Discussion: Is speed really dangerous??

[GO DAWG GO]

Porsche-O-phile,

40-60-80 rule is interesting, the only problem is: It wouldn't work moving from lane to lane. The car going 40 suddenly moves in the lane where everyone is moving at 60 or 80? or slamming on the brakes to move to the right...I get the "Spirit" of it though. This would be an interesting "reactionary" experiment. The 405 is like that daily.

Bob

[Zef]

A lot of things can kill you...speed is one of them.....!

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally posted by ChrisBennet
You just can't "assume your brakes are at their maximum capacity" because it suits you. What would that mean anyway? You brake fluid boils? Not going to happen in a single stop even with crappy brakes.

Double your speed, double your braking distance.
-Chris

Chris, you need to refresh your physics. Your brakes can only dissipate a certain amount of energy at a given rate, even if they can continue at full capacity (no effects from fade/heat). From 70-100 the energy (momentum) you are carrying doubles. Thus, you must dissipate twice the energy.

Formula for braking distance: V^2 / 2*u*g

u (mu) is the braking friction coefficient, combination of the tires/surface/brakes. g is the force of gravity. So, the denominator being equal, increasing velocity has an exponential effect.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Oh, and I support a walled lane, like the carpool lane, where we can go 100 MPH. Sound good?

[David]

Originally posted by onewhippedpuppy
Oh, and I support a walled lane, like the carpool lane, where we can go 100 MPH. Sound good?

We have'm in Houston, just need to change the signs .

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Originally posted by robert_snyder
Porsche-O-phile,

40-60-80 rule is interesting, the only problem is: It wouldn't work moving from lane to lane. The car going 40 suddenly moves in the lane where everyone is moving at 60 or 80? or slamming on the brakes to move to the right...I get the "Spirit" of it though. This would be an interesting "reactionary" experiment. The 405 is like that daily.

Bob

Sure it could work - you just have to leave adequate distance and plan the timing of lane changes better to compensate for the difference in speed. Exactly like people do now - as you correctly point out.

All it does is basically make the same strip of roadway more "usable" to a wider spectrum of drivers and the speeds they're comfortable (or capable) with.

[island_dude]

Chris,

Here is a link to a chart of stopping distances calculated for various speeds. This if from James Madison University in use courts.

http://www.jmu.edu/safetyplan/vehicle/generaldriver/stoppingdistance.shtml

I am sorry. You believe what you want, but it doesn't change the physics.

[juanbenae]

i totally thought you meant something else,

T$

[LeeH]

Yes, it take longer to stop when going faster, but I think the biggest danger is that drivers aren't prepared for others going significantly faster than the flow of traffic.

Drivers have to be focused on what's in front of them. During a lane change most drivers are only going to spend a fraction of a second to see if the space is clear. If someone is going 30mph over the average speed of traffic that delta may not register with the lane changer. By the time they signal and go the speeder is on top of them.

Recently I was turning right onto a divided road where the speed limit is 45. I looked left an noticed a truck coming, but based on the distance I had plenty of time to go. As I started rolling I noticed something wasn't right and stopped short. The guy was easily doing 75-80mph.

[DanielDudley]

The most important safety rule is not to over drive the road, or conditions. Only the inexperienced or an idiot would top a blind crest at 100, or drive 90 weaving through 60 MPH traffic.

I like to drive zippy, but I save the really crazy speed for the track. Even so, on a clear and empty road with good visibility, I have been known to extend my car a little.

FWIW, I see cops driving faster than I do all the time, with very little reason. They feel safe doing so, and so do I. I drive at least 40 K a year, and I take safety seriously. I am frequently asked by passengers to open it up. I often reply that there is a time and place for everything.

[Racerbvd]

Speed doesn't kill, but the dumbass who pulls onto the highway at 30mph that kills

[Tobra]

Yes, speed kills. Faster you go, the bigger the consequences. Ever see a two by four driven halfway through a tree by the wind? I have, and figure it was moving pretty fuchin' fast when it hit.

You obviously slept through "RED ASPHALT" in driver's ed.

[Racerbvd]

Originally posted by Tobra
Yes, speed kills. Faster you go, the bigger the consequences. Ever see a two by four driven halfway through a tree by the wind? I have, and figure it was moving pretty fuchin' fast when it hit.

You obviously slept through "RED ASPHALT" in driver's ed.

Like they say when Skydiving, it isn't the speed that kills, it is the sudden STOP

[Jims5543]

Here is a perfect example.

The guy in this picture was doing over 100 MPH at times, when I snapped this pic, he was doing more like 85 and pulling away from me, I slowed for a second to take the pic.

So who is more dangerous? The guy in the jacked up truck doing 100 or the guy in the 911?

Guess who would get pulled over if we both passed a cop?

[john70t]

Like twigs going down a drain or people through a doorway: if vehicles travel through areas of high traffic congestion one at a time, at the same speed, they will all maintain a higher average speed.

Don't worry. Since neither urban sprawl nor population density is going to reduce in the future, your drive-by-wire throttle will automatically reduce your speed depending on the vehicle's GPS coordinates. Tickets will be instantly deducted from your account via the cell phone.
These systems, of course, will be required on all registered vehicles, but "important" people and risky tweakers will still be able slalom around the herd, at least for a while.