Printable View
I read an article this morning that got me wondering.
Assuming a duel carriage way / motor way / freeway, which in the UK is a 70mph limit, and good driving conditions, low levels of traffic, good weather and visibility etc, how fast do you typically drive?
Usually 75-80 if conditions are as you described
I try not to go any faster, got caught speeding once and it hit me right where it hurts (the wallet)
I drive ~5 mph above the limit, like all good Murcans.
Other than that, I just keep pace with traffic. If it's a little fast or a little slow on some days, then so am I.
Usually 10 over, but never more than 85mph and never 20 over the limit.
Hmmmm... It would appear I'm a little more careless than most. My standard is 95mph.
If I go faster than the limits I posted, it's criminal speeding in my state. Ie jail and big fines, then thi b gs like points on license.
Keep in mind. In az we have tons of roads that are just straight, open, and have no one around for hundred mile stretches.
5-10 over
I'm not telling anyone what to do, but these are some of the reasons I stopped driving like a bat out of hell everywhere I go.
If you were going to drive, say 70 mph, but you are in a hurry, so you decide to drive 85 mph, then you'll get there in 70/85 = 82% the time. Multiply that by 60 minutes and you get ~49m 25s. So for every hour you drive at 85 mph, you're saving ~10.5 minutes. If your commute would have been 30 minutes, then you save yourself a bit over 5 minutes in travel time.
Most people going an extra 5 mph over the limit would see a reduced effect even from that above. 70/75*60 min = 56 min. Driving 5 mph above the 70 mph limit only saves you 4 minutes for each hour you're driving at 75.
The kinetic energy of your vehicle increases as the square of the velocity, but the ability of your brakes to reduce your speed is predominantly a linear process. It's really complicated. A google search for "stopping distance" will show you that the faster you're going, it takes much more distance to stop you.
Low benefit for high risk, IMO.
So basically, driving to mums half hour away, don't speed. Driving to London 250 miles away, drive like a maniac.
Truro to London is the same distance as Houston to Dallas.
I don't really think that registers as a long drive to these meatheads.
A friend who has a friend who knows a copper says they won't touch anyone on the motorway who's doing 90 or under. Of course, if you get caught by a camera, it's different.
I think you get 10% leeway, so 77 in a 70 zone is acceptable. But that might be an urban myth. I don't know, I don't drive. If I did, I'd go as fast as I damn well like. Which would be within the speed limit because I'm not a speed freak.
Well, I mean...Quote:
Originally Posted by rong
I don't think that's what I was getting at, but...
While I discourage driving like a maniac at any speed...
Yes, this is kinda what I said.
Except for the part about stopping distance, so yeah... pretty much.
***
The lesson to learn here is that if you love freedom, then you will drive 5 - 10 mph above the limit. I you drive any other speed, you're a nazi, commie, and/or terrorist. Probably a child pornographer, too. Reasonable doubt, anyway.
I think you dropped this:Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
http://commiecard.com/img/CommieCard.png
you have to watch out for the measured distance cameras on some motorways as they are just automated licence to print money. pretty sure that there is one on the m42.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
chuckled at that coment from our resident stonerQuote:
I think you get 10% leeway, so 77 in a 70 zone is acceptable. But that might be an urban myth. I don't know, I don't drive. If I did, I'd go as fast as I damn well like. Which would be within the speed limit because I'm not a speed freak.
Going fast is overrated. It's all about the accelleration. Just go from 0-50 as fast as possible, then slam the brakes on, and keep doing that until you reach your destination. Not very efficient, but definitely the most exciting way to drive.
The solution to these is to fly past the first camera at 140mph, then pull over for a spliff before you go past the second camera.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith
Even in my clubbing days I was never into speed. Pills and booze did the job just fine!Quote:
chuckled at that coment from our resident stoner
Typically 80 which is the limit. But I don't feel like anything under 120 is unreasonable in a modern car on a 6+ lane autobahn.
Aren't you in Germany? I thought autobahns had no limit.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Ong/Luco, no love for the rainbow reunion art in the rando thread? Thought Brits would love it.
No, Austria.
Very few have no limit, and I'm not sure if they haven't got rid of them completely. They had people come over specifically to drive their black BMW's as fast as they could, which creates a problem even if the no-limit zones aren't inherently dangerous imo.
I saw that post like an hour after I heard the Rainbow theme tune on Radio 6 while making myself a cuppa.Quote:
Originally Posted by rong
Just because I didn't quote it with a mandatory "haha", doesn't mean it didn't make me smile.
so radio 6's listener has finally been identified.
Mmm, risk increases with speed, sure.
But when does it become unreasonable risk? At what speed are we, as slow reacting distracted humans, unsafe to drive?
It's a weird question. Arizona, sunny, few cars in sight, and flat empty desert all around, what is the maximum safe reasonable speed in those conditions?
Hard to say. My old truck started disagreeing with me if I tried going over 85. But my current car could go 100 and feel like 50. What stops me is the fear that a coyote jumps out of nowhere into the street or something...but that has never happened to me in 10 yrs of driving.
I've had that with deer. 2 of them just hopped onto the road. I slowed down from 60 to about 30 and ended up literally driving with them beside me. Was kina cool until one decided to run in front of me. I kinda nudges it's ass with my bonnet and it ran back onto the field. This was all over in about 5 seconds, didn't intend to drive along next to it, just the way it panned out.
IDK. Literally everything involves risk of fatal injury. Some probabilities are higher than others.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
Safety is an illusion.
I tend to come down on the side that you're allowed to alter your own risk of death as much as you like, but you are not allowed to alter anyone else's risk of death. Yes, this is impossible to regulate and every action has a bearing on risks in it's immediate surroundings. Even still... I feel like speed limits are more about public safety than personal safety.
Speed limits have been on the rise since their first use. As technology and innovation make vehicles safer and increased prevalence makes them generally safe to pedestrians, the laws and regulations about speed limits have become more relaxed.
So, even law-makers acknowledges that the safety of a vehicle is a function of the quality of the vehicle.
IMO, we should implement a system whereby the speed limit is dependent on both the car and driver. I mean... it should be about reaction time and stopping distance. If you can't stop your vehicle in a given distance from the signal to stop, then you are speeding. You can get yourself speed-rated once a year or when you renew your license or replace your car. This speed rating is your personal speed limit, based on your primary vehicle. Cops aren't allowed to pull you over for speeding, but they can pull you over for any reckless driving, and IF you're speeding, then it's an additional fine.
Thoughts?
Related thought: The government has a vested interest in keeping you alive so that you pay taxes. Or not. Thoughts?
Productive and placid, spoon. Productive and placid.
If I'm by myself and the car's comfortable doing it, I'll cruise at 85-92 ish. Anymore than that and I gather you can get a straight ban in the UK.
In my early twenties, I used to thrape an old Ford Fiesta around and do 95 on the motorway as standard. It was stupid in terms of money though, as it was costing me an extra £8 in fuel to save 15 minutes on my standard 2-hour journey (and I wasn't earning anywhere near £32 ph net).
Two listeners. My housemate's rabbits. The radio was left on for their benefit. True story.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith
More interesting question:
How fast have you ever been driving a vehicle? Passenger in a vehicle doesn't count.
Me:
driving a car: 125 - 130
riding a motorcycle: 92
The car was a Nissan Pulsar and the speedometer was bouncing all over the place between 120 and 135. I was a teenager at the time, and I very much feared for my life when someone switched lanes in front of me for absolutely no reason and I nearly slammed into them. Never had the desire to go over 100 mph since.
I got a ticket for the bike, so while my speedometer said 95, my ticket said 92. I was testing out my 650's top speed on a long flat stretch of highway.
I don't drive, but I had a lesson once where I got to 55 without breaking a sweat. I was kinda scared how easy it was to go so fast, I thought we were going around 40 until I looked at the speedo.
I was passenger in a Skoda that went well over 100mph last year. A fucking Skoda. That was something I never thought could happen.
That's how I felt when I took my dad's bike for a spin once. It's a heavier bike with a much bigger engine. I pulled onto a 35 mph road and casually shifted up to 3rd. I looked down to see where I was on the speedometer and I was already at 50. I laughed and rolled off the throttle. His bike just ticks over in 3rd gear at 35. My bike does that in 4th.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
My bike doesn't have a windscreen, and I definitely feel how fast I'm going. Anything over ~70 mph and my neck starts to ache from holding my head up against the wind resistance.
102mph, in a ford explorer. The car shook like hell and it was incredibly unsafe, so I brought it down to a speed where it doesnt fight me at every opportunity (85).
I dont think its safe to drive faster than 75 on a road with lots of cars.
About 120.
A skoda is just a volkswagen.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Yeah but when I was a kid, a Skoda was a Skoda and was incapable of doing over 50, let alone a ton.Quote:
Originally Posted by pantherhound
Why does a Skoda have rear heated back windows? To keep your hands warm while you're pushing it.
[enter a thousand more crap Skoda jokes here]
Those younger than me probably don't remember just how fucking crap Skodas were in the 80's.
+/- 10mph of speed limit most of the time
If you're driving 10 mph below the limit, then you are, in fact, the Devil.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamerlife
Unless you pull over to the side to let everyone pass you,
then maybe you're not the literal Devil.
What if the car in front of you is travelling at 10mph below the limit and you can't overtake? Or perhaps it's pissing down?
Then the entity driving that car is the Devil.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Pay attention, man.
What if you're stuck behind an ambulance that's going slow because the injured party has a fucked spine?
What if your car is incapable of going any faster?
What if it's snowing?
What if god told me to drive slowly?
What if I'm god and I'll do as I damn well please?
In all of the above, I believe you are the devil.
I let most people pass but sometimes, like when a kid in his vio wanted to overtake does not signal and just go full throttle , I pretty much enjoy blocking the way:twisted:Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Still the devil.
Math aside, when I'm driving 10 below i can actually feel myself aging.
I usually go about 75 or 80 on the highway, traffic permitting. I'm not as much of a crazy speeder as I used to be.
Fastest I've gone (this was a while ago) -- I was cruising along at about 105 (speed limit = 65) when my radar detector let me know that a cop driving on the other side of the freeway just nailed me. So I decided that while he was wasting time stopping and turning around, I'd speed up and lose him by getting off at the next exit. So I got up to 140mph for a few miles. Unfortunately, there was another cop waiting at that exit. That second cop radared me while I was braking on the exit ramp, so luckily he only got me at about 60 or so. I spent about 10 minutes in cuffs while they decided whether to send me off with a ticket or take me to the precinct for a few hours. They gave me a very expensive ticket, but I managed to keep it off my driving record.
Wait, what?
You can get caught speeding and just get a fine with no points or formal record?
I'd speed far more than I do.
We have a points system. 12 points is a ban. Typically 3 points for minor speeding. I got caught doing 32 in a 30, 62 in a 60 and 92 in a 70 and each got me 3 points.
That was within a 2 yr period so I reached 9 points. Not been caught since so I'm down to 3. Each came with a £60 fine I think.
You know about traffic lawyers, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by rong
Pay a lawyer. Lawyer is much more expensive than city's fine, in general.
Lawyer gets the moving violation plea bargained down to a non-moving violation.*
bonus: no points on license / no increase in insurance costs.
*I love the conceit. Lawyer says, "I know you have evidence that my client was driving above the speed limit, but I think we can both agree that it's better if we just assume he was parked at the time."
In many jurisdictions, the lawyer didn do jack. Prosecutor s offer pleas in almost every case, and for "stupid" things, they offer ones to make the case go away. Like a non-moving violation
I went to court for a speeding ticket once. (I didn't know you could just pay the fine if you plead guilty to the court clerk.)Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
In the courtroom, all the lawyers get to go first. Everyone else goes alphabetically after the lawyers are done.
I listened to all the lawyers plea bargain on behalf of their clients. When it was my turn, I just said exactly what the lawyers had said before me, but about myself. Word for word. The judge chuckled and said something to the effect of, "That's not how it works, son."
What? 32 in a 30 and 62 in a 60 shouldn't get you a fine and points. Not unless you just roll over like a twat, anyway.Quote:
We have a points system. 12 points is a ban. Typically 3 points for minor speeding. I got caught doing 32 in a 30, 62 in a 60 and 92 in a 70 and each got me 3 points.
In ongie's world, you're allowed to break the laws, just so long as you don't break them too much.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I wonder how far this applies?
"I only stole that car for a few hours while I was transporting contraband. After that, I returned the car to its original location and I even topped up the gas... surely that's not stealing a car."
***
Joking aside:
The way humans interact with speed limits is a sociological smorgasbord, right? There is no law which is more blatantly posted all over every town and county... yet there is no law which we all break with impunity so readily.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/r...notices/#speed
Is the 10% thing that Ong is talking about in the UK. No idea how up to date it is & I'm pretty sure it was just a rule of thumb.
I'm surprised Rong got done for 32 in a 30. 62 in a 60 is worth looking into & definitely worth disputing.
What is there to dispute?
You can't really dispute the speed limit (A).
You can't dispute that the speed you're accused of (B) is greater than A.
You can only dispute the accusation that you were going B. Good luck providing evidence which indicates thus.
Once you agree that - if B > A, that is illegal, based solely on the definition of A - then there's nothing to dispute.
If 60 is the limit, then 60.001 is speeding. The math is straight-forward, here.
***
I'm not saying that people should get pulled over for going 0.001 mph above the limit, but I'm saying that the law is clear on the matter.
The reason that they have a bit of give in what people can get away with is because you have no way of knowing your exact speed. Speedometers aren't exactly perfect.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
You also can dispute the speed at which you were going, especially if your speed was taken with something like a speed gun.
You also don't have to prove you weren't going faster than the speed limit it's the other way round. The time and effort that councils would have to put in over something so minor isn't worth the money to them especially when if it goes to court the reality is a judge has better things to be doing.
That being said obviously if you agree that you were breaking the speed limit then you don't have much going for you, same if your speed was taken in a more reliable way. Like I said though it's worth looking into as you are meant to get given some wiggle room on speed limits at least in this country.
Yeah, this. I was under the impression that they have to give you 10% leeway for this reason, but it could be an urban myth for all I know, I'm not a driver.Quote:
The reason that they have a bit of give in what people can get away with is because you have no way of knowing your exact speed. Speedometers aren't exactly perfect.
Like Ong said, I got a lawyer from the town where I was supposed to go to court. He specialized in traffic violations (it's a very small town, I doubt they get much else). I got "court supervision", which means that if I don't get another ticket in that county within a year, the ticket disappears. As a bonus, I didn't even have to show up to court -- the lawyer was my representative. Since it was about an hour and a half away from where I lived, that was a nice bonus.Quote:
Originally Posted by rong
I think his fee was $450. I probably saved significantly more than that each year on insurance premiums by keeping that ticket off my record.
Coincidentally, later that night after my ticket I met up with some friends that were from the small town where I had court. One of them had an uncle that was a judge there. So he asked his uncle if he had any advice for my ticket, and his uncle basically told him that the best thing to do was hire a lawyer and recommended the guy I hired. The lawyer knows everyone in the courthouse, so he will get a significantly better deal than I could ever hope to get.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I'm driving back to Cornwall from London. I'm on the M5 which is a biglong motorway which fortunately has no speed cameras. I'm in the fast lane doing approx 100mph and suddenly the traffic starts to bunch up a bit. It becomes apparent this is due to a police car in the middle lane doing 70mph, which is the speed limit.
Gradually the cars in front start to get more confident and soon enough me and about 5 other cars all slowly overtake the police car with all of us doing approx 85mph. Now the police know we are all speeding because they are doing 70mph and we are all overtaking them.
None of us got nicked though, in spite of the fact that as soon as we're 100 yards ahead we all accelerate up to 90 and then as we pull further away get up to 100 again.
I guess the police had something more important to do.
Let me guess, the police car was cruising in the middle lane even when the outside lane was vacant?
It should also be noted that even though the police are doing 70mph, the fact you are overtaking them does not prove in a court that you are speeding. The word of a policeman obviously carries weight, but that doesn't mean the policeman is incapable of making a mistake. Maybe he was doing 60 and thought he was doing 70. How can he prove otherwise? By insisting he's right? That isn't how law works.
@ong: What happens in a jury trial with no hard evidence and a police officer saying you dun it while you say you din dun it?
@JKDS: any statistics on said circumstance?
Just guessing here....
If the cop went to court and said, "I was going 70 and he passed me, so he must have been speeding", you could probably get off. I think he would have to quantify your actual speed.
But if you were going 85 when passing him and he decided to speed up, match your speed for a few hundred feet, and then pull you over -- you're screwed. He can say, "I paced him at 85mph in a 70 zone" and his word will trump yours.
I think 5% to 10% over is pretty common.
How will this work with self driving cars in the future, how far above the speed limit will they be allowed to go?
If I can sit in my car and not focus on driving, I don't care if it goes the speed limit. I can keep busy during the extra time.
No conviction. How can he be certain it's not mistaken identity? Or, more to the point, how can the jury be sure?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I mean I'm no legal expert, obviously. But here we work on the assumption innocent until proven guilty, and it is for the prosecution to prove guilt, not the defence to prove innocence. I mean the word of a police officer carries heavy weight, of course, more so than the word of, say, a doctor who witnessed an incident, perhaps. But if it literally boils down to your word against a single policeman's, I can't see that being enough to convict. But I could be wrong.
Eh.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
In Reality, its so easy for the officer in this circumstance to turn on his radar RAPTOR and tag you that he almost always will. If an officer wants to get you for speeding, hes not gonna deliberately weaken his case by not actually measuring your speed.
In Fantasy, sure, the officer could probably get you for it without the radar. And then when the prosecutor inevitably pleads it down to a civil fine, you take it. Even if you dont, its word against word. The Officer is doing his job, has never heard of you before, has no bias against you in particular because of that, and states he saw you speeding. You, who are facing serious punishment (months in jail, and a 4 figure fine, potentially), have significant incentive to lie. We're talking reasonable doubt, so doubt that "leaves you firmly convinced of the defendant's guilt" (thats the phrase in many jurisdictions), and a judge or jury can certainly take a case like this and be firmly convinced that the officer is telling the truth and thecriminal in the criminal chairdefendant is lying.
Interesting note; I had to strike a juror once because he was Mormon and didnt believe in punishment unless there were at least two witnesses to the act.
Lol, when I read "strike a juror", for a second I thought you meant you physically hit him.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
Thanks. Much funnier. I like to think there was just him and JKDS in the room, so at most 1 witness (the Mormon).Quote:
Originally Posted by NightGizmo
:/Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Who's identity is he mistaking? His own, or the guy who he pulled over and asked for ID?
I don't follow you here, at all.