Driving 101

[RPM90]

Originally Posted by TrackRat

Bradford... you're struggling here to grasp reality.

You're struggling to grasp technology and that reality.

[RPM90]

Originally Posted by MarkR171

Of course, no one is arguing against the fact that technology has advanced. It still doesn't change the fact that speed limits are appropriate for the most part because of human reaction times.

Let's take a 45mph two-way street, 1 lane each. Those are common enough. If you were to raise the speed limit to say, 60mph. If someone were to run a stop sign or red light and get in your way, you car may be able to react if you were anticipating it, but the average driver would not be able to do anything about it.

If the same driver was going 45mph, they would have more time to avoid the accident.

Your example doesn't work to illustrate your point.
It only serves to demonstrate that a car can stop quicker if it starts it's stop at a lower speed. Where is human reaction in comparison to the added benefit of technology in your example?
After all, that is what you are attempting to compare.

The actual point here is that, modern cars are more capable than older cars, given the same human model.

Maybe some don't have experience with driving older cars from the 60's or 70's or older. In modern cars, steering response is quicker in the average car.
Braking is more responsive with greater abilities. Suspensions are better.
Crash survival is light years better.

Human reaction time is a straw-man with regard to the comparison of modern and much older cars.

[JimD]

I do not accept that the motivation for raising fines is the same as for establishing speed limits. It seems to me that they are two very different things.

Speed limits, like other traffic laws, are established for safety reasons.

During times of economic stress, fines may be raised to raise revenue. That does not change the motivation for establishing the limit in the first place. I would agree that the timing of the change is a big clue as to the motivation for the increase in the fine.

With respect to differences between areas, I think it is primarily a difference in the perception of what represents a reasonable deterrent. There is somewhere in Europe, Sweden?, that makes the traffic fine a percentage of the income as stated on your tax return. Interesting reaction to the fact that what represents a reasonable deterrent to one person may not be much of one to another.

With respect to "nobody obeys the speed limit anyway", I think you are talking about an enforcement issue. Very few people drive 65mph or less in a 65. And if you do you become a bit of a traffic hazard. But most people keep it below 75 mph in a 65 because that is where they feel they are safe from a ticket. Anybody with kids will have noticed that simply establishing a rule does not change behavior much if at all. Kids quickly push the limit to see if it will be enforced - will they be punished. Only with enforcement do rules change behavior. If I told my kids they had a 10pm curfew but didn't do anything to them unless they came home after 11pm, I have effectively set a 11pm curfew. That is what is going on with speeding laws.

Jim

[rsjean]

Originally Posted by RPM90

Your example doesn't work to illustrate your point.
It only serves to demonstrate that a car can stop quicker if it starts it's stop at a lower speed. Where is human reaction in comparison to the added benefit of technology in your example?
After all, that is what you are attempting to compare.

Isn't the human reaction point covered in the fact that in both cases the driver would be assumed to have the same reaction time in noticing the danger and then removing a foot from the accelerator and applying it to the brake? At the faster speed the car would travel farther, possibly far enough to impact at the danger point.

That would seem to go right to the heart of the human reaction.

[rsjean]

Originally Posted by JimD

With respect to "nobody obeys the speed limit anyway", I think you are talking about an enforcement issue.

Jim

Posted speed limits also take into account this fact. Traffic engineering accommodates several models of true speed versus posted speed. If safety margin is maximized at 55 on a given rod, the engineers may recommend a 45 posted limit knowing averages will be closer to 55.

Also when watching traffic versus posted limits there is another dynamic at play and that is the local margin for enforcement. For example in the state of Georgia local police are not authorized to issue speeding citations for speeds less than 10 MPH over posted limits. State police in Georgia, however, can. The odd split was the result of the origins of a lawsuit many years ago where the court did not have jurisdiction over state authorities only local.

So in Georgia it is not alarming to see traffic consistently running at 10 over.

[Tom K.]

Originally Posted by RPM90

Age impaired?

Simple - any driver older or younger than I am.

Tom

[Tom K.]

Originally Posted by Xyloft

Lets figure out lane discipline in the US first, then worry about speed limits... (or move to montana)

Seems to me we've figured out lane discipline. It somewhat exists in the middle of the US, but is dead within 100 miles of either ocean. After all isn't the American way "I pay my taxes, you can't tell me what lane to drive in"?

I recall driving in one of the Canadian prarie provinces a few years back on a major two lane highway. When I approached to a slower vehicle, they usually pulled over on to the paved shoulder so I could pass - even though there was no traffic from the opposite direction.

And Montana does have a speed limit, 75 mph, IIRC. They had no speed limits on rural interstates right after the 55 national limit was lifted, but it only lasted a yar or two. But even then "Reasonable & Proper" speed meant that you could be cited for reckless driving depending on the opinion of the charging officer.

Tom

[bradford]

Originally Posted by Tom K.

Seems to me we've figured out lane discipline. It somewhat exists in the middle of the US, but is dead within 100 miles of either ocean.

In my experience the true litmus test is proximity to urban areas. City drivers seem to be clueless to KEEP RIGHT UNLESS TO PASS or they just don't give a crap because they're used to dealing with traffic all the time anyway.

[Tom K.]

I'd tend to agree - but I've observed many "Left Lane Louies & Lenas" on rural stretches of I-95. It may start in the cities, but the infection spreads rapidly!

Tom

[jeremyc74]

Originally Posted by JimD

I
Speed limits, like other traffic laws, are established for safety reasons.
Jim

And this is where everyone goes wrong. The speed limits on US highways weren't restricted for safety. They were set to 55MPH during a fuel crisis in order to lower the nations consumption, and haven't been seriously reconsidered since the push to 65 (or 70)MPH two decades ago. There are VAST sections of US interstates that are perfectly capable of handling traffic at 100MPH or more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law

[Rico135i]

Originally Posted by onefastman

I think that this needs to be discussed more so heres another thread lol
For those who are new it is over someone who was caught going 101 in a 65. The two sides are those who think that its wrong because the law says so (deontological) and then there are those who think that everything is conditional.

I am the latter, Piaget theorized on three stages of development and I am convinced that most here are stuck in the pre-conventional or conventional. For those of you who don’t abide by logic and merely go on written law, let experience speak. If it was such a horrific act why is it that I have over 20 tickets and 0 convictions? Don’t say money either because I handled the last 5 or so my self and the first 15 are not applicable because the prosecutor could still see that I had 15 unspecified non-moving violations. Long story short it is to make money for the city and to keep idiots that don’t know how to handle their vehicle and can’t comprehend such a speed from doing so.

Mods, this is not an attack but a summary of notes from a discussion in one of my classes (endowed professor)

20 Tickets?!?! I have been driving for almost 30 years and dont have that many. I routinely drive 5 to 10 miles over the limit. Obviously you are driving in towns that relay on ticket revenue OR your driving style is over the top and draws the attention of the Police.
1, Are you tickets in the same general area/ police dept?
2, Are your tickets for 5 over or like 30 over?
3, Are you stopped on surface streets?
4, do u like taking off work to go to court?
5, Get a K-40 with Laser Diffuser.

[rsjean]

Originally Posted by jeremyc74

And this is where everyone goes wrong. The speed limits on US highways weren't restricted for safety. They were set to 55MPH during a fuel crisis in order to lower the nations consumption, and haven't been seriously reconsidered since the push to 65 (or 70)MPH two decades ago. There are VAST sections of US interstates that are perfectly capable of handling traffic at 100MPH or more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law

Well that explains the conservation limits rationale but you can't just disregard the fact that all the roads speed limits prior to that were indeed imposed for safety reasons. And since 33 out of 50 states today have the same or higher speed limits now than before the Federal imposed conservation program, I'd say were are pretty much back to a safety motivated speed system.

[RPM90]

Originally Posted by JimD

I do not accept that the motivation for raising fines is the same as for establishing speed limits. It seems to me that they are two very different things.

Speed limits, like other traffic laws, are established for safety reasons.


Jim

We can certainly agree to disagree on the motivation for raising fines and lowering speed limits.

Perhaps you haven't experienced a MPH speed trap change, where the speed limit changes 20mph in a distance not reasonable to expect a vehicle to slow that quickly. And in that location, an officer writes lots of tickets. See it as you will.

I certainly won't argue that all speed limits are set for revenue, and I never said that. However, to think that speed limits are always and only decided upon with respect to public safety is simply ignoring the reality of what does go on.

[RPM90]

Originally Posted by rsjean

Isn't the human reaction point covered in the fact that in both cases the driver would be assumed to have the same reaction time in noticing the danger and then removing a foot from the accelerator and applying it to the brake? At the faster speed the car would travel farther, possibly far enough to impact at the danger point.

That would seem to go right to the heart of the human reaction.

The point, with regard to the technology comparison, is that speed can be raised based on the technological advances in automotive design. So the comment about modern cars being more capable doesn't need to compare human reaction or whether it has changed over time. We can agree that human reaction time has stayed the same during the period that automotive technology has advanced.
Some of these advancements have taken into account human reaction time, and seek to assist accident avoidance and survivability.

The example given only shows that higher speed requires more distance to come to a stop, and then attributes reaction time as the variable, when in fact it is the speed that has changed. If you want to compare reaction as it relates to higher speeds, I can see where an experiment would give that data. But, that experiment only compares reaction time to speed change.
In the experiment you would use the same drivers and same cars and same conditions, except for the speed of travel.
So, it doesn't compare the relationship between reaction time and variant automotive technology.

Now, if we were to use that example with 2 average cars from the 60'sm and then compare the same scenario with 2 average cars from now, I'll easily bet the modern cars can stop faster even though human reaction time is the same.
ABS and tire quality have proven over and over again how quickly an average driver can stop a vehicle in comparison to older cars without these things.

The point is that modern technology can assist drivers, even though reaction time is still the same.
LED taillights have proven that drivers react faster, by virtue of an LED being to fully light up compared to the time it takes an incandescent bulb to fully light. The time difference is extremely small, but at certain speeds even that split second can make a difference.
So what do we make of that? If a human's ability to react remains constant, than what explains the ability to apply the brake sooner and thus stop quicker? The experiment states that the driver can "react quicker", but if reaction time is constant, then how can that be?
What is happening, is that the use of LED technology simply gives a quicker indication that the car in front of you is stopping.
So it appears that reaction time has sped up, when really what happens is that the driver is alerted quicker, at same speeds.
In effect, the technology has sped up reaction time, not that human reaction time truly sped up, but the end effect is that it seems to be true.

Another example of how the end result, in effect, speeds up reaction time, is BMW's use of a "brake assist system" that can increase brake boost if the system senses that the driver has released the throttle very quickly and has applied the brake very quickly. The system takes that data and thinks the driver must need to stop ASAP, or it's a "panic stop". It then boosts normal brake so that greater force is applied to the brakes, and can even pre-tension the brakes.
This system is used on various car makes. It appears that most drivers do not apply full brake force in emergency or panic situations, so this technology can help with that.
I've actually experienced this in my 135i.
I'm curious if others have as well?
But to the point, again, in effect, the technology has assisted typical human reaction time resulting in a quicker, shorter stop.

I don't think we disagree on the importance of human reaction time as related to vehicle speed. I think we have a difference of opinion on whether or not modern technology has helped account for it.
My opinion is that even though reaction time is the same, the technology is not, and the end result is that modern vehicles are far superior to older cars when speed limits were even higher.

[RPM90]

Originally Posted by Tom K.

Simple - any driver older or younger than I am.

Tom

Ah, I see.

[RPM90]

Originally Posted by jeremyc74

And this is where everyone goes wrong. The speed limits on US highways weren't restricted for safety. They were set to 55MPH during a fuel crisis in order to lower the nations consumption, and haven't been seriously reconsidered since the push to 65 (or 70)MPH two decades ago. There are VAST sections of US interstates that are perfectly capable of handling traffic at 100MPH or more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law

Quite true.

[sdpauly]

I consider it my civic duty to disobey unfair or stupid laws. Stupid or unfair laws diminish the respect for the rule of law as a concept and a way of social organization. I believe in the rule of law, but laws must make sense if rational people are to follow and respect them.

Speed limits are too low and are deliberately so to generate revenue for state and local governments.

I speed. I also dont do it when the conditions could harm or jeopardize the life of anyone else. I dont speed in residential neighborhoods or when theres a lot of traffic. I also brake for the 5-0 cause I dont want to pay extra taxes.

I plan to buy a radar detector soon...

[RPM90]

Originally Posted by rsjean

Well that explains the conservation limits rationale but you can't just disregard the fact that all the roads speed limits prior to that were indeed imposed for safety reasons. And since 33 out of 50 states today have the same or higher speed limits now than before the Federal imposed conservation program, I'd say were are pretty much back to a safety motivated speed system.

That's why I say speed limits are imposed for various reasons, and you shouldn't firmly say that speed limits are only set for safety reasons.
I accept that certain limits are posted for safety reasons, but certainly not all.

[RPM90]

Originally Posted by TrackRat

The bottom line is that all the whining in the world isn't going to change the system which is designed to deal with the reality that 98% of the people on the roadways in the U.S. should not be. You can accept reality or try to change reality, your choice.

Stop whining about the number of people who can't drive, and accept the system designed for that reality, and deal with it. You could drive proactively and simply drive around them. Be careful though, you may need to exceed the speed limit, and actually turn off your cruise control.

[RPM90]

Originally Posted by sdpauly

I consider it my civic duty to disobey unfair or stupid laws. Stupid or unfair laws diminish the respect for the rule of law as a concept and a way of social organization. I believe in the rule of law, but laws must make sense if rational people are to follow and respect them.

Speed limits are too low and are deliberately so to generate revenue for state and local governments.

I speed. I also dont do it when the conditions could harm or jeopardize the life of anyone else. I dont speed in residential neighborhoods or when theres a lot of traffic. I also brake for the 5-0 cause I dont want to pay extra taxes.

I plan to buy a radar detector soon...

Reruns playing so soon!? The season is just ending.

[GaryS]

Originally Posted by Tom K.

I'd tend to agree - but I've observed many "Left Lane Louies & Lenas" on rural stretches of I-95. It may start in the cities, but the infection spreads rapidly!

Tom

In Maryland, it is legal to drive nine mph below the speed limit in the left lane.

[Tom K.]

Originally Posted by GaryS

In Maryland, it is legal to drive nine mph below the speed limit in the left lane.

Legal, hell - it seems to be mandatory!

But can one be fined for (safely) passing these idiots on the right? I've gotten warnings in both Maine and Montana for that & figured it's a feature of all the states beginning with "M".

Tom