 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / December 2005Just think how smooth freeway driving would be if the SL was 55 and strictly enforced
If it was 55 then practically no one would do less than that and if speeding got you some jail time and a DL suspension then no one would do more. It would be highway heaven with everyone driving the same speed. No jams and no crashes. > If it was 55 then practically no one would do less than that and if > speeding got you some jail time and a DL suspension then no one would > do more. It would be highway heaven with everyone driving the same > speed. No jams and no crashes. How about the crashes caused by ppl falling asleep with boredom ? Graham > > If it was 55 then practically no one would do less than that and if > > speeding got you some jail time and a DL suspension then no one would [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Graham HAHAHA. You NAMCLA members are hilarious. So you claim you drive safer while speeding????????? You're as bad as the nuts who say drinking improves their driving. "Laura..."; Have you ever correlated rates of velocity with following distances? Douglas A. Willinger Takoma Park Highway Design Studio http://www.HighwaysAndCommunities.com > > If it was 55 then practically no one would do less than that and if > > speeding got you some jail time and a DL suspension then no one would > > do more. It would be highway heaven with everyone driving the same > > speed. No jams and no crashes. > > How about the crashes caused by ppl falling asleep with boredom ? Driver fatigue is a real problem caused by not getting enough sleep. If you are tired, you should not be driving fast or slow. Stop and get rest. If you are a thrill-seeker, there are video games and race-car courses. Real highway driving should be a little boring. Crashes and near misses are interesting and stimulating. > Graham >> If it was 55 then practically no one would do less than that and if >> speeding got you some jail time and a DL suspension then no one would >> do more. It would be highway heaven with everyone driving the same >> speed. No jams and no crashes. > > How about the crashes caused by ppl falling asleep with boredom ? That made Judy's troll look intelligent. And if everyone dressed the same no one would get jealous at the other person. And we'll all wear our hair the same. And eat the same thing for dinner. And we'll all be paid the same. And live in the same style house. And we will all have 2.3 kids - no more, no less. > And if everyone dressed the same no one would get jealous at the other > person. And we'll all wear our hair the same. And eat the same thing > for dinner. And we'll all be paid the same. And live in the same > style house. And we will all have 2.3 kids - no more, no less. HAHAHAHA. Listen to the loony. He thinks being a speed criminal is good because it promotes diversity!!!!!!!!!!!! Laura Bush murdered her boy friend, <xeton2001@yahoo.com> was motivated to say this in rec.autos.driving on 27 Nov 2005 08:33:15 -0800: > HAHAHAHA. Listen to the loony. He thinks being a speed criminal is > good because it promotes diversity!!!!!!!!!!!! Die f.cking aryan swine! > If it was 55 then practically no one would do less than that and if > speeding got you some jail time and a DL suspension then no one would > do more. It would be highway heaven with everyone driving the same > speed. No jams and no crashes. Don't know why I'm responding to a 'Laura Bush Murdered Judy' troll, except for the amusement value I guess. Anyway, first as we (except Judy) know, the 55mph speed limit was kinda pulled out of Nixon's advisors butts (originally it was supposed to be 50mph). Anyway: >>The speed limit argument has to do with the efficiency of the engine at certain speeds/gears. Back when the 55mph speed limit was introduced in the US, that was the most efficient speed for the majority of cars at the gear required to drive at highway speeds. It's since been bumped to 60-70mph most places around the country because cars engines have improved (since the '50's, but not much more). Thus, driving 20% faster isn't merely a matter of being 20% less fuel efficient (otherwise your argument would follow that driving at 45mph would be ideal -- and it's not). It's about driving at the speed that MOST cars are most efficient because of the gears in transmissions. << OK, so clearly 55mph was NOT handed down to Moses as the 11th commandment. Second of all, quite a number of highway at peak times are way above their rated capacity, with traffic still moving. How is this possible? Well, at least two things - first drivers reduce their following distance (often below the minimum safe distance - oops, tailgating), so the traffic pack is denser, and second traffic moves faster (yes, faster than the underposted speed limits, oh my!) so the pack moves faster through a given point, and through the magic of fluid mechanic equations: more vehicles per second... So, what's the point of that...oh yeah, "No jams and no crashes" Speaking of crashes, one phemonon I notice (i.e. get screwed by) at least twice a month is the old fart (and they are always eldery, though not necessarily wearing hats) driving on main/arterial roads well under the speed limit (since some main roads are 2 laners, passing can be problematic). So, how this road-slug make up time? Simple, they just blow right through the red-for-a-while traffic light and keep on going without the slightest concern, usually causing cross-traffic to screech to an abrupt halt if not worse. They definitely prove Laura/Judy's point that slow drivers are safests :) > >>The speed limit argument has to do with the efficiency of the engine at certain speeds/gears. Back when the 55mph speed limit was introduced in the US, that was the most efficient speed for the majority of cars at the gear required to drive at highway speeds. It's since been bumped to 60-70mph most places around the country because cars engines have improved (since the '50's, but not much more). Thus, driving 20% faster isn't merely a matter of being 20% less fuel efficient (otherwise your argument would follow that driving at 45mph would be ideal -- and it's not). It's about driving at the speed that MOST cars are most efficient because of the gears in transmissions. That's a lie and you know it. As long as you're in top gear slower gives better gas mileage due to less wind resistance. BTW - if you could read, you'd see that this thread isn't about gas mileage anyway. The claim is that a 55 mph SL strictly enforced would result in everyone driving the same speed and traffic would thus flow more smoothly and safely. > > >>The speed limit argument has to do with the efficiency of the engine at certain speeds/gears. Back when the 55mph speed limit was introduced in the US, that was the most efficient speed for the majority of cars at the gear required to drive at highway speeds. It's since been bumped to 60-70mph most places around the country because cars engines have improved (since the '50's, but not much more). Thus, driving 20% faster isn't merely a matter of being 20% less fuel efficient (otherwise your argument would follow that driving at 45mph would be ideal -- and it's not). It's about driving at the speed that MOST cars are most efficient because of the gears in transmissions. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > everyone driving the same speed and traffic would thus flow more > smoothly and safely. And you're full of sh*t and you know it. I and many others have said it, and I'll say it again (why I'm doing this is I don't know): Using your "theory" of "As long as you're in top gear slower gives better gas mileage due to less wind resistance" would make a person conclude that going 5 MPH in 5th gear is more fuel efficient than going 55 MPH in 5th gear. You know that's false, and so do I. So why do you continue to say this? Allen Seth Dunn > And you're full of sh*t and you know it. I and many others have said > it, and I'll say it again (why I'm doing this is I don't know): Using [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > gear. You know that's false, and so do I. So why do you continue to say > this? Nobody drives 5 mph in 5th gear you moron. Hell - with an AT it can't even be done. And no one drives 5 mph on a freeway anyway. You have zero brains. Laura Bush murdered her boy friend, <xeton2001@yahoo.com> was motivated to spew forth the following bullshit in rec.autos.driving on 28 Nov 2005 09:32:01 -0800: > You have zero brains. Which is more brains than you could ever hope to have, mother f.cker. I thought it was interesting that when I first came upon this thread in my newsreader's summary pane, it read (all on one line): Re: Just think how smooth freeway driving would be if... Laura Bush murdered her boyfriend > > >>The speed limit argument has to do with the efficiency of the engine at certain speeds/gears. Back when the 55mph speed limit was introduced in the US, that was the most efficient speed for the majority of cars at the gear required to drive at highway speeds. It's since been bumped to 60-70mph most places around the country because cars engines have improved (since the '50's, but not much more). Thus, driving 20% faster isn't merely a matter of being 20% less fuel efficient (otherwise your argument would follow that driving at 45mph would be ideal -- and it's not). It's about driving at the speed that MOST cars are most efficient because of the gears in transmissions. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > everyone driving the same speed and traffic would thus flow more > smoothly and safely. Here's a link that YOU provided in another thread SUPPORTING a 55mph speed limit that directly refutes this idiotic claim: http://www.publicpurpose.com/hwy-fatal57+.htm Can you count to eleven without taking your shoes off? I'm not joking. >Speaking of crashes, one phemonon I notice (i.e. get screwed by) at >least twice a month is the old fart (and they are always eldery, though [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >without the slightest concern, usually causing cross-traffic to screech >to an abrupt halt if not worse. Yeah, I saw those all the time when I lived in AZ. There's a section of I-8 just east of Yuma where the speed limit drops from 75 MPH to 65. There was one Sloth in a diesel Mercedes who was plodding along at 70 MPH in the 75 MPH zone. When the SL dropped to 65, he just kept right on plodding along at 70. These geezers are completely f.cking oblivious to everything and need to be taken off the road before they kill somebody. > There's a section > of I-8 just east of Yuma where the speed limit drops from 75 MPH to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > oblivious to everything and need to be taken off the road before they > kill somebody. Perhaps the guy thought 70 was a comfortable speed, so drove that speed regardless of what the numbers on a sign said. That would make him a good driver, according to the prevailing opinion in this NG. (I'm assuming he wasn't LLBing, since you didn't mention it). Does the road actually become more dangerous when the SL changes to 65, thus warranting a slow-down? > > There's a section > > of I-8 just east of Yuma where the speed limit drops from 75 MPH to [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Does the road actually become more dangerous when the SL > changes to 65, thus warranting a slow-down? I've performed this behavior 25+ years before AARP membership. It's because Kearny Villa Rd (old US-395/I-15 across MCAS Miramar in San Diego) goes from 65 mph to 50 mph a few hundred feet before it should, even though an auxilary lane goes to 65 mph CA-163 comfortably enough I've followed 60k lb gravel trucks at over 65 mph the entire way. I just maintain speed the whole time, in the rightmost lane, at a comfortable pace relative to nearby traffic. (f.ck you LBMHBF, you psychotic school zone maniac.) Dave >Perhaps the guy thought 70 was a comfortable speed, so drove >that speed regardless of what the numbers on a sign said. >That would make him a good driver, according to the prevailing >opinion in this NG. Only if his opinion matches 85% of the other drivers on that road. > (I'm assuming he wasn't LLBing, since you >didn't mention it). Nope, he was in the right lane. His one saving grace. ;) >Does the road actually become more dangerous when the SL >changes to 65, thus warranting a slow-down? In the case of Yuma, it does: the DPS (AZ's highway patrol) often have "sting" operations in the vicinity. One cop runs the radar gun, and another half-dozen or so DPS cruisers are used for pursuit. I've driven through and seen them all lined up on the right shoulder, each with their wallet-vacuums reaching into a different motorist's pocket. So yes, there *is* a danger which warrants slowing down. laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE, <xeton2001@yahoo.com> was motivated to say this in rec.autos.driving on Sun, 27 Nov 2005 00:53:14 GMT: > If it was 55 then practically no one would do less than that and if > speeding got you some jail time and a DL suspension A strictly enforced minimum speed of 55 on the highways (with a penalty of having to live with you for an hour) does sound like a good idea. > If it was 55 then practically no one would do less than that and if > speeding got you some jail time and a DL suspension then no one would > do more. It would be highway heaven with everyone driving the same > speed. No jams and no crashes. And why wouldn't that work just as well at 80 mph?  SignatureAlan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia "If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard." >> If it was 55 then practically no one would do less than that and if >> speeding got you some jail time and a DL suspension then no one would >> do more. It would be highway heaven with everyone driving the same >> speed. No jams and no crashes. > > And why wouldn't that work just as well at 80 mph? or 150mph? >> If it was 55 then practically no one would do less than that and if >> speeding got you some jail time and a DL suspension then no one would >> do more. It would be highway heaven with everyone driving the same >> speed. No jams and no crashes. > >And why wouldn't that work just as well at 80 mph? well, some of the leftists can't afford cars that go faster than 55 MPH. -- Steve > >> If it was 55 then practically no one would do less than that and if > >> speeding got you some jail time and a DL suspension then no one would [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > well, some of the leftists can't afford cars that go faster than 55 > MPH. Odd, that - I've bought cars for less than $2K that could easily and safely travel at super-legal speeds... I think I paid something like $1200 for my '84 GTI and $900 (plus a new halfshaft) for the Scirocco that replaced it. nate > Odd, that - I've bought cars for less than $2K that could easily and > safely travel at super-legal speeds... So you say. And no doubt you also claim you drive safely with a BAC of .3. All criminals think laws shouldn't apply to them. Laura Bush murdered her boy friend, <xeton2001@yahoo.com> was motivated to relax its anal sphincter and spew forth the following all over rec.autos.driving on 29 Nov 2005 18:28:06 -0800: > So you say. And no doubt you also claim you drive safely with a BAC of > .3. All criminals think laws shouldn't apply to them. So you say. And no doubt you claim that you drive safely through schoolzones at 16MPH over the limit. Hey, Hey, P-O-A! How many kids did you kill today? Signature-- "> Have you ever driven a car faster than the legal speed limit? Yes, but never deliberately. In fact i got a speeding ticket about 5 years ago for doing 41 in a 25. I just about kicked the cops teeth in cause i was sure he was lying. No way the SL on this wide open stretch could be 25, i thought." Pride of America (c.k.a. "laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMOCIDE), 10/3/2002 Message-ID: <3c1753f7.0210030916.7b6f5dff@posting.google.com> http://tinyurl.com/5u4wg Connecting POA to LBMHB/lbVH: See the following: http://tinyurl.com/ahphj >> >> If it was 55 then practically no one would do less than that and if >> >> speeding got you some jail time and a DL suspension then no one would [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >nate Well, I did say "some" of you..... But really, would "super-legal speeds" really be safe in those bumper-draggers? -- Steve > > If it was 55 then practically no one would do less than that and if > > speeding got you some jail time and a DL suspension then no one would > > do more. It would be highway heaven with everyone driving the same > > speed. No jams and no crashes. > > And why wouldn't that work just as well at 80 mph? Because those doing 50 -60 now would still be doing that and you're back to the problems of different speeds. > > > If it was 55 then practically no one would do less than that and if > > > speeding got you some jail time and a DL suspension then no one would [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Because those doing 50 -60 now would still be doing that and you're > back to the problems of different speeds. Who's doing 50 - 60 now? Almost nobody, that's who. SignatureAlan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia "If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard." > If it was 55 then practically no one would do less than that and if > speeding got you some jail time and a DL suspension then no one would > do more. It would be highway heaven with everyone driving the same > speed. No jams and no crashes. You'd have MORE traffic jams because you'd have more cars on the freeway at any one time. Traffic jams are cause by traffic load, nothing more, nothing less. A freeway can accomodate a certain number of cars at any one time. Almost literally 1 more car than that load, and you get the accordion effect. But don't let facts get in your way. >> If it was 55 then practically no one would do less than that and if >> speeding got you some jail time and a DL suspension then no one would [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >But don't let facts get in your way. So based on what you said, why not force people to do NO LESS than 100 mph on the highway? Then the chance of wrecks and traffic jams would be near zero, right? Are you also one of those people I hear saying that selt belts cut people's heads off in high speed crashes? Do you also believe in the "thrown clear" theory that it's better to not wear a seatbelt so you can be "thrown clear" and avoid injury? I've heard people say this is why I ask. ************************************ http://www.dubyareport.net/ New and Improved...No More Sillyness >>>If it was 55 then practically no one would do less than that and if >>>speeding got you some jail time and a DL suspension then no one would [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > http://www.dubyareport.net/ > New and Improved...No More Sillyness As for everything else, this ignorant right wing cocksucker doesn't know a f.cking thing about it. Signature"There's an old saying in Tennessee—I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says: Fool me once, shame on [pause] [confused, lowered voice] ..shame on you. [Pause] Fool me [long, uncomfortable, agonizing pause] you can't get fooled again." - George W. Bush >> If it was 55 then practically no one would do less than that and if >> speeding got you some jail time and a DL suspension then no one would [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Traffic jams are cause by traffic load, nothing more, nothing less. Now that's really stupid, even for you. So if a semi jacknifes on any icy road, that won't cause a jam??????????????????????? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.