• Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.

So, is that what law enforcement wants our roads to look like ?

apapada said:
These laws already exist, but are selectively enforced, if at all. You've obvisously never driven in Switzerland where drivers there will refuse to let you pass and go by if they are already driving to the speed limit. What you mention is the "Rechtsfahren" and is used in most European countries and US states.

Yes, Switzerland is considered a car unfriendly place here in Europe, (you should hear Clarkson on Top Gear, whoa) we never drive on the freeways there because we are way too cheap to buy the vignette (tax sticker for freeways in Switzerland). We stick to the twistys. :biggrin:
We did drive right through a small military base in the hills once though. Got to practice a variety of language skills when they got us on the way out the other side. Man, they sure had an attitude considering the guard at the entrance was asleep.:rolleyes: an NSX, Lotus Elise, Cosworth Sierra, Porsche 911, Lotus 7, and a Cosworth Escort. THAT was a laugh.
Can you believe those incompetent army dudes don’t even know that TomTom navigation guides us to the perfect invasion route through the country? :cool: God that was funny.

Anyway, is the stay right rule also in most US states??? I’m surprised to hear that. I had no idea it was known there.
 
710 said:
Anyway, is the stay right rule also in most US states??? I’m surprised to hear that. I had no idea it was known there.

the short answer is "yes, for most states". There is the Uniform Vehicle Code which states that "Upon all roadways any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic ... "

and then there are specific laws to the state you're driving in.

See this link from a MIT study which summarizes the different laws by state.
 
Meeyatch1 said:
Drunk driving and a stupid low speed limit are two very different things. A drunk driver endangers EVERYONE no matter what the speed, and the concept of having everyone be drunk to prove a point is flawed to say the least as it would be a demolition derby. Whereas the 55 mph speed limit would not hurt ANYONE if everyone followed it. Do not get me wrong, I hate the idea of going 55 mph, and these guys did take some liberties in proving their point, but NONE OF THEM forced the others on the road to drive on the shoulder or any of the other things.

Now, do not get me wrong, if I had been on the road I would have been ready to kill these guys as well, but in looking at their larger point I understand their point.

they still did not have to do that and have people have a bad day because of this fools that have nothing else to do.
 
DrVolkl said:
If they raised the speed limit to 75, people would start driving 85-90...that's just human nature.

it's actually the enforcement of the law that dictates how many mph over the limit people go.... not human nature. +10 seems to be the accepted standard.

DrVolkl said:
Keeping it at 55 probably keeps a lot of people out of trouble....because quite frankly I don't think some poeple can handle a speed limit of 75.

false

high speeds don't make the highways unsafe. it has been shown in several studies that it is the difference in speeds that causes accidents. cars traveling between 75 and 90 (15mph range)would not be any more dangerous than cars traveling between 55 - 85 (30mph range).
 
Meeyatch1 said:
Ironic since they were the only ones NOT breaking the speed law, don't you think? :confused: :rolleyes:


well, since the driver in the left hand lane wasn't passing, he was breaking the law.. (since most states, probably the one they were in included) have laws on using the left lane for passing only..
 
DrVolkl said:
If they raised the speed limit to 75, people would start driving 85-90...that's just human nature.


This is actually not true. Overall, drivers on any given road will tend to gravitate to a reasonable speed for that road. Hence, many jurisdictions define how to determine the speed limit using the 85th percentile rule: by objective testing methods the speed at which the 85% of the vehicles on a given road - absent any posted speed limits - is determined. That 85th percentile speed, rounded, becomes the speed limit for that road.
 
John@Microsoft said:
The system sucks and is broken, yadda. yes... but there is no need to prove it in the way they did.. lets take it down to the bare bones what they really did.. which was piss off hundreds of motorists and create an unsafe situation for their own personal amusement. For what point? Hell our grand kids will be having the exact same discussion on the Honda S3000 forums 94 years from now.

It seems to me it's the system that created the unsafe situation.

The kids did violate the law in terms of not passing in the passing lane. The law does state that you must pass in the passing lane regardless of speed, basically. But do you think the situation would have been that much different if the they did allow passing in that lane? The other motorists have no right to be angry. That is not a valid reason to negate the experiment. The impatient drivers are the ones who created the dangerous situations. The kids were just rolling along.

Consider this: If the white van had in fact clipped that car, flipped over, and caused a major incident could those kids have been held accountable by law? Perhaps, but those are the kinds of precedential cases we need to expose the inadequate, broken system we all live in. It would certainly be a shame to cause injury in order to establish such precedents, but what's the alternative?

Incidentally, the fact is Americans are pathetic at practicing lane discipline. Poor lane discipline accounts for more traffic issues in this country than anything else. Not speed itself.

The "system" exists only to continue to extract money from the pockets of citizens. The NHTSA, the Highway Patrol and the government would crumble with the loss of the millions of dollars that pour in from citations. They are only marginally concerned about our safety--just enough to make it appear that these BS bureaucracies deserve to exist and ease their individual consciences. That is for sure.

Not questioning the function of government entities and procedures is the first step toward compromising our liberties. All facets of laws and the government must be brought to light and examined.

If one can't see that the entire "system" is set up to pull anyone over at anytime they're out of touch with reality. And that's the way the goverment wants it.

This is akin to the person who smuggled contraband onto an airplane for the sole purpose of exploiting how poor the security really is. Stupid? Yes. Necessary as an American? Yes.

Why are we giving our tax money to entities like the TSA? Does any American in their right mind really think that something like 9-11 couldn't happen again? Can you really completely prevent something like that? Of course not! Keep checking all of our penny loafers and asking us if we packed our own bags. That will keep the hijackers away. It's all an illusion to make us "feel" safer. So why don't we put the TSA money into something else more useful? Good question...I guess most Americans are content to live in a illusory fantasy world.

As Americans, this is exactly the type of experiment that makes this country great. It may have been unsafe and obnoxious, but don't blame the kids. Blame the hypocritical money and power-hungry system.
 
Last edited:
Russ said:
This is actually not true. Overall, drivers on any given road will tend to gravitate to a reasonable speed for that road. Hence, many jurisdictions define how to determine the speed limit using the 85th percentile rule: by objective testing methods the speed at which the 85% of the vehicles on a given road - absent any posted speed limits - is determined. That 85th percentile speed, rounded, becomes the speed limit for that road.

That is absolutely true and been corroborated by many former police officers and government officials I know.

Using this formula the 65MPH speed limit for the Highway is ridiculous.
 
They were dumbasses. What if someone called 911 because they spouse was having a heart attack and they could not get through because of the traffic they created and that person died? People dont think about stuff like that. Or if someone's house was on fire, or someone called the cops because they were getting raped.
 
You gotta love students... too much spare time and too many "ideas" that will change the world. :rolleyes:

Following their logic (or lack of) if the speed limits are changed to 70MPH, people will start doing 100MPH. Or if Police enforce 55MPH speed limits, you'll end up with roads like here in Australia -- you can be fined for doing 3km's over the limit.
 
Ryanmcd2 said:
They were dumbasses. What if someone called 911 because they spouse was having a heart attack and they could not get through because of the traffic they created and that person died? People dont think about stuff like that. Or if someone's house was on fire, or someone called the cops because they were getting raped.

Now Ryanmcd2 that doesn't make sense at all. Every single situation you just tried to pass through as a negative outcome to causing the traffic would be unrealistic.

First of all fire trucks don't travel to other cities to put out fires, local fire stations take care of the fires within its city.

Second if someone was getting raped the 911 operator would call police from around the area of the distressed call not somone 15 min away in an another city who would need to travel on the highway to get there.

Third of all if your spouse was having a heart attack most likely an ambulance will not need to travel through the highway to get to you. From my understanding hospitals are located in most cities and therefore ambulances dont' need to travel on highways to get to destinations.Tell me how many times have you seen an ambulance fly by you in a highway traveling to another city. None, I'm betting, you only see emergency vehicles on the highway when an accident on the highway occurs. And to just proove a point if an ambulance was trying to get by but there was traffic. There was always the shoulder to drive on. If you noticed there was only one car on the shoulder and if an ambulance was actually trying to go by that car, most likely the other vehicles would try to make room to let the ambulance through ASAP. Just like what usually happens during rush hour in a city when an emergency vehicle is trying to go through. Everyone seems to work together to let the emergency vehicle through.

I actually think they did a good job showing how stupid some laws are. Also 55mph speed limit wasn't put in for safety concerns either its main purpose was to help regulate gasoline consumption.
 
DrVolkl said:
When I see people driving slow, especially in the fast lane, I see RED. :mad:

The artificially low speed limits promote the behavior that annoys you the most. When the speed limits are increased to more reasonable levels, studies have proven there is much greater compliance for the "keep right" law, and less people hogging the left lane because "they are already going the speed limit".
 
Ncturnal said:
The artificially low speed limits promote the behavior that annoys you the most. When the speed limits are increased to more reasonable levels, studies have proven there is much greater compliance for the "keep right" law, and less people hogging the left lane because "they are already going the speed limit".

I believe that is what happens here on the freeways.
Even though some people blast past in the fast lane at 100mph, most of the quicker drivers do about 87mph constantly.
The majority of the regular people are going about 80 mph and some are right at the speed limit which is 120kph (75mph). Most people generally keep sort of right no matter what speed they go (although there are exceptions).

There is absolutely no enforcement of the speed (on freeways)(even on normal roads there is very little compared to what you guys have) so people driving near the speed limit aren’t doing it because they are scared of anything. They are doing it because they want to.
That’s the really nice thing; people are driving at what they are happy with and staying out of each others way. It’s such a nice feeling.

Strangely, the slower drivers don’t mind the faster drivers even though they know the limit is 75mph (120kph). So I assume 75mph is not considered “artificially low” by the people here.
Just south of us, in France, its 130kph (80mph).
When it starts getting down to about 65mph (like in many parts of Holland in the built-up areas), then you see people getting aggravated.

What I find very cool here in Belgium and most of Europe is you can drive like a maniac at 75mph through a town (30mph and sometimes 50-55mph) and there are no cops to stop you.
But exactly because of that, people drive relatively slowly through a town.
It’s very cool to see that.

When you give people the responsibility to be responsible, they are.
When you treat them like children, they get aggravated and drive irresponsibly.

I’ve seen youths in fast cars or fast bikes racing through the twistys, passing everybody, really moving. As you know a fast bike or car can get up to 110-120mph very quickly.
Then when they get to a village (say 30mph) they all slow down, cruise through the town, keeping a constant speed, not using the opportunity to catch the other guy and when they pass the “town ends here” sign, they hit the gas again. And there are no cops anywhere to be seen, and the kids know that.
Who teaches these kids that? A swarming army of cops enforcing artificially low limits? No. Nobody. It’s a result of them having the responsibility to decide themselves. And when speeds aren’t artificially low everywhere else, why go fast in a built up area? Even hormone high kids realise that.

That is so cool. Sometimes a bike will do a wheely down the main road, if he considers it safe. And it usually is. So cool. I had one do a wheely past me on the freeway. I was in the right lane of course, because it’s polite to pull over. I guess he thought my NSX was nice because he was looking at me as he went past. There was a cop in the freeway gas station, just standing there next to his car. He saw it. And he didn’t do anything. This is typical and not the first time I’ve seen something like this.
He probably smiled. He probably thought the motorcycle knew what he was doing. Since we were going about 90mph and surviving. This is a part of not having (read ‘enforcing’) artificially slow limits.

Also what is very cool is there are no speed limit signs on the freeways every 500 yards to tell you the artificially low limit, like a child, what you already know like some suffocating PITA parent. We are not children after all.
As you come into a country there is a sign with a picture of a village, a highway and a freeway. Each with a speed next to it.
That’s it.
So on the freeways, no more signs through the whole country. Imagine that.
Unless they have a slower limit around a corner or something. But then when the corner is finished there is a sign with that slower speed with a black line through it telling you the slower zone has finished. They don’t post the new speed because you should know that from when you came in the country (or took your driving classes way back when).

Also, many towns don’t even have a 50kph sign. They just have a “beginning of village” sign with the name of the village.
Since everybody knows the limit in a village is 50kph (31mph), why have a sign? And most of the time 50kph is not artificially low. These are towns and villages after all, we drive about 65kph (40mph)(that would be your 25-30mph zones in the States). If it’s slightly out of the built up area but still in a town its 90kph (56mph) which isn’t artificially slow. On these roads most people drive 80-100kph (50-60mph)(equivalent to your 45mph zones). Notice that’s partially slower than the limit. And there are no cops so it’s obviously voluntary. No annoyance there.

This, again, is the responsibility they leave to you. It’s for you to be responsible. There is no enforcement. So artificial limits don’t really exist and being annoyed is kept to a minimum.

I think it’s the better way and I certainly enjoy it. :smile:
Peter

(well that was fun. Dissertation and travel promotion finished now :smile: )
(but if you do come here, bring your friggen NSX!!. You can drive in the whole EU for 2 years on your plates and licence, no bond or importation or registration or lights modification or anything! :biggrin: )
(ok, travel promotion really finished now)
 
Hindering the flow of traffic is against the law, they hindered the flow are traffic, and could therfore be cited. Here in CA there is also the 'California speed law', which states you are supposed to "drive the speed of traffic" - it has been my experiance traffic typically flows at around 80mph here in SoCal, and that is the speed I drive around CHP officers, etc... The one speeding ticket I _did_ get was in a revenue trap for 67 in a 45, after slowing down from 80 - there isn't much fighting you can do in that situation.
 
Ncturnal said:
That's it, I'm moving to Belgium. :D
BTW, they don’t have stop signs here (europe generally) either! How does THAT sound?

Well… there are a few (very very few) but you don’t actually have to stop! A cop will NEVER be waiting behind the bush.
Stop signs mean (to us) ‘give way cuz it’s a really big street you are coming onto’.
99% are yield signs where you don’t stop either! see my avatar, upper left.

Is that cool or what!!!:biggrin:
 
these guys go to my school...

i would just like to say "thanks for presenting the obvious to the general public."

also, i would like to affirm that we do drive VERY fast in Georgia. Its not unheard of to drive 90-100mph and not pass anyone. This does not include rush hour, which lasts from 4-7 every day:mad:
 
Midnight_Raven said:
First of all fire trucks don't travel to other cities to put out fires, local fire stations take care of the fires within its city.

It's called Mutual Aid, and yes, Fire Departments from other cities DO travel for calls. Also, what if the fire is on that interstate?

Midnight_Raven said:
Second if someone was getting raped the 911 operator would call police from around the area of the distressed call not somone 15 min away in an another city who would need to travel on the highway to get there.

And if there is no one IN the vicinity of the complainant? Have you ever seen a cop on a highway that's NOT doing traffic? Yes. They have to travel.

Midnight_Raven said:
Now Ryanmcd2 that doesn't make sense at all. Every single situation you just tried to pass through as a negative outcome to causing the traffic would be unrealistic.

First of all fire trucks don't travel to other cities to put out fires, local fire stations take care of the fires within its city.

Second if someone was getting raped the 911 operator would call police from around the area of the distressed call not somone 15 min away in an another city who would need to travel on the highway to get there.

Third of all if your spouse was having a heart attack most likely an ambulance will not need to travel through the highway to get to you. From my understanding hospitals are located in most cities and therefore ambulances dont' need to travel on highways to get to destinations.Tell me how many times have you seen an ambulance fly by you in a highway traveling to another city. None, I'm betting, you only see emergency vehicles on the highway when an accident on the highway occurs. And to just proove a point if an ambulance was trying to get by but there was traffic. There was always the shoulder to drive on. If you noticed there was only one car on the shoulder and if an ambulance was actually trying to go by that car, most likely the other vehicles would try to make room to let the ambulance through ASAP. Just like what usually happens during rush hour in a city when an emergency vehicle is trying to go through. Everyone seems to work together to let the emergency vehicle through.

I think you're getting dumber with every comment. Not every hospital is equipped to handle every situation. When my dad had an arterial tear in Monroe, WI he had to be transferred from the Monroe Clinic to UW Madison. Guess how he got there? He didn't walk.

Midnight_Raven said:
I actually think they did a good job showing how stupid some laws are. Also 55mph speed limit wasn't put in for safety concerns either its main purpose was to help regulate gasoline consumption.

55 is NOT the speed limit on Interstates. Sure, you think the law is stupid. Well, I think 95% of Americans are stupid, so the more we can do to limit their ability to harm me and my loved ones, the more I am for that.
 
nchopp said:
55 is NOT the speed limit on Interstates. Sure, you think the law is stupid. Well, I think 95% of Americans are stupid, so the more we can do to limit their ability to harm me and my loved ones, the more I am for that.

55 is the limit in GA on most roads, including the one in the movie, 285.

as far as the Emergency Vehicles go, they are allowed to do whatever they want as long as they dont cause a wreck. My dad is a paramedic.

Also, if you were having a heart attack and they couldnt get an ambulance to you, they could just as easliy use a helicopter.
 
710 said:
BTW, they don’t have stop signs here (europe generally) either! How does THAT sound?

Well… there are a few (very very few) but you don’t actually have to stop! A cop will NEVER be waiting behind the bush.
Stop signs mean (to us) ‘give way cuz it’s a really big street you are coming onto’.
99% are yield signs where you don’t stop either! see my avatar, upper left.

Is that cool or what!!!:biggrin:

In my experience, Europe is very cool w/r/t vehicle violations. In my experience, as long as you aren't a total ass, the local constables won't bother you. If the speed limit on a motorway is 130 kph, but everyone is doing 150, you can probably do 180 and still be clear of getting pulled over. 200 would be pushing it, tho'...
 
nchopp said:
It's called Mutual Aid, and yes, Fire Departments from other cities DO travel for calls. Also, what if the fire is on that interstate?

Okay I don't think you get my point. The point is you don't need to get on the highway to travel to aid another city. I'll give an example. I live in a small city/town okay in our small city/town we have about 4 to 8 fire stations. Our neighboring cities if they needed aid would probably contact the nearest firestations in our city/town to aid in the fire. Meaning they would just need to travel over the border which NO highway is needed to do so, seeing that they are pretty close to the fire to begin with. If it was in a big city I doubt a fire department from another city would be needed because its kind of obvious. They should have enough departments to help take care of the fire to begin with. Therefore no highway traveling is needed to get to the fire. Plus I dont' see the point in calling another city for help that is like 20 min away, when you probably have much more within the vicinity of the fire. Unless the fire is a forest fire which I totally understand you would need alot of fire departments to help, but that is not really the situation we are talking about.

Alright my previous comment of how the only time you see emergency vehicles going by on the highway is when there is accident on the highway already covers that. Thanks for repeating what I said and using it against me. :wink:

nchopp said:
And if there is no one IN the vicinity of the complainant? Have you ever seen a cop on a highway that's NOT doing traffic? Yes. They have to travel.

Yes I have actually but its always been, meaning 100% of the time I have seen this, to respond to a accident down the road.

nchopp said:
I think you're getting dumber with every comment. Not every hospital is equipped to handle every situation. When my dad had an arterial tear in Monroe, WI he had to be transferred from the Monroe Clinic to UW Madison. Guess how he got there? He didn't walk.

First of all buddy, insults are pretty uncalled for, did I ever call you or anyone dumb. Nope just posted my opinion on someone elses excuses.

Also if you didn't remember, we are speaking of emergency cases like someone calls in for help cause of fire, rape, accident. Not about people being transferred to another hosptial. And if it is that major of a problem ususally they are air lifted to the other hosptial if time is very crucial. Guess what when my grandfather had a heart attack, a ambulance didn't take him to Boston a helicopter did cause time was critical for his survival. Sure he is not gonna walk, but the highway is not the only way to travel around, you know. Plus if he was being transferred, I'm a guess they did have equiment to help him stay alive while being transported or let me guess they threw him in and said "Drive as fast as you can to Monroe Clinic!" I doubt that was the real situation. The way the cities and states work don't require much traveling on highways to respond to these situations. Everything could most likely be done locally.


nchopp said:
55 is NOT the speed limit on Interstates. Sure, you think the law is stupid. Well, I think 95% of Americans are stupid, so the more we can do to limit their ability to harm me and my loved ones, the more I am for that.

Just stating what is the truth behind the whole speed limit. Originally it was for saving gas not saftey.
 
Back
Top