Flashing Lights in Maryland
|
View:
New views
20 Messages
—
Rating Filter:
Alert me
|
| < Prev | 1 - 2 - 3 | Next > |
 |
Re: speed check
by Paul Benish
::
Rate this Message:
There's a place in fairfax circle that does it. I want to say circle
auto repair but i'm not 100% certain. You might be able to get it at least reduced to speeding. I'm surprised the lawyer won't talk to the prosecuting attorney before the trail and try to get it reduced for you. -=Paul On Jun 19, 2009, at 9:19 AM, Aki Damme wrote: > kewl. And I thought this was going to be tough. ;-) > > > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Tom Gimer<tom@...> > wrote: >> nope 80 is the number ("in excess of 80" being reckless) >> >> so you have 5mph to deal with >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Aki Damme" <01dyna@...> >> Sent: Fri, June 19, 2009 9:01 >> Subject:Re: [dc-cycles] speed check >> >> oh great.... then her speedo would have to be off by 6mph indicating >> 79 when she was hit at 85. Might be a stretch. >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Michael >> Jordan<mjordan812@...> wrote: >>>> >>>> then your magic number is 79, isn't it??? va boys, chime in >>>> anytime >>> >>> >>> Bingo! >>> >>> *§ 46.2-862* . A person shall be guilty of reckless driving who >>> drives a >>> motor vehicle on the highways in the Commonwealth (i) at a speed >>> of twenty >>> miles per hour or more in excess of the applicable maximum speed >>> limit or >>> (ii) in excess of eighty miles per hour regardless of the applicable >> maximum >>> speed limit. >>> >>> That being said, the cop CAN write for simple speeding - his choice. >>> >>> -- >>> Michael J. >>> '86 SRX-6 >>> '93 GSX1100G >>> '03 DL1000 >>> AMA >>> IBA #3901 >>> USAF (Ret) >>> NRA >>> etc. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> dc-cycles mailing list >>> dc-cycles@... >>> http://dc-cycles.org/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/dc-cycles >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> dc-cycles mailing list >> dc-cycles@... >> http://dc-cycles.org/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/dc-cycles >> >> >> ----- End of original message ----- >> >> > _______________________________________________ > dc-cycles mailing list > dc-cycles@... > http://dc-cycles.org/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/dc-cycles ------------------------------------ "Do you know what the chain of command is here? It's the chain I go get and beat you with to show you who's in ruttin' command here." --Jayne Cobb _______________________________________________ dc-cycles mailing list dc-cycles@... http://dc-cycles.org/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/dc-cycles |
|
|
Re: speed check
by Aki Damme-2
::
Rate this Message:
thanks. I think he's working on that as well.
-aki On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Paul Benish <firebird@...> wrote: > There's a place in fairfax circle that does it. I want to say circle auto > repair but i'm not 100% certain. You might be able to get it at least > reduced to speeding. I'm surprised the lawyer won't talk to the prosecuting > attorney before the trail and try to get it reduced for you. > -=Paul > On Jun 19, 2009, at 9:19 AM, Aki Damme wrote: > > kewl. And I thought this was going to be tough. ;-) >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Tom Gimer<tom@...> wrote: >> >>> nope 80 is the number ("in excess of 80" being reckless) >>> >>> so you have 5mph to deal with >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Aki Damme" <01dyna@...> >>> Sent: Fri, June 19, 2009 9:01 >>> Subject:Re: [dc-cycles] speed check >>> >>> oh great.... then her speedo would have to be off by 6mph indicating >>> 79 when she was hit at 85. Might be a stretch. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Michael Jordan<mjordan812@...> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>> then your magic number is 79, isn't it??? va boys, chime in anytime >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Bingo! >>>> >>>> *§ 46.2-862* . A person shall be guilty of reckless driving who drives >>>> a >>>> motor vehicle on the highways in the Commonwealth (i) at a speed of >>>> twenty >>>> miles per hour or more in excess of the applicable maximum speed limit >>>> or >>>> (ii) in excess of eighty miles per hour regardless of the applicable >>>> >>> maximum >>> >>>> speed limit. >>>> >>>> That being said, the cop CAN write for simple speeding - his choice. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Michael J. >>>> '86 SRX-6 >>>> '93 GSX1100G >>>> '03 DL1000 >>>> AMA >>>> IBA #3901 >>>> USAF (Ret) >>>> NRA >>>> etc. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> dc-cycles mailing list >>>> dc-cycles@... >>>> http://dc-cycles.org/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/dc-cycles >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>> dc-cycles mailing list >>> dc-cycles@... >>> http://dc-cycles.org/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/dc-cycles >>> >>> >>> ----- End of original message ----- >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >> dc-cycles mailing list >> dc-cycles@... >> http://dc-cycles.org/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/dc-cycles >> > > ------------------------------------ > "Do you know what the chain of command is here? It's the chain I go get and > beat you with to show you who's in ruttin' command here." --Jayne Cobb > > > dc-cycles mailing list dc-cycles@... http://dc-cycles.org/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/dc-cycles |
|
|
Re: speed check
by dcstrom
::
Rate this Message:
Recently got off a reckless ticket myself... well, with some help of a
lawyer friend. The advice he gave me helped and it may help your daughter too. I did an online driving course in advance of the court date - I used http://www.idrivesafely.com/ It takes about 8 hours to complete but gave me something to use in negotiation with the county prosecutor (in conjunction with a good driving record). He dropped the charge (or got the officer to drop the charge, not sure which) from reckless to speeding, meaning that I didn't have go to court. Even if you can't get the charge reduced in advance, having the driving course certificate in your hands when you go to court has got to be a plus. Trevor On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Aki Damme <01dyna@...> wrote: > thanks. I think he's working on that as well. > > -aki > > > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Paul Benish <firebird@...> wrote: > > > There's a place in fairfax circle that does it. I want to say circle > auto > > repair but i'm not 100% certain. You might be able to get it at least > > reduced to speeding. I'm surprised the lawyer won't talk to the > prosecuting > > attorney before the trail and try to get it reduced for you. > > -=Paul > > On Jun 19, 2009, at 9:19 AM, Aki Damme wrote: > > > > kewl. And I thought this was going to be tough. ;-) > >> > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Tom Gimer<tom@...> wrote: > >> > >>> nope 80 is the number ("in excess of 80" being reckless) > >>> > >>> so you have 5mph to deal with > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>> From: "Aki Damme" <01dyna@...> > >>> Sent: Fri, June 19, 2009 9:01 > >>> Subject:Re: [dc-cycles] speed check > >>> > >>> oh great.... then her speedo would have to be off by 6mph indicating > >>> 79 when she was hit at 85. Might be a stretch. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Michael Jordan<mjordan812@...> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> then your magic number is 79, isn't it??? va boys, chime in anytime > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Bingo! > >>>> > >>>> *§ 46.2-862* . A person shall be guilty of reckless driving who > drives > >>>> a > >>>> motor vehicle on the highways in the Commonwealth (i) at a speed of > >>>> twenty > >>>> miles per hour or more in excess of the applicable maximum speed limit > >>>> or > >>>> (ii) in excess of eighty miles per hour regardless of the applicable > >>>> > >>> maximum > >>> > >>>> speed limit. > >>>> > >>>> That being said, the cop CAN write for simple speeding - his choice. > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Michael J. > >>>> '86 SRX-6 > >>>> '93 GSX1100G > >>>> '03 DL1000 > >>>> AMA > >>>> IBA #3901 > >>>> USAF (Ret) > >>>> NRA > >>>> etc. > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> dc-cycles mailing list > >>>> dc-cycles@... > >>>> http://dc-cycles.org/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/dc-cycles > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>> dc-cycles mailing list > >>> dc-cycles@... > >>> http://dc-cycles.org/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/dc-cycles > >>> > >>> > >>> ----- End of original message ----- > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >> dc-cycles mailing list > >> dc-cycles@... > >> http://dc-cycles.org/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/dc-cycles > >> > > > > ------------------------------------ > > "Do you know what the chain of command is here? It's the chain I go get > and > > beat you with to show you who's in ruttin' command here." --Jayne > Cobb > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > dc-cycles mailing list > dc-cycles@... > http://dc-cycles.org/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/dc-cycles > dc-cycles mailing list dc-cycles@... http://dc-cycles.org/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/dc-cycles |
|
|
Re: speed check
by Aki Damme-2
::
Rate this Message:
we had offered that to the lawyer and he said that, based on the fact that she
had *just* attended a course less than a year ago, bringing another one in will only piss him off. *sigh* On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Trevor Angel<trevangel@...> wrote: > Recently got off a reckless ticket myself... well, with some help of a > lawyer friend. The advice he gave me helped and it may help your daughter > too. > > I did an online driving course in advance of the court date - I used > http://www.idrivesafely.com/ > > It takes about 8 hours to complete but gave me something to use in > negotiation with the county prosecutor (in conjunction with a good driving > record). He dropped the charge (or got the officer to drop the charge, not > sure which) from reckless to speeding, meaning that I didn't have go to > court. > > Even if you can't get the charge reduced in advance, having the driving > course certificate in your hands when you go to court has got to be a plus. > > Trevor > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Aki Damme <01dyna@...> wrote: >> >> thanks. I think he's working on that as well. >> >> -aki >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Paul Benish <firebird@...> wrote: >> >> > There's a place in fairfax circle that does it. I want to say circle >> > auto >> > repair but i'm not 100% certain. You might be able to get it at least >> > reduced to speeding. I'm surprised the lawyer won't talk to the >> > prosecuting >> > attorney before the trail and try to get it reduced for you. >> > -=Paul >> > On Jun 19, 2009, at 9:19 AM, Aki Damme wrote: >> > >> > kewl. And I thought this was going to be tough. ;-) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Tom Gimer<tom@...> wrote: >> >> >> >>> nope 80 is the number ("in excess of 80" being reckless) >> >>> >> >>> so you have 5mph to deal with >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >> >>> From: "Aki Damme" <01dyna@...> >> >>> Sent: Fri, June 19, 2009 9:01 >> >>> Subject:Re: [dc-cycles] speed check >> >>> >> >>> oh great.... then her speedo would have to be off by 6mph indicating >> >>> 79 when she was hit at 85. Might be a stretch. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Michael Jordan<mjordan812@...> >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> >> >>>>> then your magic number is 79, isn't it??? va boys, chime in anytime >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Bingo! >> >>>> >> >>>> *§ 46.2-862* . A person shall be guilty of reckless driving who >> >>>> drives >> >>>> a >> >>>> motor vehicle on the highways in the Commonwealth (i) at a speed of >> >>>> twenty >> >>>> miles per hour or more in excess of the applicable maximum speed >> >>>> limit >> >>>> or >> >>>> (ii) in excess of eighty miles per hour regardless of the applicable >> >>>> >> >>> maximum >> >>> >> >>>> speed limit. >> >>>> >> >>>> That being said, the cop CAN write for simple speeding - his choice. >> >>>> >> >>>> -- >> >>>> Michael J. >> >>>> '86 SRX-6 >> >>>> '93 GSX1100G >> >>>> '03 DL1000 >> >>>> AMA >> >>>> IBA #3901 >> >>>> USAF (Ret) >> >>>> NRA >> >>>> etc. >> >>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>> dc-cycles mailing list >> >>>> dc-cycles@... >> >>>> http://dc-cycles.org/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/dc-cycles >> >>>> >> >>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> dc-cycles mailing list >> >>> dc-cycles@... >> >>> http://dc-cycles.org/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/dc-cycles >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> ----- End of original message ----- >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >> dc-cycles mailing list >> >> dc-cycles@... >> >> http://dc-cycles.org/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/dc-cycles >> >> >> > >> > ------------------------------------ >> > "Do you know what the chain of command is here? It's the chain I go get >> > and >> > beat you with to show you who's in ruttin' command here." --Jayne >> > Cobb >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> dc-cycles mailing list >> dc-cycles@... >> http://dc-cycles.org/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/dc-cycles > > dc-cycles mailing list dc-cycles@... http://dc-cycles.org/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/dc-cycles |
|
|
Re: speed check
by mike b.-4
::
Rate this Message:
Aki Damme wrote:
> we had offered that to the lawyer and he said that, based on the fact that she > had *just* attended a course less than a year ago, bringing another one in > will only piss him off. > > *sigh* It sounds like you've tried all the reasonable things, and it's sounding like a "Baretta Situation". I.e. "If you can't do the time, then don't do the crime." I wonder if people would drive more legally, and the laws would be more reasonable, if there was a 100% chance of getting caught, but the penalties for each infraction were a lot lower? I.e. once a year you get billed for the 2456 times you went over the limit by at least 10mph, the 892 times you rolled through a stop sign, the 234 times you parked overtime in time-limited spot, and the 140 times you went more than 20mph over the speed limit...with a charge of $1 for each infraction. We have the technology to make this happen, so it's a choice we could opt for, not pure speculation or fantasy, like, say, gun control. ;-) -- Mike B. -- '04 FLSTCI (H-D Softail Heritage Classic with EFI for the non-Harley folks) Learning from your mistakes is good. Learning from someone else's mistakes is better. _______________________________________________ dc-cycles mailing list dc-cycles@... http://dc-cycles.org/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/dc-cycles |
|
|
Re: speed check
by Michael Jordan
::
Rate this Message:
>
> ... so it's a choice we could opt for, not pure speculation or fantasy, > like, say, gun control. ;-) Which, of course, is properly defined as hitting your target consistently. :-) Unfortunately, it does sound like she is going to have a note in her "Permanent File" for the next 11 years. With the attendant honors and recognitions that convey with the award. Bummer. -- Michael J. '86 SRX-6 '93 GSX1100G '03 DL1000 AMA IBA #3901 USAF (Ret) NRA etc. _______________________________________________ dc-cycles mailing list dc-cycles@... http://dc-cycles.org/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/dc-cycles |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: speed check
by PenguinBiker-2
::
Rate this Message:
----- "Aki Damme" <01dyna@...> wrote: > Maybe but I told the lawyer, isn't this like argueing how many shots > you fired at a victim? So she wasn't going 20 over, > but 19 over is STILL knowlingly going WAY too fast. > Nonsense! If traffic is going 80 then the safest speed to travel is 80. Traveling 50 under those circumstances would be dangerous not just for you but for everyone around you. The whole idea that 19 over is simply speeding and 20 over is miraculously reckless is absurd. (or that 79 is speeding and 80 reckless) Speed is _not_ a great contributor to accidents it is just an easy one to enfor$e. John _______________________________________________ dc-cycles mailing list dc-cycles@... http://dc-cycles.org/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/dc-cycles |
|
|
Re: speed check
by Brian Roach
::
Rate this Message:
Exactly.
"Speed" is always the BS statistic used by the gov't to justify their revenue stream. After all, if you had an accident while standing still, speed wouldn't be a "factor". One thing (out of many) I personally love about CO ... reasonable speed limits and none of this crap. The interstates are 75mph with the exception of the core downtown of Denver which is somewhat like the big curves on I270 in DC (which here is 65mph expect for about 5 miles of 55mph). And ... I got my first ticket (in 9 years) about a year ago. 19mph over the limit (I was actually in an area I wasn't familiar with and well ... they got me). The fine? $65. Oh, and 2 points. - Roach PenguinBiker@... wrote: > Nonsense! If traffic is going 80 then the safest speed to travel is 80. Traveling 50 under those circumstances would be dangerous not just for you but for everyone around you. > The whole idea that 19 over is simply speeding and 20 over is miraculously reckless is absurd. (or that 79 is speeding and 80 reckless) > Speed is _not_ a great contributor to accidents it is just an easy one to enfor$e. > > John > _______________________________________________ > dc-cycles mailing list > dc-cycles@... > http://dc-cycles.org/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/dc-cycles > _______________________________________________ dc-cycles mailing list dc-cycles@... http://dc-cycles.org/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/dc-cycles |
|
|
Re: speed check
by mike b.-4
::
Rate this Message:
Brian Roach wrote:
> Exactly. > > "Speed" is always the BS statistic used by the gov't to justify their > revenue stream. After all, if you had an accident while standing still, > speed wouldn't be a "factor". Speed does contribute to accidents, and it is a major factor in how bad an accident is. By going faster you reduce the reaction time between being close enough to the accident scene to see it, and the time you get there. Not referring to running into a previous wreck here...spotting the huge pothole, seeing the gravel, noticing the car pulling out of the alley way, etc. are the sort of thing I mean by "close enough to the accident scene". Human reaction times are pretty long (2/10 second at least...often longer), and for any given speed you will cover a particular distance in that time. The faster the farther. Distance = velocity * time, so time = Distance/velocity. Big velocity, small time. Your kinetic energy...what rips you apart and bends metal on impact, and a big factor in how far you will slide if you don't impact something, is directly related to speed. It goes up as the square of the speed...twice as fast is four times as much energy. Kinetic energy = 1/2 mass * velocity**2. Saying that it's "relative speed that matters" is true. When you hit the car in the lane next to you in a side-swipe, it doesn't matter that you are both doing 80mph, just that you were doing 10mph sideways relative to each other...that will determine the damage from the side-swipe. Now, when one of you loses control because of that, ends up sideways into a telephone pole, the relative speed between the pole and the one that hits it (close to 80mph) will matter a great deal. Had the side-swipe and loss of control happened at 40mph, there'd only be 1/4 the energy to impact the pole with, and a lot less damage (bent metal, ripped apart people, etc.). There's also the fact that friction has limits, and as kinetic energy goes up, it gets easier to overcome the friction between the road and your tires, making certain kinds of accidents possible that aren't at lower speeds (you won't slide sideways very far at 15 mph). Most people don't get any training at handling vehicles in speed ranges above 65 mph, where the physics that matter are a bit different sometimes. This doesn't mean that doing 55 when everyone else is doing 80 is a good idea. It does mean that it would be a good idea if the people doing 80 slowed down. Kind of like the law requires if you want to keep your money in your wallet, and your license. I really think they should require you pass a physics course before you get a driver's license... > And ... I got my first ticket (in 9 years) about a year ago. 19mph over > the limit (I was actually in an area I wasn't familiar with and well ... > they got me). The fine? $65. Oh, and 2 points. I got my only speeding ticket ever back in...I think it was '78. It was in the wilds of southern Va. Beach, and I'd just come off a 2 lane road with a 55mph limit onto another 2 lane road, and assumed it was also 55 mph. There was a slowpoke in front of me, and I passed him. Given the short passing segments on the winding 2 lane road, I didn't want to spend a lot of time doing that, so I was really moving as I pulled back in and around a curve, coasting back down to what I thought was the speed limit, looked up and saw a Ford Torino coming th ande other way up ahead, with a radar antenna hanging out nose diving as the cop slammed the brakes to start his 3 point turn (between the ditches) to come after me. I looked down at the speedo and it was coming down through 68 mph. 13 over I thought, oh well...then the cop told me it was a 45 zone...oops. Since I had pulled into the first good stopping place (a gas station) and not made him chase me, and since I really did think it was a 55 zone, and maybe because he was feeling nice that day, he wrote it up as 19 over the limit. I sent them a money order for the $56. That was before I took physics of course. -- Mike B. -- '04 FLSTCI (H-D Softail Heritage Classic with EFI for the non-Harley folks) Learning from your mistakes is good. Learning from someone else's mistakes is better. _______________________________________________ dc-cycles mailing list dc-cycles@... http://dc-cycles.org/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/dc-cycles |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: speed check
by Brian Roach
::
Rate this Message:
Erm, Mike ... I actually understand physics quite well. And I actually
have quite a bit of experience with crashing at high rates of speed from racing. My actual point (with a healthy does of sarcasm) was that it's never the weaving in out of traffic, texting, reading a map, talking on the phone, changing lanes without signaling, following too close or anything else ... it's always "speed" according to the authorities and safety nazis, regardless of the context in which the crash occurred. Perhaps if they patrolled and pulled people over for those behaviors rather than sitting on the side of the road with a radar gun, we'd have less accidents. Furthermore, I believe that the speed limits are low, and are kept that way under the guise of "safety" in order to collect revenue. Everything you wrote is accurate, but taking that logic to its end means that no one should drive over 35mph. Or at all. I don't like downhill logic like that. There's an acceptance of risk that simply has to exist in order not to reduce things to the lowest common denominator. There would also be less injury (at any speed) if cars were equipped with roll cages, 5 point harnesses, and drivers were required to wear helmets. Even though that is an indisputable fact, very few people would accept those requirements even if you removed cost as a factor. A lot of people don't even wear their seatbelt as it is. If you think that 55mph is a reasonable speed limit, I respect your opinion ... I just don't happen to agree with it. I would agree that people don't take driving serious enough (at any speed) given the physics you outlined. Out here I think they actually have reasonable speed limits, which is the second point I was making. And at least they're honest about the revenue thing. You don't even get any points for up to 5mph over ... you just pay the speeding tax. 75mph is a nice comfortable speed, and if I'm in my truck or Laura's car I rarely am going faster than 80mph (nor are most other people). - Roach Mike B. wrote: > Brian Roach wrote: >> Exactly. >> >> "Speed" is always the BS statistic used by the gov't to justify their >> revenue stream. After all, if you had an accident while standing >> still, speed wouldn't be a "factor". > > Speed does contribute to accidents, and it is a major factor in how > bad an accident is. > > By going faster you reduce the reaction time between being close > enough to the accident scene to see it, and the time you get there. > Not referring to running into a previous wreck here...spotting the > huge pothole, seeing the gravel, noticing the car pulling out of the > alley way, etc. are the sort of thing I mean by "close enough to the > accident scene". Human reaction times are pretty long (2/10 second at > least...often longer), and for any given speed you will cover a > particular distance in that time. The faster the farther. Distance = > velocity * time, so time = Distance/velocity. Big velocity, small time. > > Your kinetic energy...what rips you apart and bends metal on impact, > and a big factor in how far you will slide if you don't impact > something, is directly related to speed. It goes up as the square of > the speed...twice as fast is four times as much energy. Kinetic > energy = 1/2 mass * velocity**2. > > Saying that it's "relative speed that matters" is true. When you hit > the car in the lane next to you in a side-swipe, it doesn't matter > that you are both doing 80mph, just that you were doing 10mph sideways > relative to each other...that will determine the damage from the > side-swipe. Now, when one of you loses control because of that, ends > up sideways into a telephone pole, the relative speed between the pole > and the one that hits it (close to 80mph) will matter a great deal. > Had the side-swipe and loss of control happened at 40mph, there'd only > be 1/4 the energy to impact the pole with, and a lot less damage (bent > metal, ripped apart people, etc.). > > There's also the fact that friction has limits, and as kinetic energy > goes up, it gets easier to overcome the friction between the road and > your tires, making certain kinds of accidents possible that aren't at > lower speeds (you won't slide sideways very far at 15 mph). Most > people don't get any training at handling vehicles in speed ranges > above 65 mph, where the physics that matter are a bit different > sometimes. > > This doesn't mean that doing 55 when everyone else is doing 80 is a > good idea. It does mean that it would be a good idea if the people > doing 80 slowed down. Kind of like the law requires if you want to > keep your money in your wallet, and your license. > > I really think they should require you pass a physics course before > you get a driver's license... > >> And ... I got my first ticket (in 9 years) about a year ago. 19mph >> over the limit (I was actually in an area I wasn't familiar with and >> well ... they got me). The fine? $65. Oh, and 2 points. > > I got my only speeding ticket ever back in...I think it was '78. It > was in the wilds of southern Va. Beach, and I'd just come off a 2 lane > road with a 55mph limit onto another 2 lane road, and assumed it was > also 55 mph. There was a slowpoke in front of me, and I passed him. > Given the short passing segments on the winding 2 lane road, I didn't > want to spend a lot of time doing that, so I was really moving as I > pulled back in and around a curve, coasting back down to what I > thought was the speed limit, looked up and saw a Ford Torino coming th > ande other way up ahead, with a radar antenna hanging out nose diving > as the cop slammed the brakes to start his 3 point turn (between the > ditches) to come after me. I looked down at the speedo and it was > coming down through 68 mph. 13 over I thought, oh well...then the cop > told me it was a 45 zone...oops. Since I had pulled into the first > good stopping place (a gas station) and not made him chase me, and > since I really did think it was a 55 zone, and maybe because he was > feeling nice that day, he wrote it up as 19 over the limit. I sent > them a money order for the $56. > > That was before I took physics of course. > > -- Mike B. _______________________________________________ dc-cycles mailing list dc-cycles@... http://dc-cycles.org/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/dc-cycles |
|
|
Re: speed check
by mike b.-4
::
Rate this Message:
Brian Roach wrote:
> > My actual point (with a healthy does of sarcasm) was that it's never the > weaving in out of traffic, texting, reading a map, talking on the phone, > changing lanes without signaling, following too close or anything else > ... it's always "speed" according to the authorities and safety nazis, > regardless of the context in which the crash occurred. Perhaps if they > patrolled and pulled people over for those behaviors rather than sitting > on the side of the road with a radar gun, we'd have less accidents. I'm fairly certain of that. I blame it on radar guns. In the distant past, the only way they could get you for speeding was to "clock" you...to use two cars and a radio to time you between known points, or to follow you for some distance (usually 1/4 mile) after matching speeds and use the patrol car's calibrated speedo for evidence, then pull you over. Since two cars gets expensive, they usually went for the second option. That put them out in traffic where they could spot other violations, like the ones you name (though texting and talking on phones weren't possibilities back then). People tended to signal turns and lane changes, not roll through stop signs, not tailgate, etc. to a greater extent than they do now that the cops are hiding in the weeds staring at radar gun displays rather than out in traffic where they can see those things. Also, given that I've seen people commit violations where there *was* a marked car in a position to witness it, and the cop did nothing, I suspect the cops are often too tied up texting, talking, and using their computes to be watching for violations...or driving safely...too. PG County cops average one severe accident every 25,000 miles. Even given that they sometimes are required to drive at the margins to do their jobs, that's pretty bad. I've never had a severe accident in over 20 times that distance. > Furthermore, I believe that the speed limits are low, and are kept that > way under the guise of "safety" in order to collect revenue. If you can actually drive well at high speed, that's certainly the way it seems, but given the almost complete lack of driving skills the average driver (not to mention the below average driver) possesses, I'm not sure I agree with you. A car that loses traction at high speeds behaves a lot like a car on a slippery road (except for the accelerated rate of events and the magnitude of the damage on impact), and just look at how well people tend to cope with slippery roads...especially in the D.C. area. I think I've posted before about the accident near Bolling AFB I was in the middle of (without being involved in) years ago. That was caused by a woman who couldn't deal with a little fishtail at 50 mph. I don't want to see what would have happened at 80 with her behind the wheel. If everyone on the road was a trained NASCAR driver, I'd agree that the limits could be a lot higher without increasing danger much. Given that most people on the road are more like Aunt Bea, I think they are too high too often as it is. > Everything you wrote is accurate, but taking that logic to its end means > that no one should drive over 35mph. Or at all. I don't like downhill > logic like that. I understand. It's a compromise thing. You know what a compromise is? It's that answer that is equally distant from all of the *correct* answers... ;-) > There > would also be less injury (at any speed) if cars were equipped with roll > cages, 5 point harnesses, and drivers were required to wear helmets. > Even though that is an indisputable fact, very few people would accept > those requirements even if you removed cost as a factor. A lot of > people don't even wear their seatbelt as it is. Right, and I think that's a great counter-argument to people who promote motorcycle helmet laws. Goose, gander, same-same. > If you think that 55mph is a reasonable speed limit, I respect your > opinion ... I just don't happen to agree with it. It depends who's out there, and where you are talking about. For the people on the beltway, 35 might be too fast...so it's probably just as well that when most of them are on it, that's about what you get. ;-) When I visit my dad in Montana, 80 isn't at all unreasonable in good weather. There's almost nobody on the road, you can see for miles, and even if you blew a tire and didn't handle it well and rolled and flipped repeatedly, you probably wouldn't hurt anyone, or anything, but yourself and your car and passengers....and they can beat you about the head and shoulders if they don't like the speed you are traveling to make you slow down. Most of the people out there who can't deal with high speeds have already killed themselves. Think of it as evolution in action. > Out here I think they actually have reasonable speed limits, which is > the second point I was making. And at least they're honest about the > revenue thing. I agree. I've driven from the Denver Airport to Boulder before, and I was perfectly comfortable with the speeds...except the section of heavy traffic where it was down to 25 for a couple of miles. ;-) -- Mike B. -- '04 FLSTCI (H-D Softail Heritage Classic with EFI for the non-Harley folks) Learning from your mistakes is good. Learning from someone else's mistakes is better. _______________________________________________ dc-cycles mailing list dc-cycles@... http://dc-cycles.org/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/dc-cycles |
|
|
Re: speed check
by Michael Jordan
::
Rate this Message:
>
> By going faster you reduce the reaction time between being close enough to > the accident scene to see it, and the time you get there. Actually, the reaction time remains the same - you just cover a lot more ground. Yeah - I'm being picky. > I really think they should require you pass a physics course before you get > a driver's license... They pretty much do in Europe. They're aghast at the lack of training that we 'Murricans have prior to getting a license. Ever been on the Autobahn? Or even back roads? -- Michael J. '86 SRX-6 '93 GSX1100G '03 DL1000 AMA IBA #3901 USAF (Ret) NRA etc. _______________________________________________ dc-cycles mailing list dc-cycles@... http://dc-cycles.org/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/dc-cycles |
|
|
Re: speed check
by mike b.-4
::
Rate this Message:
Michael Jordan wrote:
>> By going faster you reduce the reaction time between being close enough to >> the accident scene to see it, and the time you get there. > > > Actually, the reaction time remains the same - you just cover a lot more > ground. Yeah - I'm being picky. Not picky, just an alternate interpretation of the words. English is like that sometimes. "Reaction time" as you read it is "time needed to react", while as I wrote it, it is "time available for reaction". >> I really think they should require you pass a physics course before you get >> a driver's license... > > They pretty much do in Europe. They're aghast at the lack of training that > we 'Murricans have prior to getting a license. They should probably stop honoring our licenses when people from here want to drive there, and make us pass their tests first. > Ever been on the Autobahn? Or even back roads? No. When I visited Berlin I didn't get a car...walking and the U-bahn were enough. When I lived in the UK for a year and a half, they wouldn't let me drive. Discrimination against 6 and 7 year olds. ;-) I have read about it though. Works well most of the time, but when it doesn't, their accidents are horrendous. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbdH-J6UoYI http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341281,00.html And one caused by someone messing up while being "polite": http://www.thelocal.de/national/20080821-13837.html -- Mike B. -- '04 FLSTCI (H-D Softail Heritage Classic with EFI for the non-Harley folks) Learning from your mistakes is good. Learning from someone else's mistakes is better. _______________________________________________ dc-cycles mailing list dc-cycles@... http://dc-cycles.org/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/dc-cycles |
|
|
Re: speed check
by Michael Jordan
::
Rate this Message:
>
> I have read about it though. Works well most of the time, but when it > doesn't, their accidents are horrendous. Yeah - now we're back to the kinetic energy as a function of velocity equations. It does tend to weed out the incompetents early, though... Some laws just can't be ignored =:-0 -- Michael J. '86 SRX-6 '93 GSX1100G '03 DL1000 AMA IBA #3901 USAF (Ret) NRA etc. _______________________________________________ dc-cycles mailing list dc-cycles@... http://dc-cycles.org/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/dc-cycles |
|
|
Re: speed check
by mike b.-4
::
Rate this Message:
Michael Jordan wrote:
> Some laws just can't be ignored =:-0 "Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by legislation; stupidity is not a sin, the victim can't help being stupid. But stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity." -- From the Notebooks of Lazarus Long, as written by Robert A. Heinlein. _______________________________________________ dc-cycles mailing list dc-cycles@... http://dc-cycles.org/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/dc-cycles |
|
|
Re: speed check
by PenguinBiker-2
::
Rate this Message:
----- "Mike B." <omni@...> wrote: > > Speed does contribute to accidents, Speed is only a minor contributor as a cause of accidents. A study in California once listed accident causes and speed was something like tenth as a _cause_ of accidents behind things like driving the wrong way on a one way street. Accidents are caused by human error not by exceeding the limits of the vehicles physical abilities or simple physics. The constant harping about speed is simply a justification for a revenue stream that local governments “need” to continue functioning. > and it is a major factor in how > bad > an accident is. Gotta give you that one, if I am in an accident I prefer both vehicles to be going slowly. The fact is that as a _cause_ of accidents speed is a very minor player and not really a player at all when everyone is moving at the same speed. John _______________________________________________ dc-cycles mailing list dc-cycles@... http://dc-cycles.org/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/dc-cycles |
|
|
Re: speed check
by Brian Roach
::
Rate this Message:
I think John actually brings up a very important point here which
actually adds some clarity to what I was trying to say. Speed in not the main problem, yet 90% (conservatively) of traffic enforcement focuses on speed. This is why I believe it is first and foremost about revenue, not safety. Sitting on the side of the road with a radar gun is easy. It's also hard and fast; radar gun says X, you were speeding. Less messy court time with people saying, "Your honor, I wasn't distracted by the crossword puzzle I was doing in the paper while I was driving." Mike, I believe you are absolutely correct when you say that higher speeds increase the severity of the accident. My argument is that instead of going the lowest common denominator route (reduce speed limits for people who can't be bothered to pay attention / learn how to drive) we should enforce the *other* traffic laws and make people be better drivers. I'm much more comfortable with uphill logic :) - Roach PenguinBiker@... wrote: > ----- "Mike B." <omni@...> wrote: > > >> Speed does contribute to accidents, >> > > Speed is only a minor contributor as a cause of accidents. A study in California once listed accident causes and speed was something like tenth as a _cause_ of accidents behind things like driving the wrong way on a one way street. Accidents are caused by human error not by exceeding the limits of the vehicles physical abilities or simple physics. The constant harping about speed is simply a justification for a revenue stream that local governments “need” to continue functioning. > > >> and it is a major factor in how >> bad >> an accident is. >> > > Gotta give you that one, if I am in an accident I prefer both vehicles to be going slowly. > > The fact is that as a _cause_ of accidents speed is a very minor player and not really a player at all when everyone is moving at the same speed. > > John > _______________________________________________ > dc-cycles mailing list > dc-cycles@... > http://dc-cycles.org/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/dc-cycles _______________________________________________ dc-cycles mailing list dc-cycles@... http://dc-cycles.org/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/dc-cycles |
|
|
Re: speed check
by PenguinBiker-2
::
Rate this Message:
----- "Brian Roach" <roach@...> wrote: > Sitting on the side of the road with a radar gun is easy. Brian is correct, I know because I was there when it happened, I’m old and I was riding. There was a distinct increase in the “sitting on the side of the road” enforcement, first with Vascar, and then Radar but the real problem came to a head as a direct result of the fuel crisis of the mid seventies. First, fuel costs soared. I know soaring cost of fuel and $1.25+- a gallon seems odd by today’s standards but it decimated the fuel budgets of local and state police departments. As a result a drastic reduction in police driving/patrolling was ordered in most communities. Second, the federally mandated 55mph. speed limit*. While many states and communities balked at enforcing the limit (70mph. even on rural two lanes was the norm) they were eventually forced to comply by the threat of withholding of Federal funds. What the local governments then learned was that artificially low speed limits coupled with the very cheap “sitting on the side of the road” enforcement was a gold mine. And they have been sucking that money tit ever since. John *To conserve fuel! NOT for safety! The safety excuse was only called up as an afterthought when an excuse was needed to continue a program that was proving very profitable but unpopular with the public. _______________________________________________ dc-cycles mailing list dc-cycles@... http://dc-cycles.org/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/dc-cycles |
| < Prev | 1 - 2 - 3 | Next > |
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
