86 951 Driver

In Missouri they are supposed to take you to Jail. My buddy one time got pulled over for 135 in a 60. The state trooper said "Whoooeee boy you were going fast back there". He looked at us and then said "You know I could take you to jail instead I will write for 120 in a 60 mph." We told him thank you and we won't do it again. Being young and dumb. It scares the **** out of me just thinking about. Mustangs are not very aerodynamic.

Stylemobile

Car was behaving erratic and i was more focused on control of the car than courtesy. It was late on a weeknight and there were no cars within about 3/10 of a mile of me at the time who needed signaling to anyway (if you don't count the cop who rocketed up behind me).

dprantl

I'm sorry and I know you must have been super pissed off, especially in such a circumstance. But I wish cops would give more tickets to people who do not signal. For me signalling is so ingrained, that I just do it automatically all the time, I don't have to think about it at all. Also, it is not a *courtesy* to signal, it's very important for road safety and IMO is a requirement.

One time I was driving with someone in the pass seat and they were watching me drive on the highway and laughed. They said, "Why are you always using your signal even when there's no one around and always moving to the right-most lanes". The answer (to the signal part) is that if you only signal when someone is around, you need to think about it, which means you are taking some attention away from actually driving. If you make it a habit that you don't have to think about, you would never get into a situation like you did. The driving tests in the US are so pathetic that sometimes it really is not the fault of the driver, but the retarded driving laws we have over here. Although even in other countries with much better driving laws, some people still do not signal (Italy comes to mind).

Dan
'91 928GT S/C

Stylemobile

i would be in favor of a policing program of pulling people over for lack of signaling, 'parking' in the left lane, etc. The delay caused by being pulled to the side of the road should be enough to begin to teach some folks without having to issue a ticket. Perhaps a documented written warning that after X number of you DO get a ticket.

I signal courteously to assist in others understanding my intentions. Believe me, safety was foremost in my mind during this incident.

Stylemobile

Who will agree with me that the 'safest' speed is one where all drivers are at about the same speed as each other. What is safer, everyone doing 75 or half the people doing 60 and the other half doing 90? The average is the same.. Would you agree that in the different speeds example, the chance of an impact is greater and that that impact damage/injury would probably be greater? Isn't the difference in speed between two vehicles the most significant factor in which a catastrophe results??

Stylemobile

Pehaps my question would be interesting for a new post but this is on my mind with the group responding to this post.

Allen

Marine Blue

Not directly related to this topic but Germany is talking about posting speed limits EVERYHWHERE on the Autobahn. Something like 87 MPH!

Great stories btw, some are hilarious.

kjurkic

Its known as the 85th percentile rule. Its the difference in speed that is hazardous. This is why there are relatively few fatalities at the race track except when someone hits a wall.

dprantl

I agree, but this is just a to simplistic approach. For example, there will always be people merging on to the highway going slower, creating a difference in speed. If everyone followed good driving practices, the slow lane would actually have cars going the slowest and the fastest lane would have cars going the fastest. Novel idea, isn't it. But way too many people get on the highway and immediately cross all the lanes to get into the fastest lane, then proceed to go 65mph and have people overtake them on the right. And the problem is that these people usually don't even know that they are doing anything wrong. Not to mention it's very dangerous to pass on the right. And add to this unbelieveably stupid road design where there are LEFT exits on major highways. It's pretty sad, actually.

Dan
'91 928GT S/C

Ron_H

FROM THE CALTRANS MUTCD, 2003 Edition:

"The establishment of a speed limit of more than 10 km/h (5 mph) below the 85th percentile speed should be done with great care as studies have shown that establishing a speed limit at less than the 85th percentile generally results in an increase in collision rates; in addition, this may make violators of a disproportionate number of the reasonable majority of drivers. Support:
Generally, the most decisive evidence of conditions not readily apparent to the driver surface in collision histories.
Speed limits are established at or near the 85th percentile speed, which is defined as that speed at or below which 85th percent of the traffic is moving. The 85th percentile speed is often referred to as the critical speed. Pace speed is defined as the 16 km/h (10 mph) increment of speed containing the largest number of vehicles (See Figure 2B-102(CA)). The lower limit of the pace is plotted on the Speed Zone Survey Sheets as an aid in determining the proper zone limits. Speed limits higher than the 85th percentile are not generally considered reasonable and prudent. Speed limits below the 85th percentile do not ordinarily facilitate the orderly movement of traffic and require constant enforcement to maintain compliance. Speed limits established on the basis of the 85th percentile conform to the consensus of those who drive highways as to what speed is reasonable and prudent, and are not dependent on the judgment of one or a few individuals.
The majority of drivers comply with the basic speed law. Speed limits set at or near the 85th percentile speed provide law enforcement officers with a limit to cite drivers who will not conform to what the majority considers reasonable and prudent. Further studies show that establishing a speed limit at less than the 85th percentile (Critical Speed) generally results in an increase in collision rates.
Option:
When roadside development results in traffic conflicts and unusual conditions which are not readily apparent to drivers, as indicated in collision records, speed limits somewhat below the 85th percentile may be justified. Concurrence and support of enforcement officials are necessary for the successful operation of a restricted speed zone."

I must however agree with Dan. It is much too simplistic to expect uniformity in ability, comfort level, conditions, etc. Consider the other 15%, half of which are above the 85% and quite competent and aware of what they are doing. The longer two bodies are in close proximity to one another, the more likely a collision between them will occur. And then there are the variables such as driver training, (which should be MUCH more demanding and intense), highway design, stricter adherence to safety standards and regular vehicle inspections, (lacking in this country). The assumption that these factors are not significant is criminal IMO. Treat animals (people) like moronic children who are not responsible and they will live up to those expectations by proving themselves to be infantile and in need of constant supervision and control. NO LIMITS. It has already been proven that it is safer.

heinrich

I don't agree. Yes differential speed is what kills ... but if drivers use the road and FOLLOW THE LAWs, then there will be almost no accidents. In other countries, it is common for cars to drive at 40 mph differential speeds, and to pay close attention while passing each other. It is ILLEGAL to drive in the passing lane without passing someone.

The risk of a collision is FAR GREATER during the time that two or more vehicles are in each other's proximity. Therefore 6 cars doing 60 in a cluster (f.ck) are at far greater risk than 6 cars travelling at differential speed, BECAUSE the cluster are in each other's proximity for a very long total time, while 6 cars travelling at 6 speeds are only close to each other for a split second.

When I drive, I never ever take more than a second to pass anyone. If he/she needs to pass me, I let them as fast as possible.

heinrich

Signalling your lane changes has nothing to do with courtesy. If I were flying past your car in a 60mph zone at 60 or 70 and you with car troubles were doing 25 and changing lanes without signalling, you would be putting me at risk.

I do hear you ... on a late night, no other cars around ... who gives a **** That changes the scenario a lot and I do agree with you

heinrich

You and I will drive well together my brother

kjurkic

Heinrich, in an ideal world where drivers are DRIVING, rather than reading a book, putting on make-up, yapping mindlessly on the cell-phone (and most every cell phone conversation IS mindless...) I would agree with you.

Instead I must treat every driver as an oblivious moron. I NEVER trust that they will see me coming (left or right), I never trust them to stop at the stop sign/red light, I assume they will do the most dangerous or idiotic thing, and prep for it. This approach has saved my a$$ countless times.

As for the no limits approach....perhaps if it could be phased in over time, but realistically north america has gone too far down the path of "everyone has a right to a driver's license, regardless of skill" approach...I know far too many folks I can barely tolerate riding with even at or below the posted limit. I shudder when I think of these fools on an unlimited road.

---------

Hello, my name is Ken and I am

dprantl

Yes, exactly. They should have speed limit ranges for each lane of a highway. If you're going the wrong speed in the wrong lane, you get a ticket. The left-most lane would ideally be something like minimum 85mph with no maximum (road design and climate conditions permitting). Each lane would have a speed range that would not come close to the others, making sure that there would never be a cluster of cars in place at any time unless all lanes are creeping. If you are caught going 60 in the fast lane, you should get a ticket. Not for money, but the fulfillment of your ticket should be a training course in the infraction you made. The payment would be the cost of the class plus the cost to give you that ticket. None of this "the faster you go, the larger the fine" revenue-generating BS.

The next step after this is vehicle inspections and vehicle speed limits. At inspection time, each vehicle gets a sticker signifying its maximum safe speed. An Excursion should be limited to 55mph, so you should never EVER see one of these in any but maybe the two slowest lanes on a highway, since it shouldn't be going faster than 55. Some cars will not have any vehicle speed limit.

Last step, revamp the driving tests to be a real test. At the end, you get a score and that will determine your "driver speed limit", which will be marked on your license. Exceed the limit on your license, you get a ticket. If you are a very good driver, you don't have a driver's limit.

Too bad a system like this will never work because the majority of the people in this world are just too dumb. I wish I could be proved wrong on this last point.

Dan
'91 928GT S/C