraged acts of violence and general discontent with the established system…does the state have a compelling right to censor those?
Since there is such obvious potential for abuse, the prudent action to take is to utilize this exception to personal liberty sparingly, and with extreme discretion–otherwise, personal liberty is largely theoretical.
Someone needs a civics lesson....badly ! ;)))))You ever notice how, when you point your finger at someone, you're pointing three fingers back at yourself? ;-)