Cruising Speed

[Grumpy Bear]

Quoting you:

 

“Want to run 10mph under the limit? It may look fine and dandy from where you are sitting. What you don't see is the problems you are creating, sometimes for miles behind you………….When everyone else is flying past you (like butter or not) that's a definite sign the problem is you, not them”.

 

Quote me:

 

So you’re not arguing safety are you? Your arguing your personal annoyance at someone who isn’t the thousandths Lemming to jump from a cliff because everyone else does.

 

Quoting you:

 

Again, not trying to argue. Really! That would imply I am trying to change your entrenched position. Not really. Just trying to correct any misunderstanding of where I am coming from as your response had some incorrect assumptions. Did it now?

 

Question then:

 

So I get this right. Your saying that you’re not arguing the thing you are quoted as arguing and your position for saying you’re not arguing it is…wait for it….your saying you’re not arguing? In other words you didn’t write what is quoted. Interesting. Is that ‘some incorrect assumptions’ of mine? Like telling the cop you’re not peeing on the light pole as he watches you zip up and expecting him to believe it? That sort of incorrect?

 

Let’s revisit your statement and I again quote in part:

 

“Want to run 10mph under the limit? It may look fine and dandy from where you are sitting.

And then you accuse (in red, first paragraph) but not looking to argue?

 

AND you believe it is safer to hit anything 10 mph faster than 10 mph slower. Delusional.

 

From Wikipedia:

 

A later investigation revealed that (Dale Sr.) Earnhardt's car struck the concrete retaining wall at a heading angle (angle of the vehicle measured from the wall face to the center-line of the car at point of impact) of between 55-59°, combined with a trajectory angle of 13.6° (path of vehicle approaching the wall) and an estimated speed between 157 and 161 mph (253 and 259 km/h). Earnhardt experienced a crash impulse of approximately 80 milliseconds in duration. The result of the wall impact and the impact from Schrader's car combined to yield a change in velocity of approximately 42–44 mph (68–71 km/h). The force exerted was equivalent to a vertical drop from a height of 61.8 feet (18.8 m). Later sled testing of an exemplar vehicle yielded g-forces ranging from −68 to −48 g, variation dependent on method of measurement.

 

What exactly is unknowable? Dale is still dead and faster is safer thinking is still wrong. State Police are trained in the above physics. Would knowing how to solve the equations prevented this death? Not a chance but a lower total impact energy ALWAYS improves your odds.

[JoeM21]

I'll admit it, you pulled me in.

Oh were to start. Let's start with the 'cause of the crash'. Well that's been determined a few millenniums ago. Two objects trying to occupy the same space at the same time.

Probably the crux of where we differ. Two objects trying to occupy the same space is the result. The _cause_ is how they got there. If one of those objects was owned by a driver who called in sick that day or took a different route, there is no result to apply your physics to.

Your superior skills to which you elude “a different skill level” gives you the ability but not permission to drive recklessly.[/color][/size]

(Yeah, this is the part that dragged me back in).

I never alluded to my having any "superior skills." This is an erroneous assumption on your part, which is apparently part of you M.O. Read what you took the trouble to quote. I merely stated that any given road has drivers of varying skill levels. That is a demonstrable fact. Those varying skill levels, among many other factors, will be factors in any accident.

Seemingly you don’t feel the need to have permission to ignore law. Actually the whole ‘reason for the law is reason to ignore it’ thing is….well…illogical and irrational.

Another incorrect assumption. I never stated I have a need to break any law. My earlier comment about speed limits being set intentionally low for financial reasons is fact. The statements about the speed limit being set with the understanding that people will drive 10-15 over were from the politicians who write these laws. I also pointed out the absurdity of those statements.

Underlined: Exaggeration doesn’t prove a point. C’mon man. No wonder you have trouble with the math.

There's no exaggeration. Actually an understatement. Your comment shows how differently we approach the topic. You look at the trees and I am trying to see the forest.

I'm going to drive about 500 miles tomorrow on Interstates. On those roads there will be several thousands of other vehicles. Certainly the few dozen in my general vicinity will have the most impact on me (and vis a versa). Still, the jackknifed tractor trailer 100 miles upstream will also have an effect on everyone behind it. Traffic is a complex system, not just one or two cars in a vacuum.

Millions die every year as a result. In the news every day. Man kills a mother and three children drunk driving or running a stop sign or losing control or head on in an illegal pass or hit and run or you fill in the blank______.[/color][/size]

This isn't physics. It's the drunk driver who lost control. Of the unsafe pass (legality has nothing to do with it, a legal pass can be just as unsafe as an illegal one). You can run a stop sign safely and without incident. Stopping merely reduces the probability of an accident. You are bringing up physics when statistics is the correct discipline at play.

I’ve never heard of a death that reads: Man kills a family of four following the law and safe driving practice. And neither has anyone else.

Maybe you haven't, but it happens all the time. Being "legal" does not exclude you from accidents. Being safe only reduces your risk. Drive safe and legal... someone jumps out in front of your car they are still dead. (Physics!). Stuff happens. All we can do is reduce the probability.

My text size it for me. It isn’t all about you.

Interesting observation. I would think everyone else's text size is what should concern you while your text size would be for others to read. Again, we seem to approach things from very different places.

Hopefully, I am done here. I do wish you all the best and hope you find peace.

[Big Whiskey]

My text size it for me. It isn’t all about you.

 

So.....you choose a large font size that makes this whole thread more difficult and annoying for everyone to navigate....without considering any problems you might be causing for anyone else. And that's okay because it's for you....but Joe is the selfish one. This explains so many things.....

[Grumpy Bear]

 

So.....you choose a large font size that makes this whole thread more difficult and annoying for everyone to navigate....without considering any problems you might be causing for anyone else. And that's okay because it's for you....but Joe is the selfish one. This explains so many things.....

 

You write so small it makes it difficult to follow and navigate. SO I guess it about you then. Really Font size is an issue or just an easy picking point. Grow up.

[Grumpy Bear]

Let’s see if we can find something to agree on. How about that?

 

I think we’ve agreed that the wreck itself is two objects attempting the same place at the same time. Check.

 

I think we also agree that it is the difference in speeds that causes the damage and that it is mitigated by a lesser difference. No matter what the actual average velocity is. Check.

 

Want to see traffic slow to the speed limit? Put a cop in traffic on the Interstate. Better yet put them in the median in pairs and one on the overpass with a radar gun. Illinois speed traps are great revenue sources for a bankrupt state.

 

Want to see traffic at the state minimum for dozens of miles? Put that State Cop behind an elderly lady on a state highway doing 45 mph. He will never stop her as there is no law broken, and no one will pass him (them). In fact no one will even honk.

 

I followed this situation personally last fall from my home to the Iowa boarder, 97 miles. All I could do was smile and enjoy the day. I was about six cars back in a twenty car line. Truckers seem to find their manors when a with a cherry on top. Now this is funny. Between those two points is a hill with dedicated third lane passing zones of a mile length. There are also several long flat normal passing zones. And still no one was willing to pass!

 

If we are still in agreement then answer this:

 

As a policeman’s presence hinders traffic in the same way and with an elevated regard for his presence as a driver driving between the posted minimum and maximum speeds for whom others have absolutely no regard; is it reckless and dangerous then for police to patrol and enforce the law?

 

If not; Then is it not the difference in the way other drivers view the slower car and not the fact he is slower that people take issue with? Is it not this difference in view that creates the safety issue and not the speed itself?

 

If so: Would there be any point in further discussion that doesn’t happen in town hall meeting in lobby to the state legislature for disassembly of our police forces ability to enforce speed limits? Better still lobby to just remove all speed limits as either or both are in fact a safety hazard.

 

Boys and girls, only one of those can be true. It is or it isn’t. There’s not a maybe or is certain cases in sight.

[Big Whiskey]

 

You write so small it makes it difficult to follow and navigate. SO I guess it about you then. Really Font size is an issue or just an easy picking point. Grow up.

An immature reply from you, and I'm the one that needs to grow up? I call on that one. My font size is the same as everyone else's on this forum. It's the default setting. You seem to be the only one having a problem with it, but it effects everyone who reads this topic. You can press CTRL and your + sign a few times with your browser open, and it will zoom in to make it easier for YOU to read, without being annoying to anyone else. You don't need to respond, because this will be my last reply to this thread. I'm just going to grab some , sit back, and watch the continual beating of this dead horse, haha.

[Grumpy Bear]

An immature reply from you, and I'm the one that needs to grow up? I call on that one. My font size is the same as everyone else's on this forum. It's the default setting. You seem to be the only one having a problem with it, but it effects everyone who reads this topic. You can press CTRL and your + sign a few times with your browser open, and it will zoom in to make it easier for YOU to read, without being annoying to anyone else. You don't need to respond, because this will be my last reply to this thread. I'm just going to grab some , sit back, and watch the continual beating of this dead horse, haha.

 

The bold above is THE standard 14 point book Pica Type Set. 10 letters per inch. This sites default is Elite type set at 12 per inch. It doesn't really matter to me. I feel no need to conform to your preference anymore than you do mine. Annoyance is a preference not a condition. About the bold highlight. I seriously doubt I can get that lucky.

 

​

[j-ten-ner]

 

...

I'm not going to post to this tread again as I have nothing further to add to it

...

 

C'mon man, you promised!

 

so long

j-ten-ner

[Grumpy Bear]

That’s pretty much what I thought would happen. Not a single taker on post #65, but a whole lot of deflection, drivel and misdirection. It isn’t that hard girls.

 

Provide proof.

 

Quote me: I’ve never heard of a death that reads: Man kills a family of four following the law and safe driving practice. And neither has anyone else.

 

Reply SMiller:

 

Maybe you haven't, but it happens all the time.

 

Pretty strong statement but, your opinion is not proof of anything except you have one and that is all you’ve offered bound in a package of rhetoric. But this statement finally means you have a stand and you are indeed arguing with the intent to convince. What courage. You play a mean game of “Whack O’ Mole”. Well…Game over. Time to put up your proof so let me offer what proof will indeed convince me that your opinion is indeed factual and valid.

 

Police presents keeps people acting as they should act toward that law all the time but haven’t the moral fiber to do so nor the courage to flaunt their disregard for it to his face.

 

That prefaced, We are going to look at real traffic accidents. Not their physics but the validations. I will stipulate that the proof needs to be that of accident involving on duty full time policemen, sheriffs or state policemen whose routine duties encompass traffic citations. Why such a stipulation? Because the behavior of the law man eliminates the variable of ‘disregard’ shared by the public at large as a ‘root cause’. Does that need explanation?

 

This is what you’re looking for. I will accept as proof ANY certified notarized public record of a police report of ANY fatal accident caused by a law man, as stated above, for whom state accident investigators found the root cause to be the officer involved was driving too slowly. Not between the states posted and minimum but “too slowly” as the root accident cause.

 

Here’s a head start: A study by the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund examined the deaths of 684 police officers over a five-year period found that 272 officers died from being in an automobile crash or being struck by an automobile. A further look at these incidents found that "a large number of the crashes investigated were not related to either a call for service or a case of self-initiated activity," the report said.

 

The report urged law enforcement agencies to encourage their officers to "slow down when responding to calls (specifically, Officer Needs Assistance calls which led to 53% of officer traffic-related deaths), wear seat belts, and wear issued body armor" to reduce fatalities.

 

I wonder what the root cause was they assigned that prompted this response? Obliviously speed.

 

Why is this your assignment? LOL. It’s your position that slower drivers are the cause of accidents. You’re getting allot of latitude here. I’m giving you as a ‘root cause’ pool to look into but 1/10 of 1 percent of all fatal crashes and you only have to find ONE.

 

Time to put up or shut up.

[j-ten-ner]

...

 

Want to see traffic at the state minimum for dozens of miles? Put that State Cop behind an elderly lady on a state highway doing 45 mph. He will never stop her as there is no law broken, and no one will pass him (them). In fact no one will even honk.

 

...

 

This may apply to North America. But that's another topic.

I would (and do) take every opportunity to pass a cop (and any other old lady) who's driving too slow.

Because I know how. And why not?

But I can't prove it. Not here.

This is the internet. I can tell tales and nobody knows whether it's true or not.

 

I'll leave it as that.

 

so long

j-ten-ner

[JoeM21]

Lets see if we can find something to agree on. How about that?

I'm always interested in civil discourse. The above comment made me hopeful. Seems a later post put you back on the inflammatory path, but I'll give it a try anyway.

 

I think weve agreed that the wreck itself is two objects attempting the same place at the same time. Check.

Sure, we can agree there.

 

I think we also agree that it is the difference in speeds that causes the damage and that it is mitigated by a lesser difference.

I'll also agree here. Keep in mind the operative word is damage... as opposed to accident. An important distinction.

 

No matter what the actual average velocity is. Check.

Let's not check so quick. Car a travels at 10mph and hits car b while b is parked. Slight bumper dent. I'm with you there.

 

Car a is traveling at 65mph and hits b traveling at 55. Same 10mph difference. I'll grant you that the dent would be the same. However, the result is very likely going to be different. Very high probability on one or both cars losing control. Then we have one hitting another object at highway speed. On a crowded road, it has a high probability of affecting others. So the "average velocity" is most certainly going to affect the outcome, which can easily be fatal.

 

I get what you are claiming when you invoke physics. I jus believe you are oversimplifying the matter by discounting the probabilities and other effects involved.

 

Want to see traffic slow to the speed limit?

Not really. I am not a fan of traffic jams. A waste of everyone's times and resources. I've been in too many 30 mile drive that took 3 hours.

 

Put a cop in traffic on the Interstate.

Now we're into a whole different realm. Of course you understand that the "laws of physics" you keep referring to have absolutely no relation to traffic laws. So why are you attempting to conflate the two?

 

Put a cop on the side of the road and virtually everyone that sees him will brake check to under the speed limit (and go right back to original speed 1/2 mile later). The cop's intent may be good, but the result is dangerous. I think it is ridiculous that a cop's presence takes traffic flow from 5 over to 5-10 under in a short space, but that's the realily.

 

As to cops "pacing" traffic. Also ridiculous. I have senm cops three abreast, blocking all lanes and forcing traffic to five (or more) under the posted limit. There is no logical reason for this. It only creates a jam and gets everyone mad.

 

I have also seen cops driving 10 over on the interstate and everyone keeping up. I have seen them driving well under the limit in the right lane and most everyone passing.

 

All this is far from any safety or physics discussion. It is in the realm of psychology. I have no idea why people instantly change their (legal) driving habits when they see a cop. Probably because so many traffic rules are designed to trap drivers and generate money, and people are afraid of getting tripped up for doing nothing wrong.

 

I'll admit to doing something similar at a stop sign by me . Normally I just stop. Knowing why the sign was put there (from the village board who were responsible for it) I do something different when it is monitored. I stop, look at the cop and count to three. Overkill, but it's the only way to be sure I'm not ticketed.

 

As to posted speed limits, we will have to disagree. Any study of the science behind safe driving proves that most limits are posted intentionally low. Lawmakers admit this. Enforcement supports this. You may think they are fine where they are, or even too high. You are entitled to your opinion. If "speed" is the only factor, let's just lower the limit to 10mph (or ban cars entirely.)?

 

Since you like to invoke physics, let's try looking at it a other way.

 

Option 1: Everyone moves "with traffic." If everyone is moving the same direction (vector) at the same speed (velocity) then there can be no accident. Five under, five over... it all becomes meaningless it there is no way for the objects to collide.

 

Option 2: everyone moves with traffic, except for car X, which is moving 10mph slower that the others. X has created a situation where an crash can occur. Other cars must either slow down or changes vector to avoid a collision. This changes and complicates the flow of all lanes. Since velocities and vectors are no longer the same, the probability of collision has increased.

 

That is why it is understood that is is generally safer when people move with the flow of traffic. Those that move significantly slower - or faster - increase the probability of a collision. By "understood" I refer to the engineers who study these things and use math (including physics) in their calculations.

 

As to your subsequent, more confrontational post...

 

1. Some of us don't live to respond to posts on the internet. Others could care less. Others are probably burned out by the constant arguing. Maybe that's why you had no "takers" who were quick enough. (Looks like you gave it half a day!)

 

2. Provide proof? No. Google is your friend. To suggest that no one driving "lawfully" has ever been involved in a a fatal crash is preposterous.

 

3. Police responding to calls. You state "obviously speed." No, it's not obvious. Your conclusion omits other factors as it tries to conflate that with civilians driving slightly over the posted limit. If everyone is driving 35 and the cop is barreling down at 70 (breaking multiple laws and safety rules), of course there is an increased chance of an accident. This all comes back to the "difference in speed" concept mentioned above. It's just as dangerous as a civilian driving 70 on that same road.

 

There are several studies and books on the topic, all using science. Read the NTSB reports. Not just the recent one regarding the dangers of speeding. Delve into the rest of the data to see how SAFE speed limits are supposed to be determined. Read the other reports from government and consumer groups as to how traffic rules and enforcement procedures are created to maximize revenue, with no consideration given to safety.

 

Build a road designed for >70mph traffic. Build a car designed for >70mph travel. Then slap a 50mph sign up. Some people will run at 65, others at 50. Others will think it fine to run at 40 because it is technically within the law.

 

I'm not going to get argumentative and state which driver is "right." I will state that the situation is a recipe for disaster. As it stands, I still believe the safest course of action is to ride at or close to the flow of traffic. Whether that's at 65, 50 or 40 will vary depending on the situation. ( Which puts me back on topic, since it is my answer to the original question.)

 

Feel free to drive 10 over or 10 under. I've learned how to quickly spot and avoid problems like that. Unfortunately for you and others, not everyone is aware of the need for that skillset.

[JoeM21]

Why is this your assignment? LOL. It’s your position that slower drivers are the cause of accidents. You’re getting allot of latitude here. I’m giving you as a ‘root cause’ pool to look into but 1/10 of 1 percent of all fatal crashes and you only have to find ONE.

 

Time to put up or shut up.

Too easy. You proved it yourself.

 

Back to your physics quote about two objects and the same space. By their very nature of being there, each object contributes to the cause. The absence of either object results in no collision, thus each object is part of the cause.

 

Thus, in each accident BOTH the faster AND the slower car are the cause.

 

Put another way, if they were both traveling the same speed, there would be no accident.

 

This, again, is why I subscribe to the proven science that the driver going much faster OR slower than the flow increases the probability of an accident.

 

Now that I "put up" does this mean we can all "shut up?"

[gearheadesw]

So much loose in this thread. Why don't we just stop. Physics are universal laws that all things obey. This thread has no physical facts, just whyning. Quit crying about not getting the last bull shit phrase in, and take a nap, get rested, have a new frame of mind when you come back. Fu@king act like married children, pathetic.

[calgator73]

This is crazy... thought i was on a prius forum for a second

 

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[Grumpy Bear]

JoeM21 wrote:

 

2. Provide proof? No……... To suggest that no one driving "lawfully" has ever been involved in a fatal crash is preposterous.

 

Yes, it would be if that was what I said, but it wasn’t. I said, "Driving between the legal limits was to be “The Root Cause" of a fatality as determined by the State Accident Investigator.

 

​Even the village idiot knows the when the town bully hits him in the mouth it isn’t his fault he was struck because he wasn’t moving fast enough to avoid the punch.

 

I also said prove of YOUR CLAIMS that legal driving causes accidents. I could give you ten years’ worth of accidents that total millions of deaths and you’re not going to find that report. It does not exist. Under the law the lawful bears no fault…period. Man or God’s.

 

Here’s some charges you will be charged with when an illegally fast driver hits and/or kills a legally fast driver:

 

Failure to stop in/or an assured clear distance.

Improper lane usage.

Failure to have vehicle under control.

Speeding

Reckless driving

Reckless Endangerment

Manslaughter

Negligent Homicide

Murder1 or Murder 2

 

On the Interstates we have at least two lanes. The right one of which is designated by law for “slower traffic”. It is its purpose. There are often separate speed limits for different classes of vehicles. In urban and city and some rural areas there may be up to six lanes to choose from. On two lane roads we have passing zones and passing lanes. You don’t like a slower driver? Pick another lane or pass but quit the whining about your ‘rights’ to drive ‘above the law’ or Your RIGHT to demand he accommodate you. You will pass someone 15 over and in the most ridiculously dangerous places possible (and do every day) so you’re not really making a point that matters given you’re propensities.

 

You are collectively to the point where you’ve made the law at fault, making one guilty for both parties involved in the accident for obeying the law and removing the blame from the law breaker. This was recalled to mind as I pen this…because it fits perfectly…

 

Isaiah 5:20

 

Woe to those who say that good is bad and bad is good,

Those who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness,

Those who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

 

What kind of sick says, “I was doing 10 over and killed him but it’s his fault for obeying the law”.

 

JoeM21 quote: No. (to providing proof)

 

No one has. So…your either unable or unwilling which further means you’re either inept and/or have no regard for the truth or both. Your, “feet that run to trouble....”

 

Distilled further…It’s impossible to petition unreasonable people and expect to have rational conversations.

 

Before you run up the flag and shout “Woo-Whoo we won!” consider this:

 

I’ll still be driving legally, safely and economically and you…?

 

You still get to deal with it. Good Win! Right? LOL