My top 10 enforcement & countermeasure pet peeves

You still FAIL, Desmo, because not once have I defended speed limits. In fact, I have gone out of my way to make clear that I am not doing so. For me, this is not a discussion of speed limits. It is strictly a discussion of physical kinematics.

Why you feel it is necessary to lie about what I have said is beyond me, but it is personal. There is no other reason you would be doing so. I have tried multiple times to withdraw from this exchange with you, but you always come back with more unfounded accusations. This is the third thread you have trolled me in, and you will not continue to do so if you wish to remain here. Whether you stop it or I stop it for you is your choice, but this is your last warning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gokhos

3. Disagree. 15 over the PSL is too much in my opinion. I someone wants the PSL changed they should petition the jurisdiction to change it.

---

Riddle me this then... let's say that there is a stretch of highway going through your town with a PSL of 70. Everyone does 70-75 through there, accidents are rare, everything is great. Then, one day, the town decides that they need to fill a budget shortfall, and they repost that stretch at 55 and start patrolling the stretch heavily. In a news article, they state it's for "safety" and because "speed kills" and there are "too many accidents" in that stretch. Now everyone who does 70 through there is now going 15 over the PSL. Is that too much in your opinion?

The reason I specifically stated "70 in a 55 ticket" in my peeves list, as opposed to "15 over PSL ticket", is because, way too often, 55 is used as a "magic number" PSL for speed trap areas. A stretch of highway that is PERFECTLY SAFE TO TRAVEL at 70 is posted at 55 solely for revenue enhancement. A LEO can pretty much pick & choose anyone he wants to give a 15+ over PSL ticket to, since the 85th percentile speed is around 70 or higher.

15 over a reasonable PSL may be too much, but 15 over an underposted PSL, I see nothing wrong with this.

The saying speed kills is just a plain dumb and incorrect statement. Instead of speed kills, the saying should really be: Driving too fast for conditions can kill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stealth Stalker

You still FAIL, Desmo, because not once have I defended speed limits. In fact, I have gone out of my way to make clear that I am not doing so.

---

Actually, you haven't made that clear at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stealth Stalker

claiming the speed limits are too low is a dishonest cop-out. If they raised the speed limit by 20 mph today, most of the speeders here would still drive at 10 to 15 over PSL. .

---

Sure sounds like you're defending speed limits to me... :confused:

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gpracer1

The saying speed kills is just a plain dumb and incorrect statement. Instead of speed kills, the saying should really be: Driving too fast for conditions can kill.

---

:thumb2: :thumb2: :thumb2: :thumb2: :thumb2:


And Thanks, Swarga.

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swarga

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stealth Stalker

You still FAIL, Desmo, because not once have I defended speed limits. In fact, I have gone out of my way to make clear that I am not doing so.

---

Actually, you haven't made that clear at all.

---

I shouldn't have to! Nobody should have to waste time making it clear that they never said something. It should be self evident, when people aren't making assumptions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swarga

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stealth Stalker

claiming the speed limits are too low is a dishonest cop-out. If they raised the speed limit by 20 mph today, most of the speeders here would still drive at 10 to 15 over PSL. .

---

Sure sounds like you're defending speed limits to me... :confused:

---

That is an erroneous assumption. It was a simple statement of fact, from what I have observed in 36 years of driving, watching limits go up and down and back up. I never said this was a good thing. I never said I agreed with it. It simply is what it is.

I think too many people here assume that because I was a cop, I am somehow married to the speed limits and believe the party line about all of this. Don't read into my statements, or anyone else's statements for that matter. I made it perfectly clear -- more than once in this thread -- that my thoughts on the matter are nothing more than a discussion of physics. It has zero to do with my personal feelings about speed limits. Why some of you still have problems comprehending that, after reading it over and over, I just can't figure out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gpracer1

The saying speed kills is just a plain dumb and incorrect statement. Instead of speed kills, the saying should really be: Driving too fast for conditions can kill.

---

I want that on a tee shirt.:)

Stealth is just make the argument from a pure physics point of view. If you are going slower when you have an accident the forces acting upon your body are less than if your velocity were higher. So from that point of view alone the statement "speed kills" can be interpreted as correct. No-one has said speeding kills.

#1 on my list...Photo Speed Enforcement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by category4

Stealth is just make the argument from a pure physics point of view. If you are going slower when you have an accident the forces acting upon your body are less than if your velocity were higher. So from that point of view alone the statement "speed kills" can be interpreted as correct. No-one has said speeding kills.

---

Well, actually speed would be an aggravating factor in any accident, but not the cause of death. The accident is caused by poor driving (speeding or not) and death as a result of the accident is a factor of many things, speed probably being the largest (but also the speed and density of the objects that you run into). However, without an "accident" speed does not kill on its own.

Physics or not... speed does not kill and neither does speeding. Speed damn sure doesn't help your chances of surviving an accident though... I will give you that much.

----------------------------------------

If you walk into a wall it will hurt a little. If you run into the same wall, it will hurt like a mother ****er, but what if you only hit walls 99% of the time in your entire life of walking/running? Should you still run? Or just walk forever in fear? As with anything there is a point of diminishing returns... a point at which the dangers outweigh the efficiency/joy of your speed. It is a very dynamic thing and being someone that is very liberterian and loves cars and going fast.... I do not think blanket speed limits are really all that "fair". I am much better at deciding my speed than some damn group of politicians that cannot drive for ****.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 9500ier

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by category4

Stealth is just make the argument from a pure physics point of view. If you are going slower when you have an accident the forces acting upon your body are less than if your velocity were higher. So from that point of view alone the statement "speed kills" can be interpreted as correct. No-one has said speeding kills.

---

Well, actually speed would be an aggravating factor in any accident, but not the cause of death. The accident is caused by poor driving (speeding or not) and death as a result of the accident is a factor of many things, speed probably being the largest (but also the speed and density of the objects that you run into). However, without an "accident" speed does not kill on its own.

Physics or not... speed does not kill and neither does speeding. Speed damn sure doesn't help your chances of surviving an accident though... I will give you that much.

---

I think we are on the same page!!

Sorry, I should have only quoted: "So from that point of view alone the statement "speed kills" can be interpreted as correct."

To be technically correct its not exactly the speed that kills, its the sudden stop.;)

Unfortunately, the problem with maintaining that speed does not kill, and is always just one minor factor, is that you then have to also admit that everything else is "just one minor factor". Society won't allow that because they want to blame something. They want one factor to villainise as "the cause" for all these deaths.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stealth Stalker

Unfortunately, the problem with maintaining that speed does not kill, and is always just one minor factor, is that you then have to also admit that everything else is "just one minor factor". Society won't allow that because they want to blame something. They want one factor to villainise as "the cause" for all these deaths.

---

It comes down to bad driving almost all of the time. Too fast for conditions, being reckless, not paying attention, or whatever. You are right, speed is easy to accuse and if you slow everyone down you can get away with a lot more bad driving. However, speed is not the true cause...

I am only being so argumentative because I hate how many people believe this crap. They think I am nuts for making good time on the interstate. They think 100mph is so insane. There is nothing dangerous about going 100-120mph when you are on a straight stretch with no cars around on a clear day (if you are paying attention and are a good driver in a capable car). I tell people what kind of time I make and they are like "oh, he's a crazy driver" and then I have a car full of 4-5 people going 100mph for a few hours and they said they feel safer with me than with other people they have riden with. My last road trip I averaged 86mph moving (83 overall) doing 99mph on the cruise control most of the time... there were 3 other guys in their 20s. Everyone fell a sleep for awhile but me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by partsfreak

To be technically correct its not exactly the speed that kills, its the sudden stop.;)

---

:lol::lol::lol::lol: Flawless logic here!!!

With my driving, it's not "speed kills" but "driving the PSL kills." I find that when exceeding the speed limit (I don't drive as fast as many here, but for these purposes 10-20 over PSL depending on surface streets/highway/conditions/etc.), I am an extremely attentive driver, hypervigilant for LEOs, knowledgeable about where all other cars are on the road around me, and very situationally aware.

On the other hand, if I'm driving PSL, I'll find that I'll go 10 minutes and can't even remember the last 10 minutes of driving, I'll go to change lanes and I have no idea if someone's behind me or in my blind spot, I won't know how far it is to my exit, etc.

For me, more often than not, driving PSL leads to inattention. That's not to dispute the quite obvious phenomenon that an accident at 75 is more lethal than an accident at 30 mph with all other variables equal, but for me at least, assuming no sudden impacts, "speed saves" - a much more palatable platitude.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hippocrates

With my driving, it's not "speed kills" but "driving the PSL kills." I find that when exceeding the speed limit (I don't drive as fast as many here, but for these purposes 10-20 over PSL depending on surface streets/highway/conditions/etc.), I am an extremely attentive driver, hypervigilant for LEOs, knowledgeable about where all other cars are on the road around me, and very situationally aware.

On the other hand, if I'm driving PSL, I'll find that I'll go 10 minutes and can't even remember the last 10 minutes of driving, I'll go to change lanes and I have no idea if someone's behind me or in my blind spot, I won't know how far it is to my exit, etc.

For me, more often than not, driving PSL leads to inattention. That's not to dispute the quite obvious phenomenon that an accident at 75 is more lethal than an accident at 30 mph with all other variables equal, but for me at least, assuming no sudden impacts, "speed saves" - a much more palatable platitude.:)

---

Yesyesyes......people doing the PSL are on "cruise control" and not paying attention, or worse, multi tasking. That is a leading cause of accidents.

When you are doing 30 over or on the Autobahn doing 150 mph, you have BOTH hands on the wheel and both eyes on the road paying max attention.

The whole problem is we have no real driver education/training that is mandatory. So now we have all these laws to protect the masses. This includes the Indy drivers, us performance drivers:D and the inexperienced point A to point B in a minivan drivers with low pressure/bald tires.
Imagine if everyone had a mandatory Bondurant driving school 1 day class!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by category4

Stealth is just make the argument from a pure physics point of view. If you are going slower when you have an accident the forces acting upon your body are less than if your velocity were higher.

---

That's true, but overly simplistic. When it comes to injury or death during a vehicle collision, a really big factor is the type of collision (elastic, inelastic) and the distance over which the collision takes place. Ever wonder why cars have "crumple zones?" Their purpose is to increase the distance over which the post-impact deceleration takes place, releasing the energy of the collision more slowly and causing less damage to the vehicle occupants. This is the same principle behind the big yellow crash barrels that you see sitting in front of bridge support pillars - not to mention the airbag in your steering wheel.

Race drivers have collisions at 200 MPH and many times they just walk away from the wreck. The guys who design race cars have a really good understanding of physics. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by swarga

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by category4

Stealth is just make the argument from a pure physics point of view. If you are going slower when you have an accident the forces acting upon your body are less than if your velocity were higher.

---

That's true, but overly simplistic. When it comes to injury or death during a vehicle collision, a really big factor is the type of collision (elastic, inelastic) and the distance over which the collision takes place. Ever wonder why cars have "crumple zones?" Their purpose is to increase the distance over which the post-impact deceleration takes place, releasing the energy of the collision more slowly and causing less damage to the vehicle occupants. This is the same principle behind the big yellow crash barrels that you see sitting in front of bridge support pillars - not to mention the airbag in your steering wheel.

Race drivers have collisions at 200 MPH and many times they just walk away from the wreck. The guys who design race cars have a really good understanding of physics. :)

---

I understand that, but the simple fact is the lower the speed of the crash the better chance of surviving. All of the other factors you mention are not something we can control typically.

I understand everyone's point of view on this subject. I personally don't agree with speed enforcement for the reason that "speed kills". There are many more factors to it than speed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gpracer1

The whole problem is we have no real driver education/training that is mandatory. So now we have all these laws to protect the masses. This includes the Indy drivers, us performance drivers:D and the inexperienced point A to point B in a minivan drivers with low pressure/bald tires.
Imagine if everyone had a mandatory Bondurant driving school 1 day class!!

---

I don't know why we don't have PSA's and pamphlets everywhere to educate drivers about tire pressure. If you can't perform the one automotive maintenance task that's both the most frequently necessary and also the easiest to perform, you should get a bus pass.

Instead we get TPMS, because we want to continue to hand out licenses like candy to disinterested and uneducated drivers. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by category4

I understand everyone's point of view on this subject. I personally don't agree with speed enforcement for the reason that "speed kills". There are many more factors to it than speed.

---

My point exactly. You simply cannot disregard speed as a valid factor without being dishonest about it. All factors are relevant.

The faster you go, the more likely you are to be seriously injured.

E=(1/2)mv(squared)

The impact of going 75 mph instead of 55 mph has almost double the kinetic energy. So you're more likely to get a serious injury from an accident.

However, speed doesn't kill isn't a great thing to say because speed doesn't really kill as much as inattentiveness kills. People who aren't paying attention and who drive aggressively cause accidents, not people driving fast. People who drive fast are more likely to get a serious injury when in an accident, but aren't more prone to getting into accidents if they pay attention, maintain safe following distances (since more distance is required to stop), etc.

I am quoting from the NHTSA's Lidar Course Instructor Manual regarding what they say about speed.


" NHTSA estimates that in 1994, speed was a factor in 30% of all fatal crashes. 88% of speed related fatalities occurred on roads that were not Interstate highways. Of all speed related fatalities, 94% occurred on roads with a speed limit of 55 mph or less.

For example. fatality statistics for 1994 show that:

- 22% of fatal accidents occurred on interstates, freeways or expressways.

- But 20% of reported fatalities occurred on local roads

- And 26% of reported fatalities occurred in minor arterial roads "