Most roadkill happens during the night, when forward and side visibiliy are greately reduced.
Quite naturally, we have to reduce speed accordingly in these conditions. Going 140/160 is asking for trouble at night. I'm not even mentioning some bastards who forget to turn their lights off - freaking night stealths.
But I think FamilyGuy was referring to a more standard situation: daytime, good visibility, light traffic, good road conditions, fields surrounding the highway. This is the initial condition, any degradations (night, precip, limited vis, surroundings etc) would definitely call for reduced speed.
BUT, WHY AM I, according to some of you, restricted to driving at 100 in these initial conditions?
-> Traffic not a factor
-> Road condition is adequate
-> Modern, well-maintained vehicle
-> Good visibility (Front and sides)
-> No precipitation/contamination
-> No significant curves or other complications.
Please justify the maximum speed of 100 in these conditions and why would I be a criminal if I wanted to save some time on a cross-country trip and do 130 vs. 100.
speeding> do you?
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
I think everyone knows that as you go faster, you need exponentially more braking distance. However, there is far more to the equation than just Mass X Accelleration. For example, a Ferrari 550 at 120kph can outbrake a Toyota Corolla at 90kph. Ergo, a speeding Ferrari is safer than a Speeding Corolla.When car A is stopped, car B will be have used roughly the same distance to get to 100kph. It still has to use the same distance again to come to 0.
You will never know what your car is capable of until you push the envelope to those limits. Most drivers never ever come remotely close to doing so. Once you have lots of experience driving your car at and beyond the limits of adhesion, you are better qualified to decide what is or isn't a safe speed to drive.But then who cares really, you're all above average and capable of defeating the laws of physics... those laws are like speed limits, just suggestions...
Being a pilot is no different. Can you imagine pilots who have never done Stall or Spin training? I find it unfathomable. Yet as drivers, we are never taught how to get into, hold, and recover from a power slide around a corner.
The problem, as Rockie mentioned, is the lowest common denominator: The average driver, has no idea what their car is really capable of. These are the sorts of people that need to have someone else tell them what a safe speed is, and this is why we have speedlimits.
However, speed limits do not really determine safe speeds - they determine LEGAL speeds. Most of you might not even know this, but MOST sections of roads are not properly analysed to determine what a safe speed is. Many times, sections of highway will have arbritrary limits assigned to them. In fact, in California, it is illegal for the CHP to setup speed traps on sections of highway that do not have Highway Institute approved speedlimits.
It is up to the driver to determine what is legal AND safe. Sometimes the speedlimit is too fast.
Sometimes, certain speeds can be perfectly safe, yet completely illegal.
The problem is that "SAFETY" is a subjective term, and can be argued every which way. A "speed limit" is black & white, and easy to fine you for.
Because we can't have the public deciding for themselves what a safe speed is, because our driver's education and licencing programs do not teach those skills.BUT, WHY AM I, according to some of you, restricted to driving at 100 in these initial conditions?
-> Traffic not a factor
-> Road condition is adequate
-> Modern, well-maintained vehicle
-> Good visibility (Front and sides)
-> No precipitation/contamination
-> No significant curves or other complications.
Please justify the maximum speed of 100 in these conditions and why would I be a criminal if I wanted to save some time on a cross-country trip and do 130 vs. 100.
160kph in a sports car with a competant and experienced driver would be safer than 100kph in a beater car with poor brakes and a timid or overconfident driver.
(A Ferrari 550 at 120kph can outbrake a Corolla at 90kph!!!)
Unfortunately, as Rockie pointed out, the laws are based for these lowest common denominator drivers.
Police have no way of knowing how experienced you are and how well maintained your car is.
Until we institute a new generation of drivers trained such as the Germans are (who by the way, cannot get a full licence until they are 18!) We will never have drivers as good as they do. It will take YEARS for all the old geezers with bad habits to die off.
Yes but then, YOU will be the "old geezer" with slowed thought process and reactions, reduced vision etc.rsandor wrote:Agreed.. if you were the only driver on the road..160kph in a sports car with a competant and experienced driver would be safer than 100kph in a beater car with poor brakes and a timid or overconfident driver.
I don't see too many F-550s on the road but I do see a lot of Corollas.(A Ferrari 550 at 120kph can outbrake a Corolla at 90kph!!!)
It will take YEARS for all the old geezers with bad habits to die off.
Very little in life is governed for peak performance. It is governed for the lowest common denominator.
Because it is the law??? You can't govern vehicle speeds based on what you or your particular vehicle are capable of doing. It has to be dummed down for skill levels and vehicle performance of the masses. 130, 140, 150 doesn't fit with those masses travelling at 100, 90, 80.FL_CH wrote:How about the fact that most foraging type animals are nocturnal?Most roadkill happens during the night, when forward and side visibiliy are greately reduced.
Please justify the maximum speed of 100 in these conditions and why would I be a criminal if I wanted to save some time on a cross-country trip and do 130 vs. 100.
Pretty simple really
-
mellow_pilot
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2119
- Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 1:04 am
- Location: Pilot Purgatory
Hence my initial condition of two identical cars.rsandor wrote:I think everyone knows that as you go faster, you need exponentially more braking distance. However, there is far more to the equation than just Mass X Accelleration. For example, a Ferrari 550 at 120kph can outbrake a Toyota Corolla at 90kph. Ergo, a speeding Ferrari is safer than a Speeding Corolla.When car A is stopped, car B will be have used roughly the same distance to get to 100kph. It still has to use the same distance again to come to 0.
Even if you are a "track driver" it doesn't make it ok to drive on the road as you would on the track.
Taking the aviation analogy, is it ok for a former fighter or airshow pilot to fly around breaking regs and doing aerobatics over a built-up area in a jet at 300kts and 500feet? He's well trained...
Dyslexics of the world... UNTIE!
I fail to see where this debate is going.
On one side we have the hand wringing doo gooder "I know what's best for you" crowd telling us the:
- speeding is illegal
- increases in speed reduce reaction time
- mythical ether deer can literally pop out onto the road, any road, at any time.
Well no shit Sherlock! (cept the last one). I'm glad you guys took the time to tell us uninformed speed demon schleps all of that - I NEVER WOULD HAVE FIGURED it out all by myself......
Is speeding illegal - well no shit!
Is speeding unsafe - it DEPENDS!
Are speed limits set for safety or arbitrary - ARBITRARY considering the LCD - which by the posts is what most of the do-gooders are.
Last word, PLEASE just stay in the right lane - out of harms way - we'll pass you just fine!
On one side we have the hand wringing doo gooder "I know what's best for you" crowd telling us the:
- speeding is illegal
- increases in speed reduce reaction time
- mythical ether deer can literally pop out onto the road, any road, at any time.
Well no shit Sherlock! (cept the last one). I'm glad you guys took the time to tell us uninformed speed demon schleps all of that - I NEVER WOULD HAVE FIGURED it out all by myself......
Is speeding illegal - well no shit!
Is speeding unsafe - it DEPENDS!
Are speed limits set for safety or arbitrary - ARBITRARY considering the LCD - which by the posts is what most of the do-gooders are.
Last word, PLEASE just stay in the right lane - out of harms way - we'll pass you just fine!
Family Guy, If you want to smoke yourself, I could give a shit! Won't even look back at the guts and gore and certainly won't loose a bit of sleep. If your stupidity causes the loss of others, then we have a problem. That is why laws are created Dumbass! They attempt to protect the thinking, less agressive people that just want to get somewhere and get home...
flyinphil & others:
NOBODY is advocating exccessive speeding, especially not exccessive speeding when other traffic or pedestrians are in the vicinity.
What some of us are saying, is that in some circumstances, the speed limit is set far below what a realistically safe speed is for that given circumstance, and in those cases, it's perfectly safe, albiet still illegal, to speed. For example, the Coquihalla hwy on a sunny summer day with no traffic - 140kph is perfectly safe even though it's a 110kph zone.
If you want to insist that anyone, regardless of the circumstance, who at any time anywhere exceeds the speed limit is dangerous - I must strongly disagree.
NOBODY is advocating exccessive speeding, especially not exccessive speeding when other traffic or pedestrians are in the vicinity.
What some of us are saying, is that in some circumstances, the speed limit is set far below what a realistically safe speed is for that given circumstance, and in those cases, it's perfectly safe, albiet still illegal, to speed. For example, the Coquihalla hwy on a sunny summer day with no traffic - 140kph is perfectly safe even though it's a 110kph zone.
If you want to insist that anyone, regardless of the circumstance, who at any time anywhere exceeds the speed limit is dangerous - I must strongly disagree.
Have you ever even done a "track day"? Do you even know what is involved, other than just "going fast?"
mellow_pilot wrote:Hence my initial condition of two identical cars.rsandor wrote:I think everyone knows that as you go faster, you need exponentially more braking distance. However, there is far more to the equation than just Mass X Accelleration. For example, a Ferrari 550 at 120kph can outbrake a Toyota Corolla at 90kph. Ergo, a speeding Ferrari is safer than a Speeding Corolla.When car A is stopped, car B will be have used roughly the same distance to get to 100kph. It still has to use the same distance again to come to 0.
Even if you are a "track driver" it doesn't make it ok to drive on the road as you would on the track.
Taking the aviation analogy, is it ok for a former fighter or airshow pilot to fly around breaking regs and doing aerobatics over a built-up area in a jet at 300kts and 500feet? He's well trained...
The post just above by Family Guy clearly does not indicate your "time an place" scenario. I do happen to "speed" but at mindful times and places where I am the only one at risk. I am not insisting anything at all. If you read back through the posts, you will see that my reference is in relation to the 400 series in the GTA which are nearly never, free of other traffic and you see the "Family Guy" mentality out there day and night bobbing and weaving through rush hour traffic. That is where I have a problem.rsandor wrote:flyinphil & others:
NOBODY is advocating exccessive speeding, especially not exccessive speeding when other traffic or pedestrians are in the vicinity.
What some of us are saying, is that in some circumstances, the speed limit is set far below what a realistically safe speed is for that given circumstance, and in those cases, it's perfectly safe, albiet still illegal, to speed. For example, the Coquihalla hwy on a sunny summer day with no traffic - 140kph is perfectly safe even though it's a 110kph zone.
If you want to insist that anyone, regardless of the circumstance, who at any time anywhere exceeds the speed limit is dangerous - I must strongly disagree.
Big long diatribe but with a simple answer. When you are by yourself on a highway, and you are willing to pay the clean up costs in advance, then go as fast as your little heart desires. However as it has been pointed out ad nauseam here, you are not alone. Since you share the roads with mere mortals you have a responsibility to obey the speed limit or at least not exceed it by a large amount. Do you obey the 250 kt speed limit approaching an airport below 10,000 ft, or is that too slow for someone with your kind of right stuff? Do you follow SOP's driving your other steed around or are they beneath someone of your skill? Do you do your own thing because Air Regulations are for other people and don't make a lot of sense in your world? Probably not (I hope), so why is it OK on a public road?FamilyGuy wrote:Back to the topic at hand...
What logic makes anyone think even 100kph is safe for all drivers in all cars? I'm not talking road conditions or even traffic congestion either.
Surely, there must be instances where the magic 100 or 110 kph is not safe or even totally unsafe? This must be true if anyone exceeding 110 is unsafe - correct?
A quick poll -
how many supposedly "safe" 100/110kph drivers do a thorough pre trip check of their car? How often - everytime or only when something starts making noise? Long trips only or even to the corner store?
How many of you "safe" drivers have a clue what your tires are rated for? 110kph continuous at max load max inflation? 120kph with a restricted load? "What's a tire rating?"
How old are your tires? How much tread is left and when is it "unsafe"? When was the last time you checked the pressures and with what? Looks about right? Would you even know what to look for?
When was the last time you checked your brake parts? Do you ever? Do you trust the pimply faced kid at Canadian tire with their O so good $40 check up - or do you take it to a professional $$$?
How about the suspension? Ever check it? Do you know what happens if a tie rod sleeve fails? Do you know what the odds of that happening are?
Do you know your stopping distance from 100kph? Is it the same, more or less than a fully loaded SUV, an 18 wheeler, cement truck or sports car? Do you compensate following distance for load?
Point is as pilots we have lisenced AME's certify our airplanes to rigorous standards to try to make sure the machine will not fail our abilities. We have operating manuals detailing the envelope of our machines. We have training and testing to have us, the human operate that machine at its limits - all safely.
I find it logically retarded, especially for pilots, to even remotely suggest that doing 100/110 is more "SAFE" because that is the law or conversly that exceeding 100/110 is any less safe by mere virtue of the arbitrary speed "number" involved.
A properly trained and disciplined driver operating a properly equipped and maintained car is MUCH safer at ANY speed than 70% of the POS cars and morons on the road today in Canada - regardless of the driving environment/conditions.
We will never have the infrastructure to support an "autobahn" type scenario and frankly we don't really need it. What we need is the German attitude AND the fine German engineering (their cars...sweet sweet cars)
What we need is nationwide graduated licesning program that goes past the learning stage.
We need "super-licenses" - a way to regulate those who think they are "heros of the highway". Rigourous standards and testing. MEL's. Act prudently in a properly equipped and maintained car - fill your boots - speed at your discretion. Exercise poor discretion - just once - and not only do they take away your super license - they impound your obviously expensive car.
We also need checks on the normal folks once any license is issued. I should be able to snap a pic with my cellphone camera of an asshole doing 101 in the left lane holding up the flow of traffic and something should be done about it! All the bloody do-gooders can do that to me if I pass them too quickly - facking liberal tree-hugging cry babies...but I digress.
I drive a reasonably well equipped highway cruising machine - 150 is nothing. It is maintained like an airplane - and I do check everything very routinely. I drive with extreme caution and only as circumstances dictate. Nearing 30 years - no accidents - no tickets - and I use the posted highway "limit" more as a guide.
Tell me why I should always be limited to the pedestrian speed of 100/110 - a speed where even the most dilapitated peice of shit driven by the worst of drivers is deemed safe?
Surely, logic must dictate that I can travel much faster and be every bit as safe.
As pilots, this logic should be self-evident. Think about it.
I don't see how being a pilot makes you any better at driving than Joe Farmer on the road. I also don't see why people equate driving the speed limit with incompetence. Do you not think people can choose to drive the speed limit knowing they are capable of going faster? And if they do, why do you think they do that?
PSSSST...because it's safer...and legal.
Good to see the reading comprehension skills are right up there with the driving skills
When exactly did I or anyone else advocate reckless endangerment via speeding?????
Re-read it please. I put forward a logical argument that speed limits are anything but logical and in no way do they imply "safety" - shit cars and shit drivers being the extreme end of the spectrum.
250kts - that one actually makes sense and is based on some realistic and sound reasoning. - which probably escapes most anyway.
Again, 120, 130 hell even 150 in the right circumstances is NOTHING. Maybe it's really a question of perspective. Drive a car that is capable of those speeds (by capable I mean the whole package - not just getting there) and I think that your veiws on if that is safe will change. Would I do 130 in a rental Hyundai Pony - not likely. My car - all day long
Some of you guys do make me laugh though. You are right and holier than thou - I am the devil for putting forth an arguement that being a lemming is anything but logical or safe.
Again - stay in the right lane or better yet - stay home!
Psst people "choose" to do the speed limit mostly cause they are afraid of the "ticket" and what it will cost. That is ALL there is to it. I happen to love photo-radar - tickets for morons!
When exactly did I or anyone else advocate reckless endangerment via speeding?????
Re-read it please. I put forward a logical argument that speed limits are anything but logical and in no way do they imply "safety" - shit cars and shit drivers being the extreme end of the spectrum.
250kts - that one actually makes sense and is based on some realistic and sound reasoning. - which probably escapes most anyway.
Again, 120, 130 hell even 150 in the right circumstances is NOTHING. Maybe it's really a question of perspective. Drive a car that is capable of those speeds (by capable I mean the whole package - not just getting there) and I think that your veiws on if that is safe will change. Would I do 130 in a rental Hyundai Pony - not likely. My car - all day long
Some of you guys do make me laugh though. You are right and holier than thou - I am the devil for putting forth an arguement that being a lemming is anything but logical or safe.
Again - stay in the right lane or better yet - stay home!
Psst people "choose" to do the speed limit mostly cause they are afraid of the "ticket" and what it will cost. That is ALL there is to it. I happen to love photo-radar - tickets for morons!
-
. ._
- Top Poster
- Posts: 7374
- Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 5:50 pm
- Location: Cowering in my little room because the Water Cooler is locked.
- Contact:
I can't wait till I'm 95 years old and still an awesome driver.
I'm gonna push every slow bastard in the left lane right off the road, then when it gets to court I'll just say, "OH, but I'm OLD! I don't know what I'm doing!" When the case gets thrown out because of my age, and my licence gets yanked, I'll appeal, do a sweet driver's test, and be back on the road to ram more slow fuckers out of the way.
Ahh to dream...
-istp
I'm gonna push every slow bastard in the left lane right off the road, then when it gets to court I'll just say, "OH, but I'm OLD! I don't know what I'm doing!" When the case gets thrown out because of my age, and my licence gets yanked, I'll appeal, do a sweet driver's test, and be back on the road to ram more slow fuckers out of the way.
Ahh to dream...
-istp
You answer your own question. It is not simply a matter of what kind of car you drive. You always share the road with other people and that is what matters. There are laws pertaining to driving on that road and that matters too whether you agree with them or not. And you are most likely not as good a driver as you think you are. What is clear from your posts though is that you are arrogant and immature. You make assumptions about my driving skill from what exactly? What have you read here on the internet that proves you are a better driver than me? You don't even know what kind of car I drive. I might drive a much better vehicle than the POS you drive and have far more skill and experience than you. I've told you why I drive the speed limit but apparently I'm wrong, according to you it's because I'm afraid of a ticket. Thank you for telling me.FamilyGuy wrote:Good to see the reading comprehension skills are right up there with the driving skills
When exactly did I or anyone else advocate reckless endangerment via speeding?????
Re-read it please. I put forward a logical argument that speed limits are anything but logical and in no way do they imply "safety" - shit cars and shit drivers being the extreme end of the spectrum.
250kts - that one actually makes sense and is based on some realistic and sound reasoning. - which probably escapes most anyway.
Again, 120, 130 hell even 150 in the right circumstances is NOTHING. Maybe it's really a question of perspective. Drive a car that is capable of those speeds (by capable I mean the whole package - not just getting there) and I think that your veiws on if that is safe will change. Would I do 130 in a rental Hyundai Pony - not likely. My car - all day long
Some of you guys do make me laugh though. You are right and holier than thou - I am the devil for putting forth an arguement that being a lemming is anything but logical or safe.
Again - stay in the right lane or better yet - stay home!
Psst people "choose" to do the speed limit mostly cause they are afraid of the "ticket" and what it will cost. That is ALL there is to it. I happen to love photo-radar - tickets for morons!
I'm curious what Air Regulations and SOP's you ignore because you don't agree with them. You can't possibly agree with them all so how do you deal with that?
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Doc and Rockie...this is getting childish.
So lets be real men and post pictures of your dicks so everyone can decide who is the better man.
So lets be real men and post pictures of your dicks so everyone can decide who is the better man.
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
HeheheCat Driver wrote:Doc and Rockie...this is getting childish.
So lets be real men and post pictures of your dicks so everyone can decide who is the better man.
I bet .'s never gotten a speeding ticket.
He just starts on a rant about TC and by the time he's done the cop can't remember why he pulled him over!
Now we are getting somewhere - a comparison to being a professional - that is a whole different kettle of fish.Rockie wrote: I'm curious what Air Regulations and SOP's you ignore because you don't agree with them. You can't possibly agree with them all so how do you deal with that?
As a pilot, whether commercially or even when just for giggles, I beleive we should all follow the rules and regulations. WHY the perceived duplicity? Cause those rules are written in blood. Whether you like TC/FAA or not, 99% of our flying rules, SOP's etc are based on some factual analysis of something bad that happened - they don't always get it right but the intent is good. Our rules at least contemplate that the individuals are proficient and professional - not LCD schmucks. They are not arbitrary rules written by hand-wringing apron holders in city hall. TC aviation is head and shoulders above TC roadways IMHO.
When I drove trucks for a living - it was always "on the numbers" ALL THE TIME. Why? Because I was paid to do a job and that is what was expected of me as a professional driver - follow ALL rules - no interpratation. Plus, driving 60,000l of fuel around does make one much more aware of their own mortality. When someone else is paying me to do a job I do the job the way they want/expect - period.
The original question was:
The ?? is do you as a pilot with your perceived enhanced ability to judge speed /time/ distance relationships speed on a regular basis.
A better comparison isn't too ALL pilot rules - compare it to the 250 speed limit.
You go first Rockie - tell us why you follow that rule AND why that rule makes sense. The qualifiers as to when and where that must be followed will point out where it does not apply which will point out why the arbitrary speed limit of 100/110 ALL of the time is arbitrary and ridiculous.
If that doesn't make sense answer this - WHY is it okay to speed a little? Others here have said that 110/115/120 in a 100 is okay - its excessive speeding that is wrong. By your argument - breaking the law is breaking the law - period - no room for interpratation. Those laws are there for my safety AND the safety of all other drivers. I have to question that duplicity.
That to me sounds like nothing more than a very subjective interpratation of the rules to fit their personal opinions. If that is the case, then my type of subjective interpratation is every bit as valid - it has to be or all of us are wrong.
Is it okay to do 110 in a 100?
