Heinrich,

I think if I were King For A Day and could make the traffic rules, I don't think I'd make quite as complicated and extensive a list as you did.

I'd just set up some requirements for "extra driving privileges." They'd probably involve the type of vehicle you drive, the type of tires you have, and additional DE requirements - Bondurant, etc.

Once you qualified and met the elevated standards, you'd get a sticker on your Driver's License and maybe issued a special license plate (although theft of the plates would be a concern. So maybe a special sticker for the inside rear window or something similar - so police could see it.). You'd have to re-qualify periodically - pick your interval.

This special license would allow you an extra, oh, I dunno, maybe 20mph on freeways and highways.

In a perfect world, I'd like to see limitless freeways in America, but in a realistic world, I don't think we have sufficiently trained and skilled drivers to make it work.

But I sure don't believe in the One-Size-Fits-All limits we have now. Even insurance companies - those bastions of progressive thinking - don't sell One-Size-Fits-All policies. Even they understand, to some degree, that lower risk folks should be rewarded.

 

Yes, mongoose, you are correct..!

Point being however, a 928 of the sky would be an SR-71, and fly in FL 50 in very short time through the "limited airspace".. The ascent through any airspace with restrictions to FL 50 would have to be approached, and proceeded through with caution, and clearance from the nearest tower. This is of course with a full system check before speeds greater than Mach 1. As the SR-71 has many different types of radar, I am sure the collision avoidance would be exceptional with training and tower cooperation..

Now, as I am sure you are good at altimiter calculations and velocity, you could tell us how long is would take FL 50 assuming you took off in Class B Airspace using the known vehicle ascent rates, and limit observation at different FL's in the restricted areas....

Now, about the 928 with radar similar to F-15's, some of us have surveillance warning devices, and some of us have gone further to install jamming devices.. I am sure that in future we will be able to have terrrain following radar that is overlaid on a GPS coordinated map with interoperable capability to the HUD master control panel in our 928's until then, we will still have to rely mostly on our education and judgement of driving conditions to get by safely...

 

Bill was stopped by a "chase Camaro" which the CHP uses in this area to chase down cars that are spotted by other CHPs or planes. It is marked on the doors and is all white so from the front and rear it is hard to detect except for the lights under glass. From the side it is plainly a CHP. The law says the bust is legal if the car is marked and/or the officer is in uniform. It is a pisser because Bill sees a Camaro not a cruiser coming up at a high rate of speed and he moves right as he should to not impede flow, and as he does he momentarily exceeds the limit for about 5 seconds and then settles in the right lane at the limit. The Camaro laughingly busts him for that manuver as opposed to him remaining in the left lane and blocking the flow. But he made a fatal error, which I will convey to Bill. And he created a what he will attempt to define to Bill as a dangerous situation by doing what he condemned in the process.

About a week after that incident, while Nicole and I were riding in my shark one evening, we passed that same Camaro stopped by the side of the road. Nicole made the comment that it was probably the same Camaro that stopped Bill. I started looking around just after that and lo and behold, a black and white smokey bear came roaring up from the far right lane (bear country). He watched me for a few minutes and then stopped me for a fix-it ticket. I asked about the Camaro and if he was the spotter for it and that lying bear said with a laugh that they can't use the Camaro for stops other than commercial enforcement (trucks) because it is not marked properly. Crap !! Nicole almost asked why it had stopped our friend just a few days earlier but didn't.

Yes, Garth, I use my lights constantly. When approaching an intersection I frequently flash just as a matter of course to alert whoever I can't see that I'm coming. I do it as I approach from the rear at a high closing speed on open road. I do it when someone signals a change of lane to tell them that I saw them and its ok to move over. And yes I do it to tell a left lane hog that I want them to move out of the way. Increasingly, in this part of California, that gesture is being respected and people surrender the left lane. I try not to crowd from the rear. In Texas flashing from the rear always resulted in the left lane being surrendered. Whoopee! When I was driving a bug in Germany, France and Austria, I never ventured into the left lane. I stayed out of it feeling both the car and me driving that car would be better off in the right lane as Mercedes closed on me at more than 80 mph.

Okay Mr. Bigs, I am not ready but might as well answer now. First let me say that it is interesting to note Bill Ball's experience with speed on public highways, though closed to traffic. Obviously, Bill has escaped his ordeals unscathed so far though he has operated his 928 at more than twice what is claimed to be safe for that highway, other traffic notwithstanding. I also don't doubt that, had there been other traffic, Bill would have adjusted his speed to accomodate the interests of safety. Other 928ers come to mind, particularly both Thomases in the Devek white car who are apparently bored with doing it at above 200 mph. (I'm sure their growing family has something to do with curtailing their participation.) Of course all of them are not neophytes to speed and possess better than average abilities and familiarities with the increased risks involved. I even admit to traveling a slight bit in excess of the posted limit on those roads in my 928. But the point remains that such speeds are accomplished safely on such roads contrary to assertions of do gooders that it is unsafe. Speed is relative.

Yes, I would eliminate speed limits on certain roadways. I would NOT do it immediately, but would gradually increase tolerance and conduct studies to determine free flowing comfort levels of the roads. We know from Montana's experience that the accident rate declined drastically when limits were lifted.
California has admitted that freeway maximum speeds (presently set at 65 absent an engineering study and 75 with one) would probably be raised if they conducted valid studies, but they won't. That policy needs to change, because they admit that accidents are up because of it. I think no one would disagree that urban freeways being congested much of the time would be best left at close to present levels, though at night and other daytime hours when vast stretches are deserted, higher speeds should be allowed. I would emphasize the basic speed rule which doesn't apply to California's freeways, which allows a safe-for-conditions speed which may or may not be in excess of posted limits.
Oregon once had a similar rule and I have personally passed bears in Oregon in clear open conditions above 80 in a posted 70 zone with a wave and no problem. Of course I was driving a new car as well. The problem with basic speed laws is who decides what is safe for conditions? That brings us back to engineers and scientifically conducted studies of freeflowing traffic without fear of police intervention. Where do most mostorists feel comfortable? They don't feel comfortable with bears around. And as they gain experience and vehicles become safer and better engineered, speeds will rise, absent bears.

My objection to posted limits is that drivers assume that a posted limit implies safety at that limit and nothing could be farther from the truth: safety is in the driver's hand and mind, and sitting at the limit doesn't insure it. At that point attention and risk perception wane and boredom and complacency set in.

Another problem is the false belief that UNIFORMITY is necessary for safety. All cars at just about the same speed. Honesty destroys that argument as we all know that is not true. Smokey himself is an example of the exception as he works his way through traffic at 80 - 85 all the time. Race drivers encounter vastly differing closing speeds all race long without incident. But they must pay attention to conditions around them and that is just the point. They take responsibility for their safety and don't assume uniform conditions and expected behavior of other drivers, constantly, or they change drivers and rest until they can.

Which brings up another point I have learned to fear: fatigue. It is a known fact that as municipalities and states face declining revenue, something has to go. Lately it has been rest stops in remote locations because those locations don't have sufficient funds to pay some guy to maintain them. That is where they are the most needed and where the most damage occurs when they are closed. Statistics are proving this right now and rural locations have experienced an increase as the stops are closed. That is not a speed issue, but it would affect performance at speed. More and better stops are needed.

The argument I hear here often that it is OK to occasionally blurt up above a limit so long as you are not caught and then laugh and resume adherence to the limit is childish at best. To then say that if someone "catches" you, that you should meekly cough up the fine and then resume your errant behavior in secret is equally evasive of the truth. Would you also shop lift so long as you don't get caught? What a thrill to "break the law" eh? And get away with it. We are not playing a game here folks. This is about survival and safety in efficient conditions and is dead serious. But the same adherents will propose that we all need laws to "keep us in line". Show me those people and I will show you an irresponsible child. They want responsibility removed from their lives and assumed by an authority figure arbitrarily. They are the left lane hogs who rely on "the limit" to define safety rather than their own facilities. Save us from those hedonists and their excursions into impulsive fantasy. Their whole trip is breaking a law they admit is valid and justify it by saying they were not "caught". They love laws and prohibitions and would have difficulty living without them. They relish a good beating occasionally I assert. Keeps them in line. Can't function unregulated. Pathetic.
Afraid of themselvs for sure, having never found their self imposed limits.

That is not the purpose. The purpose is to allow traffic to flow freely and safely. Yes I would agree partially with Heinrich that limits should at least be raised if not eliminated. I would definitely eliminate them from many rural locations in absence of cross streets or driveways, and limited access freeways. But only after INTENSE public re-education and MUCH more difficult licensing procedures. Re-direct the efforts of officers to licensing instruction and education rather than revenue collection and impediment of flow which is only an attempt to perpetuate uniformity and ineptitude. (No need to sacrifice jobs here. Turn 'em lose on us before we crash so that we won't and demand of us better performance abilities. Speed enforcement doesn't have any lasting effect on stated objectives of modifying behavior toward more safety; it simply produces a steady flow of crimial accusations. For shame, eh? Don't we all love to feel ashamed of ourselves? Of course we do. That is another excuse to not live up to our best abilities). Graded licenses displayed on the vehicle for all to see would also be a requirement allowing access to higher rates of flow roads. Performance would be rewarded with privilege. Vehicles could be graded as well, allowing recognition and more privilege. As it is, the only reqirement for owning a Ruf or GT3 or 928 is an abundance of cash. That would change with stricter and more demanding licensing with performance standards and, as Heinrich asserts, re-testing regularly. I would not limit higher speeds to limited access freeways either, but make it dependent on hours and conditions. A constant uniform speed is not necessarily safer and you all know that. Bill jumped out of the bear's way in an instant and was not unsafe in doing so, rather than impede the bear's flow. This would eliminate the aforementioned children who gain some perverted thrill at "breaking the law" for a few moments. Guess they would have to go shoplift or find some other way to get their jollies and leave the rest of us to find our own efficient level(much the same way water does...... think about it. Imagine what happens when constricting the flow of water ). Once out of congested urban locations, and even in them if the left lane rule was enforced, traffic would find its own level and flow efficiently. Less self-assured individuals would keep to the right and not worry. Tempers and road rage would be a thing of the past. Drivers would seek avenues for more driver education for more privelege and ability purely for survival. Attention to a speed control device (sign)would mean respecting the fact that a truely objective engineering study had been performed recently including detailed and honest evaluation of accident records. That would mean observing that sign would mean respecting truth. No more arbitrary numbers that bear no true relationship to safety. No more fun and games. Uniformity freaks could build throughfares utilizing vehicles with coupling ability to a fixed central power rail and then turn on then sit there watching a movie. Ho Hum.

Once on the open road, limits would likely disappear in most locations. Would that mean anarchy? Not at all. You are not free to wave a gun in any location you wish in a state of drunkeness; that could get you shot in an instant. Would there be accidents and fatalities? Of course, as there are now....just less of them. Complete insurance against damage is a myth. Stay at home in bed if you want that... and atrophy. Would we need to pay more attention while driving? Yes. Thankfully and stay alert and probably without cruise control. Would we be healthier? Yes. Would we be honest? Certainly. No place for kidding then. No more thrills. Sorry. Only we can prevent forest fires...smokey can't do it. We must do it ourselves.

I have just one more point: just because you exceed a posted limit today does not mean you have acted unsafely. If the limit was not posted legally and was arbitrary, and the safe for conditions speed was not violated, how can you assert that you are acting unsafely? Does Bill act unsafely on a road posted for 55 when he maintains 160 mph in a car designed and tested to travel all day at that speed? Absent other factors such as cross traffic and lack of emergency personnel, it is his risk. What if Mr. Columbus was prohibited from crossing the Atlantic because it was "unsafe"? Of course it was considered unsafe by idiots sitting in their safe cribs. Well here we are folks. Why are we begging to be protected from ourselves? The fools who create hazards (the "other guys" will always be there no matter how much regulation). Hey, I have the scars to prove it having been close to death twice because of drunk drivers not my fault. One was a superior court judge who totaled my new 911 in an instant at a stop sign. Because we are afraid of responsibility as Garth put so well. Children hiding and being untruthful with ourselves thinking prohibition will protect us. In truth prohibitors are abusing our trust.

In case anyone needs this, I will repeat it: Many of my best friends are cops. Bears. Smokeys. Don't even think about going there.

I repeat. It is a no brainer. The guy should contest. Imagine no option for contesting accusations. Yea USA. Don't take it for granted.

 

Thanks, Ron H. You're comments on this thread are thoughtful and well reasoned, just as they usually are on other threads. Keep at 'em!

 

ah utopia... till then, I have a set of rules I use:
1. NEVER be the fastest 1st car on the road - I always let somebody else do the fastest thing to draw out the cops, like bait, and follow them at about 100-200 yds, enough to avoid detection at the same time as the "lead" car
2. if possible, be in the middle of a group of fast cars, it's hard for them to pull over everyone, and it's usually 1st come, 1st served/cited so I like to hide out in a fast pack...can also claim I'm going w/the flow...
3. never do over 20mph more than the flow - if they are at 80, 100 isn't so fast relatively... only 20 more and slow enough to still see if anybody is lurking in the slow lanes, and enough to avoid a sudden lane change or weird move from the slower cars... in a pack at 40, 80 is just too fast, so 60 it is, etc... also keeps the door open to avoid the 20 over=reckess mess...
4. open road, no other cars anywhere in sight- let'er rip - in SOCAL, it's a rare delight not to be ignored in a shark or other fine car... radar detector on of course...
5. new rule - if other rules fail and I get a ticket - call ron!!!

 

Dr. Ron here. Yes, call 800.595.0235. At your service. Just got back from another entertaining day in traffic court today. What a joy to witness such truth and justice and equality and fairness and legal intellect at work. Speaking to a lady just before her trial and the first time she was ever in court, we told her to fight. After her trial she was so happy because the officer failed to show and she walked....and with a big smile on her face too. Please don't call after 3 AM 'cause I am on the rennlist then.