The issue of security is one major hurdle. I guess you would have to encrypt the signal somehow, but I'm not sure how. You would need to use an encryption system under which knowing an encrypted message, and the decrypted version of that same message, was not sufficient to construct a different encrypted message. And I don't know enough about cryptology to know if that is possible.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Anyone driving under 110 on a 400 series highway in Ontario should have their flashers on and pull over.
I'd say that goes for anyone doing under 100. Anyone between 100-110 should stay in the right lane though.
I nearly flip my shit every time I'm stuck behind someone in an acceleration lane who a) doesn't accelerate, and b) merges onto the highway at 80kph
Same with people driving the speed limit on the left lane. Forget the speed limit, the left lanes are supposed to be for passing, right? If you're not passing anyone, gtfo
EDIT: Buh, that's entirely off topic.
I'll add this: I don't agree that speed limiters should be mandatory and installed on all cars. I can't really say about city driving because I do a relatively small amount of it, but almost every dangerous situation I've ever come across (with the exception of lane changes without looking) has happened as a result of someone in the passing lane who is not passing other cars, and holding up other cars who wish to pass them.
I take the view that improving the flow of traffic is more conducive to reducing accidents overall than limiting speed. Granted, that doesn't do anything to decrease the severity of the stereotypical teenager driving 50kph over the limit, but there again, I take the view that education is the way to go, as opposed to speed limiting.
Anyone driving under 110 on a 400 series highway in Ontario should have their flashers on and pull over.
I'd say that goes for anyone doing under 100. Anyone between 100-110 should stay in the right lane though.
I nearly flip my shit every time I'm stuck behind someone in an acceleration lane who a) doesn't accelerate, and b) merges onto the highway at 80kph
Same with people driving the speed limit on the left lane. Forget the speed limit, the left lanes are supposed to be for passing, right? If you're not passing anyone, gtfo
What if you are passing someone while going the speed limit.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Anyone driving under 110 on a 400 series highway in Ontario should have their flashers on and pull over.
I'd say that goes for anyone doing under 100. Anyone between 100-110 should stay in the right lane though.
I nearly flip my shit every time I'm stuck behind someone in an acceleration lane who a) doesn't accelerate, and b) merges onto the highway at 80kph
Same with people driving the speed limit on the left lane. Forget the speed limit, the left lanes are supposed to be for passing, right? If you're not passing anyone, gtfo
What if you are passing someone while going the speed limit.
In most US states, you are allowed to go slightly over the speed limit while passing and its not illegal.
Its dangerous when you have two people near each other going the exact speed limit in both lanes
Anyone driving under 110 on a 400 series highway in Ontario should have their flashers on and pull over.
I'd say that goes for anyone doing under 100. Anyone between 100-110 should stay in the right lane though.
I nearly flip my shit every time I'm stuck behind someone in an acceleration lane who a) doesn't accelerate, and b) merges onto the highway at 80kph
Same with people driving the speed limit on the left lane. Forget the speed limit, the left lanes are supposed to be for passing, right? If you're not passing anyone, gtfo
What if you are passing someone while going the speed limit.
I have absolutely no problems with that, and endorse it wholly.
Just for the record though, since I don't know if you're familiar with the 400 series or not, the posted limit is 100kph, but the "unofficial" limit is essentially 120. If there isn't a traffic jam (rare as that is), 120 is a pretty normal cruising speed.
Anyone driving under 110 on a 400 series highway in Ontario should have their flashers on and pull over.
I'd say that goes for anyone doing under 100. Anyone between 100-110 should stay in the right lane though.
I nearly flip my shit every time I'm stuck behind someone in an acceleration lane who a) doesn't accelerate, and b) merges onto the highway at 80kph
Same with people driving the speed limit on the left lane. Forget the speed limit, the left lanes are supposed to be for passing, right? If you're not passing anyone, gtfo
What if you are passing someone while going the speed limit.
In most US states, you are allowed to go slightly over the speed limit while passing and its not illegal.
Its dangerous when you have two people near each other going the exact speed limit in both lanes
If I'm passing them they are probably going well under the speed limit.
What I'm saying is, if I'm going along and there's a guy going like 65 and I'm going 70 and I start passing him, and then suddenly there's a guy on my bumper going 80, he can bloody well wait 5 seconds while I finish passing.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Anyone driving under 110 on a 400 series highway in Ontario should have their flashers on and pull over.
I'd say that goes for anyone doing under 100. Anyone between 100-110 should stay in the right lane though.
I nearly flip my shit every time I'm stuck behind someone in an acceleration lane who a) doesn't accelerate, and b) merges onto the highway at 80kph
Same with people driving the speed limit on the left lane. Forget the speed limit, the left lanes are supposed to be for passing, right? If you're not passing anyone, gtfo
What if you are passing someone while going the speed limit.
I have absolutely no problems with that, and endorse it wholly.
Just for the record though, since I don't know if you're familiar with the 400 series or not, the posted limit is 100kph, but the "unofficial" limit is essentially 120. If there isn't a traffic jam (rare as that is), 120 is a pretty normal cruising speed.
Yeah, I generally will drive along side a cop while going 115ish and have no fear of being pulled over. Accidents happen from people changing lanes too often, which they do because they can't pass on the left. Or because someone merges onto the highway at 85 and forces everyone to brake.
I'm completely opposed to mechanical limits on speed. I guarantee that a lot of drivers will simply disable them. I've also been in situations where driving defensively meant accelerating quickly rather than braking - like when somebody is merging into my lane without looking and the only available space is ahead of me. Granted, I will admit that those are rather rare, but they do happen sometimes.
Honestly, the best thing we could do in the US is get cars off the road. It's demented that US culture pretty much pressures every adult to own a car, outside of a handful of urban areas. Every single problem being talked about in this thread (at least in the US) either stems from, or is exacerbated by, this cultural norm.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Anyone driving under 110 on a 400 series highway in Ontario should have their flashers on and pull over.
I'd say that goes for anyone doing under 100. Anyone between 100-110 should stay in the right lane though.
I nearly flip my shit every time I'm stuck behind someone in an acceleration lane who a) doesn't accelerate, and b) merges onto the highway at 80kph
Same with people driving the speed limit on the left lane. Forget the speed limit, the left lanes are supposed to be for passing, right? If you're not passing anyone, gtfo
What if you are passing someone while going the speed limit.
I have absolutely no problems with that, and endorse it wholly.
Just for the record though, since I don't know if you're familiar with the 400 series or not, the posted limit is 100kph, but the "unofficial" limit is essentially 120. If there isn't a traffic jam (rare as that is), 120 is a pretty normal cruising speed.
Yeah, I generally will drive along side a cop while going 115ish and have no fear of being pulled over. Accidents happen from people changing lanes too often, which they do because they can't pass on the left. Or because someone merges onto the highway at 85 and forces everyone to brake.
I don't get this. Normal practice in the UK is to move over to the middle (on a three-lane motorway) or right-hand lane (on a two-lane dual carriageway) well before a junction to let those merging come in. Obviously if it's really busy it's a bit different but that's how things seem to work normally.
I'm completely opposed to mechanical limits on speed. I guarantee that a lot of drivers will simply disable them. I've also been in situations where driving defensively meant accelerating quickly rather than braking - like when somebody is merging into my lane without looking and the only available space is ahead of me. Granted, I will admit that those are rather rare, but they do happen sometimes.
Honestly, the best thing we could do in the US is get cars off the road. It's demented that US culture pretty much pressures every adult to own a car, outside of a handful of urban areas. Every single problem being talked about in this thread (at least in the US) either stems from, or is exacerbated by, this cultural norm.
I agree. I'd like to see a hard push away from owning cars and into more public transportation and bike lanes. I'd like to see cars a pain in the ass to deal with except for long trips. I'd also like most of all major cities networked with a mono-rail type system.
I would use the shit out of a metro system like DC has if we had one where I live.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
I'm completely opposed to mechanical limits on speed. I guarantee that a lot of drivers will simply disable them.
I doubt a huge percentage would have the know-how needed to do so.
Also, it would presumably be illegal to do so. And you can check it when you do the annual check thing.
Honestly, the best thing we could do in the US is get cars off the road. It's demented that US culture pretty much pressures every adult to own a car, outside of a handful of urban areas. Every single problem being talked about in this thread (at least in the US) either stems from, or is exacerbated by, this cultural norm.
This goes far beyond culture. The entirety of American infrastructure is built around cars. It would take decades and would require a complete restructuring of cities, towns, etc.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
I'm completely opposed to mechanical limits on speed. I guarantee that a lot of drivers will simply disable them. I've also been in situations where driving defensively meant accelerating quickly rather than braking - like when somebody is merging into my lane without looking and the only available space is ahead of me. Granted, I will admit that those are rather rare, but they do happen sometimes.
Honestly, the best thing we could do in the US is get cars off the road. It's demented that US culture pretty much pressures every adult to own a car, outside of a handful of urban areas. Every single problem being talked about in this thread (at least in the US) either stems from, or is exacerbated by, this cultural norm.
I agree. I'd like to see a hard push away from owning cars and into more public transportation and bike lanes. I'd like to see cars a pain in the ass to deal with except for long trips. I'd also like most of all major cities networked with a mono-rail type system.
I would use the shit out of a metro system like DC has if we had one where I live.
florida sadly will still be a shithole car wise. We tried to get rail systems put in, but we cant pay for them
and fuck riding a bike in 95+ degrees with 90% humidity.
I'm completely opposed to mechanical limits on speed. I guarantee that a lot of drivers will simply disable them.
I doubt a huge percentage would have the know-how needed to do so.
Also, it would presumably be illegal to do so. And you can check it when you do the annual check thing.
Honestly, the best thing we could do in the US is get cars off the road. It's demented that US culture pretty much pressures every adult to own a car, outside of a handful of urban areas. Every single problem being talked about in this thread (at least in the US) either stems from, or is exacerbated by, this cultural norm.
This goes far beyond culture. The entirety of American infrastructure is built around cars. It would take decades and would require a complete restructuring of cities, towns, etc.
I'm guessing the population density is just far too low for any sort of public transport. I guess making the HOV lanes actually useful might encourage car-sharing a bit more though. I don't think I've ever seen anyone really using them any time I've been in the US.
In most US states, you are allowed to go slightly over the speed limit while passing and its not illegal.
It's possible that this is a correct statement, as I'm not intimately familiar with the laws in every state.
However, I've heard this sentiment espoused repeatedly in California, where it is totally false, which leads me to view it with suspicion.
You'd have to go to your court date to prove it, usually. I know the rules in MA for speeding are specifically going over the speed limit for X distance/duration to allow for passing.
I can legitimately want to pass say, a Semi for visibility reasons instead of "he's slow" reasons. Namely that if I can't see the road ahead of the car in front of me in traffic or an unknown area, I have drastically shorter reaction windows to deal with issues/my exit appearing on an odd side or whatever.
I love exits on the left side of a highway. "My exit's coming up, I'll slowly merge over to the.. WHAT THE FUCK, HIGHWAY PLANNER?"
The only problem with public transport I'm seeing is that most of the time with bus schedules there's one bus that hits the area I need to go to and it always goes at some wacky hours. Like, no one would ever use that except whores and crackheads so what the fuck are you doing?
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
I'm completely opposed to mechanical limits on speed. I guarantee that a lot of drivers will simply disable them.
I doubt a huge percentage would have the know-how needed to do so.
Also, it would presumably be illegal to do so. And you can check it when you do the annual check thing.
It's already illegal to put certain types of air filter in your car, but people do it anyway, and either undo it when it's time to do the smog check, or the smog check mechanic just ignores it because he thinks the law is stupid.
Honestly, the best thing we could do in the US is get cars off the road. It's demented that US culture pretty much pressures every adult to own a car, outside of a handful of urban areas. Every single problem being talked about in this thread (at least in the US) either stems from, or is exacerbated by, this cultural norm.
This goes far beyond culture. The entirety of American infrastructure is built around cars. It would take decades and would require a complete restructuring of cities, towns, etc.
Your post makes certain assumptions about how far people expect to be able to travel and how fast.
When somebody buys or rents a house 30 miles away from their work because they want something bigger than they could afford closer to the city, they might say "well, I'd take public transportation but it sucks" but really they made the decision to rely on a car. When an employer requires that an employee own a car, not because the job requires driving during the day, but because they expect that employee to be able to show up to work within a half-hour of being called, that's a social expectation.
So, yes, you can say "public transportation sucks at getting people X distance in Y timeframe" but that brings up the question "why do you need to go X distance in Y timeframe?"
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
BTW, I gotta point out that when we're talking about a legal requirement to have a mechanical speed limiter, that's only going to be a road-legal requirement. In other words, lots of people drive their cars on tracks, do (legal) amateur racing, etc; where the rules and laws are different. Which means there's a legitimate reason for mechanics to offer a service to disable the mechanical limiter.
It would really be no different than putting on track tires or putting in an air filter on a Friday night because you've got a track day the next morning.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I'm completely opposed to mechanical limits on speed. I guarantee that a lot of drivers will simply disable them.
I doubt a huge percentage would have the know-how needed to do so.
Also, it would presumably be illegal to do so. And you can check it when you do the annual check thing.
It's already illegal to put certain types of air filter in your car, but people do it anyway, and either undo it when it's time to do the smog check, or the smog check mechanic just ignores it because he thinks the law is stupid.
Honestly, the best thing we could do in the US is get cars off the road. It's demented that US culture pretty much pressures every adult to own a car, outside of a handful of urban areas. Every single problem being talked about in this thread (at least in the US) either stems from, or is exacerbated by, this cultural norm.
This goes far beyond culture. The entirety of American infrastructure is built around cars. It would take decades and would require a complete restructuring of cities, towns, etc.
Your post makes certain assumptions about how far people expect to be able to travel and how fast.
When somebody buys or rents a house 30 miles away from their work because they want something bigger than they could afford closer to the city, they might say "well, I'd take public transportation but it sucks" but really they made the decision to rely on a car. When an employer requires that an employee own a car, not because the job requires driving during the day, but because they expect that employee to be able to show up to work within a half-hour of being called, that's a social expectation.
So, yes, you can say "public transportation sucks at getting people X distance in Y timeframe" but that brings up the question "why do you need to go X distance in Y timeframe?"
Because every minute extra spent going somewhere is an economic loss and a minute you'll never get back? People don't want to waste their lives traveling at slow speeds, nor do they want to live in the factory farming equivalent of human housing.
It's true that there are other options to owning a car and driving X mph for Y miles, but those options suck, which is why they aren't the way things work.
I'm completely opposed to mechanical limits on speed. I guarantee that a lot of drivers will simply disable them. I've also been in situations where driving defensively meant accelerating quickly rather than braking - like when somebody is merging into my lane without looking and the only available space is ahead of me. Granted, I will admit that those are rather rare, but they do happen sometimes.
Honestly, the best thing we could do in the US is get cars off the road. It's demented that US culture pretty much pressures every adult to own a car, outside of a handful of urban areas. Every single problem being talked about in this thread (at least in the US) either stems from, or is exacerbated by, this cultural norm.
I agree. I'd like to see a hard push away from owning cars and into more public transportation and bike lanes. I'd like to see cars a pain in the ass to deal with except for long trips. I'd also like most of all major cities networked with a mono-rail type system.
I would use the shit out of a metro system like DC has if we had one where I live.
florida sadly will still be a shithole car wise. We tried to get rail systems put in, but we cant pay for them
and fuck riding a bike in 95+ degrees with 90% humidity.
I live a mile and a half from work but don't ride a bike because there isn't a shower for me at work to de-stink
Improvolone on
Voice actor for hire. My time is free if your project is!
Because every minute extra spent going somewhere by bus or train is [strike]an economic loss and a minute you'll never get back?[/strike] a moment you can spend reading or watching a DVD or playing a video game or talking to the person next to you.
Honestly, if you have the time to take public transportation, I don't understand why you wouldn't.
Commuting by car is the shittiest thing.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I'm completely opposed to mechanical limits on speed. I guarantee that a lot of drivers will simply disable them. I've also been in situations where driving defensively meant accelerating quickly rather than braking - like when somebody is merging into my lane without looking and the only available space is ahead of me. Granted, I will admit that those are rather rare, but they do happen sometimes.
Honestly, the best thing we could do in the US is get cars off the road. It's demented that US culture pretty much pressures every adult to own a car, outside of a handful of urban areas. Every single problem being talked about in this thread (at least in the US) either stems from, or is exacerbated by, this cultural norm.
I agree. I'd like to see a hard push away from owning cars and into more public transportation and bike lanes. I'd like to see cars a pain in the ass to deal with except for long trips. I'd also like most of all major cities networked with a mono-rail type system.
I would use the shit out of a metro system like DC has if we had one where I live.
florida sadly will still be a shithole car wise. We tried to get rail systems put in, but we cant pay for them
and fuck riding a bike in 95+ degrees with 90% humidity.
I live a mile and a half from work but don't ride a bike because there isn't a shower for me at work to de-stink
I live right next to UCF, its about 10-15 minutes of bike riding. It takes about as long to drive a car, or to take the shuttles. But I would die of heatstroke if i attempted it
I'm completely opposed to mechanical limits on speed. I guarantee that a lot of drivers will simply disable them.
I doubt a huge percentage would have the know-how needed to do so.
Also, it would presumably be illegal to do so. And you can check it when you do the annual check thing.
It's already illegal to put certain types of air filter in your car, but people do it anyway, and either undo it when it's time to do the smog check, or the smog check mechanic just ignores it because he thinks the law is stupid.
So we shouldn't even bother having the law because some people will break it?
Honestly, the best thing we could do in the US is get cars off the road. It's demented that US culture pretty much pressures every adult to own a car, outside of a handful of urban areas. Every single problem being talked about in this thread (at least in the US) either stems from, or is exacerbated by, this cultural norm.
This goes far beyond culture. The entirety of American infrastructure is built around cars. It would take decades and would require a complete restructuring of cities, towns, etc.
Your post makes certain assumptions about how far people expect to be able to travel and how fast.
When somebody buys or rents a house 30 miles away from their work because they want something bigger than they could afford closer to the city, they might say "well, I'd take public transportation but it sucks" but really they made the decision to rely on a car. When an employer requires that an employee own a car, not because the job requires driving during the day, but because they expect that employee to be able to show up to work within a half-hour of being called, that's a social expectation.
So, yes, you can say "public transportation sucks at getting people X distance in Y timeframe" but that brings up the question "why do you need to go X distance in Y timeframe?"
What you are proposing is that suburbs should not exist. If people actually stopped living 30 miles away from work, all the towns 30 miles outside of the city would practically cease to exist, because there is no work there to sustain that many people. Which, like I said, is a complete restructuring of infrastructure.
And suddenly the population of cities would go up like a hundred fold, and the already ridiculous cost of living in cities would become even more so.
Your idea lacks even the semblance of feasibility.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Even if you let them drive at 20, they'll make the same mistakes any 16 year old would when they first started driving. Moving the age around really doesn't change much. From what I've seen anyways.
I can only speak from personal experience, but I tried learning to drive as a teenager and again at about 21, and I was waaaaay too twitchy and anxious. I left it until I was 25, and at that point I picked it up pretty well, and I'm now confident and not a retard on the roads.
Just don't ask me about carparks.
Still catching up on this thread, just pointing out that had you started driving at 16 and stuck with it, despite nervousness, you'd be a far better driver today. And you'd have been a far better driver at 21 as well.
In Tennessee the driver's test made me mad. Most of the questions were about the penalities for getting caught driving drunk. Not like, rules of the road, or how to drive. This angered me. It was ridiculously simple, but why is knowing what a yellow light is less important than knowing that if I drive drunk they'll charge me a specific sum of money?
SniperGuy on
0
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
edited June 2010
Hard-limiting seems grossly unnecessary, but I'd be curious to see a cost analysis. How many lives are we saving, versus how many trillions are we spending to put limiters in every car, and hardware on every speed limit sign, in the entire nation?
And the idea of sticking a one-button override for emergencies is just silly. When you are placed in a situation where you have maybe a second or two to react, do you really want to have to find a button you need to press before your car actually responds to the emergency procedure you need to perform? C'mon, that's retarded.
The people who are causing problems are not the ones driving 75 in a 65 down a five-lane freeway at constant speed. The ones who are causing problems are the ones swerving in and out of traffic, and they are going to be doing that whether the flow of traffic is 75 or 55.
As to traffic school? I dunno how hard you guys in Australia find it to learn to drive cars, but really? It's not that difficult. The standards in California, where you need to log something like 40 hours and can get a learner's permit at 15.5 years old and yadda yadda is pretty sufficient. The program is tailored to the lowest common denominator because almost everyone in the country needs to be able to drive.
Yes, yes, bitch about our crappy mass transit systems, whatever. Done now? Yes? Good.
Anyway, the problem with most dipshits who can't drive for beans isn't that they have failed to master the mechanics of steering or don't know what to do when you see a red light. The problem is that, while they can probably drive well on command when someone is staring at them, they stop paying attention as soon as they're on their own. And excessively onerous classes and exams and whatnot isn't going to fix that.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Most rural areas are semi-urban. I'm not talking the corn husk areas of Nebraska, I'm talking about the legitimate areas in between which could use something like a subway/train hub to bring them into the city. Which would reduce our dependencies on oil, reduce pollution, and get rid of our dependence on cars.
As for needing them in Nebraska, fine, they can have subsidized gas.
Plus, I can't think of a reason not to do it. Fuck the costs. Little good that does us when our oceans are filling up with crude oil because our world runs on cars and gasoline.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
The people who are causing problems are not the ones driving 75 in a 65 down a five-lane freeway at constant speed. The ones who are causing problems are the ones swerving in and out of traffic, and they are going to be doing that whether the flow of traffic is 75 or 55.
While the latter is certainly more dangerous than the former, I find it disingenuous to suggest that the former is not also dangerous, not to mention things like 65 in a 55, or 45 in a 35.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
The people who are causing problems are not the ones driving 75 in a 65 down a five-lane freeway at constant speed. The ones who are causing problems are the ones swerving in and out of traffic, and they are going to be doing that whether the flow of traffic is 75 or 55.
While the latter is certainly more dangerous than the former, I find it disingenuous to suggest that the former is not also dangerous, not to mention things like 65 in a 55, or 45 in a 35.
So I had an amused question about why 65 in a 55 is innately dangerous (more specifically: why is it a 55 in the first place as opposed to a 65, where 65 in a 65 would be fine)
And found this in Florida's DOT site:
How are speed limits established? It is common traffic engineering knowledge that about 85 percent of all drivers travel at reasonably safe speeds for the various roadway conditions they encounter, regardless of speed limit signs. This leaves 15 percent of drivers who must be reminded of the maximum speed limit. This reminder must be coupled with meaningful enforcement. Based on this knowledge, a traffic engineering study is conducted to establish speed limits on the state highway. The Department uses the "85th percentile" method of determining appropriate and safe posted speed limits in conjunction with the maximum statute based speeds. This method is based on extensive nationally accepted studies and observations. By measuring the speed of hundreds of vehicles at various points along the roadway, traffic engineers are able to use data to determine a reasonable and safe maximum speed to post for all vehicles to travel.
Which seems to imply that "going with the flow" is how florida determines speed limits. Essentially: people aren't suicidal, and what the vast majority of them are doing is probably appropriate.
Not sure how good an assumption that is in, you know, FLORIDA. But still, it seems to imply that speed limits are for the most part relatively arbitrary.
The people who are causing problems are not the ones driving 75 in a 65 down a five-lane freeway at constant speed. The ones who are causing problems are the ones swerving in and out of traffic, and they are going to be doing that whether the flow of traffic is 75 or 55.
While the latter is certainly more dangerous than the former, I find it disingenuous to suggest that the former is not also dangerous, not to mention things like 65 in a 55, or 45 in a 35.
So I had an amused question about why 65 in a 55 is innately dangerous (more specifically: why is it a 55 in the first place as opposed to a 65, where 65 in a 65 would be fine)
And found this in Florida's DOT site:
How are speed limits established? It is common traffic engineering knowledge that about 85 percent of all drivers travel at reasonably safe speeds for the various roadway conditions they encounter, regardless of speed limit signs. This leaves 15 percent of drivers who must be reminded of the maximum speed limit. This reminder must be coupled with meaningful enforcement. Based on this knowledge, a traffic engineering study is conducted to establish speed limits on the state highway. The Department uses the "85th percentile" method of determining appropriate and safe posted speed limits in conjunction with the maximum statute based speeds. This method is based on extensive nationally accepted studies and observations. By measuring the speed of hundreds of vehicles at various points along the roadway, traffic engineers are able to use data to determine a reasonable and safe maximum speed to post for all vehicles to travel.
Which seems to imply that "going with the flow" is how florida determines speed limits. Essentially: people aren't suicidal, and what the vast majority of them are doing is probably appropriate.
Not sure how good an assumption that is in, you know, FLORIDA. But still, it seems to imply that speed limits are for the most part relatively arbitrary.
They aren't arbitrary, they are determined by road conditions. What that is saying is that apparently 85% of people are able to figure out the safe speed for the road conditions by themselves.
I don't feel like working out the exact difference in stopping distance between 65 and 55, but it is significant.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Braking is a complicated question. For example the math I can find says I will take 172 feet to go from 60-0. My car actually does that in 127 feet(stock parts), because this is heavily influenced by the brakes and tires on the car. edit: theoretically, the difference between 55 and 65 is about 50 feet. Realistically, I can't tell you the difference on various types of cars, given how inaccurate that math is with base braking distances.
But moreover: you don't ride someone's ass at any high speed because you need braking distance. That has little to do with adjusting the speed limit and more to do with "how does driving work?", it's also why people weaving is such a danger: it promptly jostles traffic because they rarely do so while leaving enough room for braking in the lane they merged into.
I'm saying it's relatively arbitrary because the method used is essentially "people will figure it out, then we paint it on a sign", likely because of the vast differences in car performance making it pretty much impossible to come up with decent numbers based on the math of their various acceleration braking and turning metrics.
Braking is a complicated question. For example the math I can find says I will take 172 feet to go from 60-0. My car actually does that in 127 feet(stock parts), because this is heavily influenced by the brakes and tires on the car. edit: theoretically, the difference between 55 and 65 is about 50 feet. Realistically, I can't tell you the difference on various types of cars, given how inaccurate that math is with base braking distances.
But moreover: you don't ride someone's ass at any high speed because you need braking distance. That has little to do with adjusting the speed limit and more to do with "how does driving work?", it's also why people weaving is such a danger: it promptly jostles traffic because they rarely do so while leaving enough room for braking in the lane they merged into.
I'm saying it's relatively arbitrary because the method used is essentially "people will figure it out, then we paint it on a sign", likely because of the vast differences in car performance making it pretty much impossible to come up with decent numbers based on the math of their various acceleration braking and turning metrics.
Also the energy of an impact at 65 is going to be a lot more than one at 55.
I'm not really seeing what is so unreasonable about speed limits.
You start out with highways at like 70 because they are straight and wide and thus safe to go on at those speeds. They may also have side rails and medians and stuff for additional protection.
When you go down to major roads that are narrower and do not have these protections, you need to drop down to 55-65. Then even smaller roads, with lots of intersections and turns, are like 45. And finally residential roads and the like are 20-35.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
But that's not the standard everywhere. The same road (size, conditions, whatnot) in two neighboring states can be 55 or 65. That's why it's relatively arbitrary. I'm not saying "NO SPEED LIMITS", what I'm saying is that in reality the exact number decided on is pretty random. Heck, in MA it's determined by the number of lanes and number of people in the general vicinity (except the pike, which sets it's own limits) state wide, with no care for the actual road conditions. Which makes for some hilariously unsafe roads marked 45 that nobody goes over 25 on.
This is why you don't see a lot of RAGE against people going 70-75 in a 65. Because aside from how easy it is to slip 5mph up or down, it's also well within a pretty sane range that the road can handle. Sure, I'll look funny at people doing 100 in a 65, but that's because you're now well into crazy land.
Posts
For me, yes.
I'd say that goes for anyone doing under 100. Anyone between 100-110 should stay in the right lane though.
I nearly flip my shit every time I'm stuck behind someone in an acceleration lane who a) doesn't accelerate, and b) merges onto the highway at 80kph
Same with people driving the speed limit on the left lane. Forget the speed limit, the left lanes are supposed to be for passing, right? If you're not passing anyone, gtfo
EDIT: Buh, that's entirely off topic.
I'll add this: I don't agree that speed limiters should be mandatory and installed on all cars. I can't really say about city driving because I do a relatively small amount of it, but almost every dangerous situation I've ever come across (with the exception of lane changes without looking) has happened as a result of someone in the passing lane who is not passing other cars, and holding up other cars who wish to pass them.
I take the view that improving the flow of traffic is more conducive to reducing accidents overall than limiting speed. Granted, that doesn't do anything to decrease the severity of the stereotypical teenager driving 50kph over the limit, but there again, I take the view that education is the way to go, as opposed to speed limiting.
What if you are passing someone while going the speed limit.
In most US states, you are allowed to go slightly over the speed limit while passing and its not illegal.
Its dangerous when you have two people near each other going the exact speed limit in both lanes
It's possible that this is a correct statement, as I'm not intimately familiar with the laws in every state.
However, I've heard this sentiment espoused repeatedly in California, where it is totally false, which leads me to view it with suspicion.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I have absolutely no problems with that, and endorse it wholly.
Just for the record though, since I don't know if you're familiar with the 400 series or not, the posted limit is 100kph, but the "unofficial" limit is essentially 120. If there isn't a traffic jam (rare as that is), 120 is a pretty normal cruising speed.
If I'm passing them they are probably going well under the speed limit.
What I'm saying is, if I'm going along and there's a guy going like 65 and I'm going 70 and I start passing him, and then suddenly there's a guy on my bumper going 80, he can bloody well wait 5 seconds while I finish passing.
Yeah, I generally will drive along side a cop while going 115ish and have no fear of being pulled over. Accidents happen from people changing lanes too often, which they do because they can't pass on the left. Or because someone merges onto the highway at 85 and forces everyone to brake.
Honestly, the best thing we could do in the US is get cars off the road. It's demented that US culture pretty much pressures every adult to own a car, outside of a handful of urban areas. Every single problem being talked about in this thread (at least in the US) either stems from, or is exacerbated by, this cultural norm.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I don't get this. Normal practice in the UK is to move over to the middle (on a three-lane motorway) or right-hand lane (on a two-lane dual carriageway) well before a junction to let those merging come in. Obviously if it's really busy it's a bit different but that's how things seem to work normally.
I agree. I'd like to see a hard push away from owning cars and into more public transportation and bike lanes. I'd like to see cars a pain in the ass to deal with except for long trips. I'd also like most of all major cities networked with a mono-rail type system.
I would use the shit out of a metro system like DC has if we had one where I live.
I doubt a huge percentage would have the know-how needed to do so.
Also, it would presumably be illegal to do so. And you can check it when you do the annual check thing.
This goes far beyond culture. The entirety of American infrastructure is built around cars. It would take decades and would require a complete restructuring of cities, towns, etc.
florida sadly will still be a shithole car wise. We tried to get rail systems put in, but we cant pay for them
and fuck riding a bike in 95+ degrees with 90% humidity.
I'm guessing the population density is just far too low for any sort of public transport. I guess making the HOV lanes actually useful might encourage car-sharing a bit more though. I don't think I've ever seen anyone really using them any time I've been in the US.
You'd have to go to your court date to prove it, usually. I know the rules in MA for speeding are specifically going over the speed limit for X distance/duration to allow for passing.
I can legitimately want to pass say, a Semi for visibility reasons instead of "he's slow" reasons. Namely that if I can't see the road ahead of the car in front of me in traffic or an unknown area, I have drastically shorter reaction windows to deal with issues/my exit appearing on an odd side or whatever.
I love exits on the left side of a highway. "My exit's coming up, I'll slowly merge over to the.. WHAT THE FUCK, HIGHWAY PLANNER?"
It's already illegal to put certain types of air filter in your car, but people do it anyway, and either undo it when it's time to do the smog check, or the smog check mechanic just ignores it because he thinks the law is stupid.
Your post makes certain assumptions about how far people expect to be able to travel and how fast.
When somebody buys or rents a house 30 miles away from their work because they want something bigger than they could afford closer to the city, they might say "well, I'd take public transportation but it sucks" but really they made the decision to rely on a car. When an employer requires that an employee own a car, not because the job requires driving during the day, but because they expect that employee to be able to show up to work within a half-hour of being called, that's a social expectation.
So, yes, you can say "public transportation sucks at getting people X distance in Y timeframe" but that brings up the question "why do you need to go X distance in Y timeframe?"
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
The better idea is one someone posted a page or 2 back: Annoying Beeping
It works wonders for seatbelts. People will buckle up simply because it's easier then dealing with the annoyance.
My GPS already tells me if I'm speeding based on what it thinks the speed limit on that road is.
It would be funny if it started a nagging voice with "I'm not telling you what exit to take until you SLOW DOWN, mister!" repeatedly.
I think that would work for most people.
I have met a few people who just crank their music up and ignore it.
No, these are not people I consider "friends."
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I'd pay to get it disabled for speeding.
It would really be no different than putting on track tires or putting in an air filter on a Friday night because you've got a track day the next morning.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Because every minute extra spent going somewhere is an economic loss and a minute you'll never get back? People don't want to waste their lives traveling at slow speeds, nor do they want to live in the factory farming equivalent of human housing.
It's true that there are other options to owning a car and driving X mph for Y miles, but those options suck, which is why they aren't the way things work.
Honestly, if you have the time to take public transportation, I don't understand why you wouldn't.
Commuting by car is the shittiest thing.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I live right next to UCF, its about 10-15 minutes of bike riding. It takes about as long to drive a car, or to take the shuttles. But I would die of heatstroke if i attempted it
So we shouldn't even bother having the law because some people will break it?
What you are proposing is that suburbs should not exist. If people actually stopped living 30 miles away from work, all the towns 30 miles outside of the city would practically cease to exist, because there is no work there to sustain that many people. Which, like I said, is a complete restructuring of infrastructure.
And suddenly the population of cities would go up like a hundred fold, and the already ridiculous cost of living in cities would become even more so.
Your idea lacks even the semblance of feasibility.
Still catching up on this thread, just pointing out that had you started driving at 16 and stuck with it, despite nervousness, you'd be a far better driver today. And you'd have been a far better driver at 21 as well.
In Tennessee the driver's test made me mad. Most of the questions were about the penalities for getting caught driving drunk. Not like, rules of the road, or how to drive. This angered me. It was ridiculously simple, but why is knowing what a yellow light is less important than knowing that if I drive drunk they'll charge me a specific sum of money?
And the idea of sticking a one-button override for emergencies is just silly. When you are placed in a situation where you have maybe a second or two to react, do you really want to have to find a button you need to press before your car actually responds to the emergency procedure you need to perform? C'mon, that's retarded.
The people who are causing problems are not the ones driving 75 in a 65 down a five-lane freeway at constant speed. The ones who are causing problems are the ones swerving in and out of traffic, and they are going to be doing that whether the flow of traffic is 75 or 55.
As to traffic school? I dunno how hard you guys in Australia find it to learn to drive cars, but really? It's not that difficult. The standards in California, where you need to log something like 40 hours and can get a learner's permit at 15.5 years old and yadda yadda is pretty sufficient. The program is tailored to the lowest common denominator because almost everyone in the country needs to be able to drive.
Yes, yes, bitch about our crappy mass transit systems, whatever. Done now? Yes? Good.
Anyway, the problem with most dipshits who can't drive for beans isn't that they have failed to master the mechanics of steering or don't know what to do when you see a red light. The problem is that, while they can probably drive well on command when someone is staring at them, they stop paying attention as soon as they're on their own. And excessively onerous classes and exams and whatnot isn't going to fix that.
Most rural areas are semi-urban. I'm not talking the corn husk areas of Nebraska, I'm talking about the legitimate areas in between which could use something like a subway/train hub to bring them into the city. Which would reduce our dependencies on oil, reduce pollution, and get rid of our dependence on cars.
As for needing them in Nebraska, fine, they can have subsidized gas.
Plus, I can't think of a reason not to do it. Fuck the costs. Little good that does us when our oceans are filling up with crude oil because our world runs on cars and gasoline.
While the latter is certainly more dangerous than the former, I find it disingenuous to suggest that the former is not also dangerous, not to mention things like 65 in a 55, or 45 in a 35.
So I had an amused question about why 65 in a 55 is innately dangerous (more specifically: why is it a 55 in the first place as opposed to a 65, where 65 in a 65 would be fine)
And found this in Florida's DOT site:
Which seems to imply that "going with the flow" is how florida determines speed limits. Essentially: people aren't suicidal, and what the vast majority of them are doing is probably appropriate.
Not sure how good an assumption that is in, you know, FLORIDA. But still, it seems to imply that speed limits are for the most part relatively arbitrary.
They aren't arbitrary, they are determined by road conditions. What that is saying is that apparently 85% of people are able to figure out the safe speed for the road conditions by themselves.
I don't feel like working out the exact difference in stopping distance between 65 and 55, but it is significant.
But moreover: you don't ride someone's ass at any high speed because you need braking distance. That has little to do with adjusting the speed limit and more to do with "how does driving work?", it's also why people weaving is such a danger: it promptly jostles traffic because they rarely do so while leaving enough room for braking in the lane they merged into.
I'm saying it's relatively arbitrary because the method used is essentially "people will figure it out, then we paint it on a sign", likely because of the vast differences in car performance making it pretty much impossible to come up with decent numbers based on the math of their various acceleration braking and turning metrics.
Also the energy of an impact at 65 is going to be a lot more than one at 55.
I'm not really seeing what is so unreasonable about speed limits.
You start out with highways at like 70 because they are straight and wide and thus safe to go on at those speeds. They may also have side rails and medians and stuff for additional protection.
When you go down to major roads that are narrower and do not have these protections, you need to drop down to 55-65. Then even smaller roads, with lots of intersections and turns, are like 45. And finally residential roads and the like are 20-35.
This is why you don't see a lot of RAGE against people going 70-75 in a 65. Because aside from how easy it is to slip 5mph up or down, it's also well within a pretty sane range that the road can handle. Sure, I'll look funny at people doing 100 in a 65, but that's because you're now well into crazy land.