is the speed limit too slow for you?? (video)

[DankNstickY]

So this is an experiment a group of teenagers (or early 20's) did. pretty funny haha :D

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5366552067462745475

[InfiniteNothing]

heh. What jerks. My argument has always been that when the norm is breaking the law it kinda undermines all other laws.

[DarkFury]

heh. What jerks. My argument has always been that when the norm is breaking the law it kinda undermines all other laws.
Some speed laws are "unreasonable"... while others may not be. Many of the speed laws are set at arbitrary levels (while some may claim statistical evidence of why they are set the way that they are) and some of them are just designed to "catch you in a speed trap" to fill the local municipal coffers with fine money.

Now granted this is all spoken "within reason"... you can't have everyone blazing down the highway at speeds that would make most cars uncontrollable... however nothing is more frustrating than a posted limit of 55 with no "construction zone" in sight when you KNOW that you can go 75 and drive safely.

You gotta remember, man made these laws... and none of them are "absolutes"... however you go against them at your own risk.

[IrishSS]

Awesome idea and a good movie...

[BigJon]

Now THAT was an interesting experiment and a great way to get their point across. But my question is...if they raise the speed limit...won't people just go faster? :hmm:

[speedracer120]

Saw a clip of this on the news. It's been done before, and it's uber-f**king annoying. Actually my friend has done this before too, and he's had the same response.

[DarkFury]

Now THAT was an interesting experiment and a great way to get their point across. But my question is...if they raise the speed limit...won't people just go faster? :hmm:
That would depend...

Only the purely reckless really want to go WAY faster than the posted limits.... like the guy you see fly by you doing 100 when everyone else is doing 75 to 80... and he goes by like you were standing still.

Honestly, most Americans probably wouldn't feel comfortable driving faster than 80 MPH... especially if the weather conditions weren't optimal. Our cars just aren't built to the specs to think that we can travel at Autobahn speeds. Hell, from personal experience, 120 MPH is pretty dayuum scary when you start not being able to feel the road up under you... :eek:

[Merlin]

Some speed laws are "unreasonable"... while others may not be.
Yeah, seems like most of them were set way back in the 60's, or at least the precedent for a speed limit on a particular type of road. Cars are a lot better and safer now. Speeds that might have been on the dangerous side back then are perfectly safe now.

[Jeffbx]

But my question is...if they raise the speed limit...won't people just go faster? :hmm:

Nah - just like DF said, there's a max that most reasonable people are willing to drive. All of the freeways in MI are now 70MPH (outside of the cities). People usually drive between 70-80MPH on them.

Back in the day when speed limits were 55, people would drive... 70-80MPH.

I still maintain it's all a collaboration between the police & the insurance industry to make speed a "safety issue". When you get a ticket, who gets paid? Police & your insurance company. When has speed ever caused an accident? Probably never, at 70-80MPH. Bad conditions, bad drivers, substance abuse and distrations can all cause accidents. Going 70 or 80MPH on a freeway will not cause an accident.

[attgig]

cops actually did this around baltimore a while ago (coworker told me about it), where they set up a line all going 55. cars didn't go around the cops like these guys did, but traffic got backed up like crazy, where it would become stop and go.

[cheapie]

Yeah, seems like most of them were set way back in the 60's, or at least the precedent for a speed limit on a particular type of road. Cars are a lot better and safer now. Speeds that might have been on the dangerous side back then are perfectly safe now.


keep in mind that there's FAR more traffic and distractions now than there was back in the day. these things greatly impact your ability to drive safely at high speeds.

[g222leav]

cops actually did this around baltimore a while ago (coworker told me about it), where they set up a line all going 55. cars didn't go around the cops like these guys did, but traffic got backed up like crazy, where it would become stop and go.


people instinctively drive slower when they see cop cars (i'm assuming they used squad cars seeing how you stated they didn't pass 'em)..

but the autobahn is a perfect example of speed being uncorrelated with accidents...and speed doesn't necessary cause accidents, it just changes the distance you travel in regards to response time...

[Houdini]

I've read the same stats about speed being only a small factor in accident rates. Driving much faster than traffic, though, and bobbing and weaving to go faster, is dangerous.

The problem is, in the US, if I'm trying to go the speed limit or just above it, there's always someone in the left lane going 5mph below the limit. When I flash my lights, I just get the finger. That's irresponsible and dangerous. It's sort of like merging onto a 70 mph freeway at 40-50 mph. It's like you're standing still and everyone around you is going 30+. That's dangerous.

Though I've never driven in Germany, I've heard that driving on an autobahn is wonderful. People ALWAYS stay to the right. If someone is in the left lane and you would like to go faster, a simple light flash will encourage the driver to move to the right with utmost courtesy. Hell, German cars are often built w/2 sets of headlights. One for regular night and brights, and one set for "flash to pass." It's that common in Europe. Everyone is polite. No "road rage" or old ladies trying to "teach that guy a lesson." In fact, NOT moving right when someone is behind you is ILLEGAL and enforced. There's another good reason for that law. If I'm doing 90 and some guy in a Carrera Turbo is going 160, there's almost no reaction time. So you check your mirrors often and move the hell out of the left lane when you can. Ergo - left lane for passing only.

[Ladogaboy]

That's a great video, though it is only providing proof of something that most of us already know.



When has speed ever caused an accident? Probably never, at 70-80MPH. Bad conditions, bad drivers, substance abuse and distrations can all cause accidents. Going 70 or 80MPH on a freeway will not cause an accident.

I don't think this is valid at all. Speed can cause many accidents, and it could be argued that speeding may cause most accidents. It might not be the sole cause, but it will most often be a major contributing factor. As speeds increase, the time allowed to react gets smaller. If a piece of debris were to fall off of a truck that you were following at 80mph, you may not be able to react in time. Had you been driving 15mph slower, your opportunity to react would be far greater. Sure, you could blame that accident on the debris; however, the speed you were traveling had just as much to do with it, if not more. The reason I say more is because the speed you travel can be controlled. The number of other possible factors that could contribute to an accident is impossible to say, but any experienced driver knows: anything can and (eventually will) happen on the road. It is your responsibility as a driver to anticipate the possibilities, and if you haven't left yourself a large enough margin for error, which will mainly be governed by the speed you are traveling, most accidents will be your fault. To simply blame the "other" is just an easy way out and a refusal to take responsibility for your own actions.

[Houdini]

Well, also from personal experience in a German car, I can feel the road at ridiculously high speeds w/o problems. A lot of cars aren't built for it (brakes, too much power steering, suspension, etc) but some are built for even higher speeds, like 150 or so. I've only gone really fast a few times, when nobody else was around, or to get away from some asshat that was trying to block me/run me off the road, etc., "race me" by staying next to me (dangerous as hell, as you can't change lanes to miss objects on the road). Plus a V1 can be handy, even if you're only going 10 mph over the limit.

[Jeffbx]

I don't think this is valid at all. Speed can cause many accidents, and it could be argued that speeding may cause most accidents.

Nope, I don't agree at all. Speeding alone does not in *any* way cause accidents. Otherwise we would have seen a direct correlation between raising speed limits & the number of accidents on US roadways in the past 20 years, when many states were raising speeds from 55 to 70. In fact, we've seen the opposite - http://ftp.ggi-project.org/rdu/sld-intr.html




As speeds increase, the time allowed to react gets smaller.

Here's an article that actually makes the opposite claim:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/problem2.html



It might not be the sole cause, but it will most often be a major contributing factor.

Interesting report straight from the US DOT:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tfhrc/safety/pubs/97152/ch01/body_ch01_03.html


...almost no correlation between accident rates and the variance in speed distributions; and negative correlation showing no support of the hypothesis that mean speed reductions will result in reduction in accident rates—in fact, it shows the reverse

In certain cases, very high speed will contribute to accidents when the driver is being reckless. But certainly not in most, or even in many cases. Police officers will almost ALWAYS cite speed as a 'contributing factor' in accident reports, but in reality there is no basis for this whatsoever (other than the fact that they can continue to make $$ by issuing speeding tickets). Do a google search on speeding & accident correlation & you'll find a TON of evidence that supports this.

As a matter of fact, I challenge anyone to find a report that realisticly links speeding & accident rates that is not sponsored by a police organization or the insurance industry (both of whom stand to gain from this supposed correlation).

[Ladogaboy]

Nope, I don't agree at all. Speeding alone does not in *any* way cause accidents. Otherwise we would have seen a direct correlation between raising speed limits & the number of accidents on US roadways in the past 20 years, when many states were raising speeds from 55 to 70. In fact, we've seen the opposite - http://ftp.ggi-project.org/rdu/sld-intr.html

You seemed to cut off my qualifying statement about speed not being the sole cause but most often a major contributing factor. Obviously, speeding alone doesn't cause accidents, but then again, spinning out on a four lane freeway won't cause an accident either if there is nothing there to hit. Furtermore, I have a hard time taking any report seriously when the author couldn't even take the time to fix egregious grammatical errors.

A good example of what I am talking about can be attested to by probably any Southern California driver. In our wonderful, dry, moderate climate, rear-enders are a common occurance. Why? Yes morons down here do tailgate, but were they to be following at the same distance but 10-20mph slower, most of those accidents wouldn't occur. The contribuing factors are both reckless driving on behalf of the driver AND speed. Bascially, the driver was driving faster than was safe. Of course, another example could be where the driver wasn't at fault for both contributing factors to an accident--as I mentioned before, speed is the one road condition the driver has complete conrol over. Say, instead, a large object were to fall off of a truck that the driver was following. It's not the driver's fault if he runs into it; however, had he been traveling at a slower speed, he could have avoided it more easily. This also, as I stated before, has to do with the driver monitoring the road conditions (which interestingly enough has a close tie with one of the links you provided to debunk me) and anticipating that something could fall off the truck he was following.



Here's an article that actually makes the opposite claim:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/problem2.html

Now, this link was informative and interesting for two reasons. On one front, it broached a completely new subject. On the other, it supported what I was previously arguing. In NO WAY does it refute my claim that reaction times go down when speeds increase. What it does state is that driving at higher speeds can be compensated for by increased awareness and a term they refer to as "raising the vision." Basically, this is a counter to speed laws based on a psychological breakdown of how people drive, not a rebuttal to my claim about reaction times. If anything, this article counters your argument that speed plays no role in *any* accident. The very affirmation that drivers must look further ahead when driving at increased speeds shows this.


Interesting report straight from the US DOT:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tfhrc/safety/pubs/97152/ch01/body_ch01_03.html

Sorry. I'm not going to read that on three hours of sleep. I'll save that for another day.


In certain cases, very high speed will contribute to accidents when the driver is being reckless. But certainly not in most, or even in many cases. Police officers will almost ALWAYS cite speed as a 'contributing factor' in accident reports, but in reality there is no basis for this whatsoever (other than the fact that they can continue to make $$ by issuing speeding tickets). Do a google search on speeding & accident correlation & you'll find a TON of evidence that supports this.

As a matter of fact, I challenge anyone to find a report that realisticly links speeding & accident rates that is not sponsored by a police organization or the insurance industry (both of whom stand to gain from this supposed correlation).

I won't argue with you about the speed laws needing to change. I agree completely, but I also see the merits of the arguments against increasing the speed limits too high. Sure, most drivers will level out at a comfortable speed, but tacking on higher speed limits will only serve to sanction those individuals that already push too hard. If reasonably enforced, the speed laws at this point do a decent enough job at dissuading drivers from being too reckless, and the evil insurance companies of which you speak actually do a pretty good job of that themselves. As it is, my insurance payments are almost half of my car payment, and though the thought of a speeding ticket isn't super scary in and of itself, the fact that I will end up paying for it every month for the next +3 years is.

[Jeffbx]

You seemed to cut off my qualifying statement about speed not being the sole cause but most often a major contributing factor.


Sorry, didn't mean to discount that but I disagree there - I certainly think it can sometimes be a factor, but more often than not isn't. You had a good example of the rear-ending scenario, but again, that's careless driving, not speed at fault. Spinning out? Bad conditions or novice driver, not speed. You can spin out just as easily at 10MPH as you can at 50 or at 100 if the conditions (or the driver) is bad. If you have 2000 cars travelling the same road at the same rate of speed and one guy rear ends someone or spins out - I'd say the driver is at fault & the rate of speed had nothing to do with it.

Can speed be called a 'contributing factor' in these scenarios? Sure, I guess if you've got any forward motion in your car at all, then speed can be called a contributing factor. If you were stopped, then the accident wouldn't have occurred. THIS is what I have a problem with. Attributing 'speed' to practically every accident with the intent of making it seem like a dangerous thing in of itself, when study after study have proved otherwise.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no speed demon - I've gotten maybe 2 or 3 speeding tickets in the last 20 years. And I certainly don't advocate going faster than conditions allow, or reckless speeds. But I've read so much BS about 'speed trap communities' and police stations that can pay the officer's salary soley from speeding ticket revenues, that this topic usually starts me off on some rant. See? There I go again.

[Houdini]

But I've read so much BS about 'speed trap communities' and police stations that can pay the officer's salary soley from speeding ticket revenues, that this topic usually starts me off on some rant. See? There I go again.

:stupid: Having passed through many a "speed trap town," where the speed limit drops from 55 to, say, 25 and Smokey is right behind the sign, I'm glad I have my V1. :)

[Markel]

I saw this video a while ago, along with a list of laws that they broke when creating it. In particular, it is illegal to sit in the left lane if a car behind you want to pass. Illinois just started clamping down on "lolligagging" this year.

[InfiniteNothing]

You wouldn't happen to know which states have the left lane law?

[Markel]

You wouldn't happen to know which states have the left lane law?
I would guess that most of them would. I've seen the "Keep Right Except To Pass" signs in an awful lot of places.

[Houdini]

I saw this video a while ago, along with a list of laws that they broke when creating it. In particular, it is illegal to sit in the left lane if a car behind you want to pass. Illinois just started clamping down on "lolligagging" this year.

I wish they'd enforce that one everywhere. It's even more annoying when people do it to "teach you a lesson." If you flash your lights, you're more than likely to get the finger. Passing people on the right is dangerous, and having somebody pace you next to you is even more dangerous.

The other day, some idiot in a POS car wanted to race me, I guess. I was just driving normally. He'd slow down to get right next to me, and when I tried to accelerate (ignoring him), he'd rev his engine and take off. When I didn't follow, he did the same thing. Finally he turned off (this was a semi-residential street), threw something at my car (missed) and yelled something awfully vulgar at me. For NOT racing him? Geez...

[Ladogaboy]

Sorry, didn't mean to discount that but I disagree there - I certainly think it can sometimes be a factor, but more often than not isn't. You had a good example of the rear-ending scenario, but again, that's careless driving, not speed at fault. Spinning out? Bad conditions or novice driver, not speed. You can spin out just as easily at 10MPH as you can at 50 or at 100 if the conditions (or the driver) is bad. If you have 2000 cars travelling the same road at the same rate of speed and one guy rear ends someone or spins out - I'd say the driver is at fault & the rate of speed had nothing to do with it.

Can speed be called a 'contributing factor' in these scenarios? Sure, I guess if you've got any forward motion in your car at all, then speed can be called a contributing factor. If you were stopped, then the accident wouldn't have occurred. THIS is what I have a problem with. Attributing 'speed' to practically every accident with the intent of making it seem like a dangerous thing in of itself, when study after study have proved otherwise.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no speed demon - I've gotten maybe 2 or 3 speeding tickets in the last 20 years. And I certainly don't advocate going faster than conditions allow, or reckless speeds. But I've read so much BS about 'speed trap communities' and police stations that can pay the officer's salary soley from speeding ticket revenues, that this topic usually starts me off on some rant. See? There I go again.

Yeah, I hear you. I think we could definitely just agree to disagree... or maybe just agree to a different point of view. ;) The more I think about it, the people who I don't think are capable of driving at certain speeds due to distractions are the same people that wish wouldn't be driving in the first place.

And as far as the left-lane law goes, I believe that California has a similar law. Though, from everything I've been told, it was designed to account for individuals that aren't able to maintain the posted speed, e.g. people pulling trailers or driving on mountain roads.

[Jeffbx]

Yeah, I hear you. I think we could definitely just agree to disagree... or maybe just agree to a different point of view. ;) The more I think about it, the people who I don't think are capable of driving at certain speeds due to distractions are the same people that wish wouldn't be driving in the first place.

:shakehand

Amen to that, brother!

MI also has the left lane law, but from the way the roads look around here, it's rarely, if ever, enforced.

[MJordanash]

Good experiment. I think you'll aways have some who are reckless drivers, but even with a raised speed limit, most wont go crazy with it.

[Markel]

Found the link (http://alanesq.livejournal.com/200658.html) that mentions various laws they broke.

[Maarchk]

Found the link (http://alanesq.livejournal.com/200658.html) that mentions various laws they broke.

No two vehicles shall impede the normal flow of traffic by traveling side by side at the same time while in adjacent lanes,

Wth? doesn't that mean you can never be stuck in traffic? cause i sure feel impeded when a million cars are holding up my flow and all traveling side by side.. Welcome to los angeles...

Hmm and lets say they can't hang out in the lanes.. Why aren't cops handing out tickets to everyone who is going 75 mph... I think the problem with our system is that every law is absolute.. You either followed it or broke it... But in the real world, we break some laws to follow others... I thnk we need a law hierarchy.. perhaps something like the 3 laws circle of life.

[Markel]

Wth? doesn't that mean you can never be stuck in traffic?
If you are stuck in traffic, you are not responsible for impeding the flow of traffic.

[Ladogaboy]

Laws like that are why some state and federal employees, in particular law enforcement agents, are given discretionary powers.

[Houdini]

Yeah, I hear you. I think we could definitely just agree to disagree... or maybe just agree to a different point of view. ;) The more I think about it, the people who I don't think are capable of driving at certain speeds due to distractions are the same people that wish wouldn't be driving in the first place.


:stupid:

It also has to do, IMHO, with car capabilities. A Chrysler K-car, or old V6 Camaro simply wasn't designed or built to drive safely at higher speeds. Sure, most cheapo cars sold in America today will go 100+, thanks to fuel injection, etc., but suspension, braking capacity, steering (road feel), tires, etc., simply aren't up to snuff. Other cars are made for driving fast safely. Just b/c your speedo says 120 doesn't mean the car can go that fast, or go that fast with any degree of safety for that matter, especially with most US roads and most US drivers, who commit all sorts of stupid acts like those mentioned in other posts.


No two vehicles shall impede the normal flow of traffic by traveling side by side at the same time while in adjacent lanes,

Wth? doesn't that mean you can never be stuck in traffic? cause i sure feel impeded when a million cars are holding up my flow and all traveling side by side.. Welcome to los angeles...


Nah, I think it's more of a safety issue at highway speeds. If someone is driving next to you, they are certainly impeding the flow of traffic, but even in the absense of traffic, it becomes a bigger safety issue. If something is in the road, or if someone crosses the median, you have no way to dodge the dangerous thing. You can't move left or right, because the asshat next to you is there.