
The Cannonball Run record has been broken seven times in five weeks - elsewhen
https://www.whichcar.com.au/news/the-cannonball-run-record-has-been-obliterated
======
fragmede
Semi-relatedly, the California Highway Patrol reported an 87% increase in
speeding tickets for > 100pmh as compared to 2019.

[https://twitter.com/CHP_HQ/status/1253087393567014912](https://twitter.com/CHP_HQ/status/1253087393567014912)

~~~
klenwell
Isn't that a felony? Years ago when I was in college I talked to a post-doc or
visiting professor from Germany who got am aerial speeding ticket for going
really fast on some desolate part of the I5 on his way from San Diego to San
Francisco.

He said it turned out to be much more serious than he expected (coming from
the Land of Chocolate and the Autobahn) and it was a pain in the ass to sort
out.

~~~
trhway
my understanding [IANAL] that speeding more than 30mph falls under "reckless
driving" which is a misdemeanor. It is a serious PITA, especially for
immigrants. Felony is much more than something "to sort out", it is more like
a catastrophe.

~~~
randallsquared
More than 20mph in some states, such as VA. My partner was doing just over 70
in a 65mph zone on an empty highway on Sunday afternoon, and didn't slow fast
enough when it became a "construction" zone of 50mph, and had to retain an
attorney to avoid more consequences than the fine.

~~~
5555624
In VA, currently, any speed over 20mph the posted speed limit or above 80mph
is reckless driving. If the posted speed limit is 65mph or 70mph, which means
you hit the reckless driving limit at 15mph or 10mph respectively.

Last month, the governor signed a law raising it the max speed to 85mph. It
takes effect 01 July. (The 80mph limit was put into effect when speed limits
were raised to 65mph.)

------
mwnivek
Here are the speeds converted to miles per hour, for reference:

According to Bolian, who has been in contact with the new record holders, the
time to beat is now less than 26 hours. A sub 28-hour Cannonball Run was once
unthinkable.

While he has not disclosed the exact time, that frame of reference means the
drivers would have had to achieve an average speed of at least 173km/h (107
mph) for the 4507km (2801 mi) journey.

Accommodating for fuel stops, the team’s peak and cruising speeds are probably
far in excess of that figure.

Bolian states that the new record holders averaged 193km/h (120 mph) when
crossing “several” States. It is unknown what car the new record holders used.

------
blunte
It still amazes me that the US, with all its red light cameras, doesn't adopt
the European speed cameras that create a lot of tickets (at significant fines)
for relatively minor speeding infractions.

Top Gear did a test years ago to see just how fast you would need to go to
defeat a speed camera, and it was well beyond what the Cannonballers would be
running. You just can't fool a high speed camera easily. Of course, you can
black out your drivers license, but you'll still risk the human patrols.

On the other hand, if the roads are empty, and nobody gets hurt... who cares!
Film it, please.

~~~
sandworm101
>> You just can't fool a high speed camera easily.

There are some tricks. If you have staff, people prepping the road ahead of
you, then you just slow down for the cameras. I suspect that these recent
records are being supported by the same people, the same camera/cop location
data.

I'm interested in what tech might be used by this team. I've been waiting for
SDR dongles to transform into radar detectors/jammers. Cop cars emit so many
different dedicated frequencies that anyone with a dongle and a laptop should
be able to build a very functional "copdar".

~~~
denlekke
maybe not what the above commenter meant but some euro speed camera systems
compare pictures and the time they were taken from multiple cameras to get
average speed. so imagine a camera that logs every on and off ramp of i-80 and
if you the times you enter and exit indicate an average speed above the speed
limit, you get a ticket.

~~~
sandworm101
If you know where those are, you just don't let them read your plate.

There are products out there that can turn your license plate "off" with the
flick of a switch. But if you are modifying car for a cannonball run you can
build one yourself. Google "smart glass". Remember too that many US states do
not require front plates. So it is not unusual for a car to be seen without
one, leaving only the rear plate to worry about.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85AVojj7rJ0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85AVojj7rJ0)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJ6rLhkZ3Hg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJ6rLhkZ3Hg)

And here is one on a lambo being prepped for a run:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcUgxSizDRQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcUgxSizDRQ)

~~~
joezydeco
Lots of states are aware of active/passive plate obsfucation systems and make
covering the plate with any material an illegal act.

The only thing that seems legal is letting your plate 'degrade' with corrosion
to the point where the automated readers can't make out the characters.

------
sonofgod
These new records are likely to be unbeatable once traffic returns to normal.
I wonder whether that'll cause the demise of the Cannonball Run?

That said, in computer speed runs, it's generally said that once someone says
a run is unbeatable, it'll be beaten...

~~~
mydongle
Why don't they just invalidate runs that happen during something like a
pandemic?

~~~
denlekke
there's no one to invalidate them ! even validating them is a game of trust as
it's illegal and most of the only other people interested are competitors who
are reluctant to be beaten.

the vinwiki guy has made himself out to be an arbiter because he gets more
views on his youtube channel and app subscribers from it

~~~
gbin
"other people interested are competitors who are reluctant to be beaten". So
this! Ed became a kind of a de facto PR for the run but his bitterness seeps
through his reporting all the time...

------
W-Stool
For anyone who is trying to understand what the Cannonball Run is all about
and resorts to some of the movies inspired by it, the reference movie is "The
Gumball Rally". The actual "Cannonball Run" movies with a laundry list of
"stars" were, frankly, not so great.

~~~
pravda
What? Any movie with Dom DeLuise in it is a great movie!

------
joncrane
I think it's interesting that the community which supports and follows the
Cannonball Run appeared to be mostly against the first 26 hour run (the Audi
pictured in the article). At least the most vocal part.

My question is, do you actually PREFER that people reach reckless speeds in
more crowded conditions?

~~~
jpmoral
How about not driving at reckless (your word) speeds on public roads? I'd be
happy to see sanctioned events but I doubt that would happen.

~~~
VectorLock
Thats pretty much what RoadRally is. [https://www.scca.com/pages/what-is-
roadrally](https://www.scca.com/pages/what-is-roadrally)

~~~
serf
as someone who has participated in roadrally (and other scca events),
'Gumball' style road-rallys are nothing like the sanctioned events.

SCCA roadrally events are about pace-setting and arriving just on time, not
fast OR slow. Because of that, the setting is much more about clinical
analysis, and less about having the worlds' fastest cars and the highest
speeds.

Very little about SCCA RoadRally is anything like any other motorsport,
actually. It's closer to a scavenger hunt most of the time.

------
Ididntdothis
What are these guys trying to prove? Who the biggest and irresponsible asshole
is? If you want to go fast, go to a race track and race against real drivers.
If you don’t like tracks, do rallye.

~~~
sandworm101
It's strange how in other areas such behavior is encouraged. Where is the
anger when people try to set speed records on boats? Every time some rich
idiot gets into trouble on the high seas, other people have to risk their
lives to save them. Setting aside rescue personnel, many innocent bystanders
have also been killed by racing yachts.

2018: "One Fisherman Killed, 9 Saved After Boat Collides With Ocean Race
Yacht"
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mjrq0NDL8r4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mjrq0NDL8r4)

"On the night of 19 March 2007, while around 22 kilometres (14 mi) offshore
from Guatemala, Earthrace collided with a local fishing boat. No Earthrace
crew were hurt, but one of the three crew members from the fishing boat was
never found."
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MY_Ady_Gil#2007](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MY_Ady_Gil#2007)

2012 "A yacht involved in a race off the coast of California and Mexico
apparently collided at night with a much larger vessel, leaving three crew
members dead and one missing, a sailing organization said early Sunday."
[https://www.guelphmercury.com/news-
story/2698368-collision-s...](https://www.guelphmercury.com/news-
story/2698368-collision-suspected-in-yacht-race-tragedy/)

And if you want to compare statistics, how many people died on Titanic as it
was racing across the Atlantic? Including that tragedy would probably make
ocean racing more dangerous than the cannonball run even on an hourly basis.

~~~
ghettoimp
> Where is the anger when people try to set speed records on boats?

These do not seem to be remotely comparable.

Wikipedia has a list [1] of several people that died in water speed record
attempts. This list does has several names on it. This pales in comparison
with the 36,000 people [2] died in auto-collisions in just the US in 2018.

Driving 100mph+ on public roads is completely reckless. If you fuck it up,
someone's going to die.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_accidents_in_mot...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_accidents_in_motorboat_racing)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year)

~~~
sandworm101
The cannonball run isn't comparable to streetracing any more than "motorboat"
racing is comparable to ocean racing. Note that wikipedia article doesn't
include any of the accidents I listed above. It's like comparing baseball and
tennis because they both involve hitting a ball. Actually, it's worse than
that because yacht racing doesn't even involve motors. The only similarity
between motorboat racing and ocean/yacht racing is that they both involve some
sort of water. I'd say "things that float" but motorboats don't really 'float'
while racing.

------
smokelegend
The open road is open once more...

Note, if you get caught at these high speeds on public roads, you will be
arrested and vehicle impounded. Most of the time police officers will draw
their weapons when making vehicle stops of this nature. Most state laws have a
zero tolerance policy for vehicles exceeding 90mph on public roads.

But if you got bail money, GODSPEED

~~~
protomyth
I would bet that most traffic on I-90 in South Dakota is at or over 90mph
given the speed limit is now 80mph. Heck, North Dakota, not exactly a bastion
of enforcement, decided against going higher specifically because of South
Dakota. Idaho, Wyoming and Utah have 80mph limits and Texas has road at 85mph.
A lot of plain states are not hyper about speed limits. 120mph is going to get
you in trouble, badly, but 90 might not even get you stopped.

~~~
jdhn
I drove on that 80 MPH stretch of I-80 between the Utah/Nevada border, and
even the big rigs were going at least 5 over. I honestly think that as long as
you're not going 10 over, the police are just there to make sure that if you
crash somebody is there to help.

~~~
dharmab
There are long stretches of road throughout Utah where 110+mph is easily
feasible. Sightlines all the way to the horizon.

~~~
jdhn
Oh absolutely. I'd say that this holds true for most states west of the
Mississippi.

------
crashbunny
How do you claim the record and not incriminate yourself?

A few people in Australia have been fined for uploading a photo they took
while driving to social media. One was a politician who was stopped at some
road works. He uploaded it to facebook and some people complained he broke the
law. So he went to a police station voluntarily and I guess made a statement
and was issued a fine. (You can't touch your phone even if stationary, or in a
drive through, car park, etc)

~~~
diafygi
In the past, a team would wait until the statue of limitations had lapsed
before publishing their evidence.

[https://jalopnik.com/alex-roy-reveals-transcontinental-
run-c...](https://jalopnik.com/alex-roy-reveals-transcontinental-run-claims-
record-310735)

~~~
DrScump
In many states, the statute of limitations clock stops running when you leave
the state, so you could find the expiry date still hasn't arrived if you come
back.

------
anonu
Not to be a wet blanket here, but what's the point? Bicycle across America...
That's cool. Very impressive at any speed. Break the speed limit laws and
potentially put others at risk... Not cool...

~~~
RickJWagner
Yeah, I get it.

For us oldsters, there is a little cool-ness associated with the CannonBall
Run from an old (but popular) movie. But it is a stupid thing, for sure.

~~~
ethbro
Static speed limits that apply to all drivers identically are a joke. Because
not all drivers are identically skilled.

So either you recognize the absurdity inherent in our speed laws, or you think
the system is reasonable.

The Cannonball Run isn't for the latter.

~~~
dahart
Why would different skill levels imply there shouldn’t be a ‘static’ speed
limit? I’m not seeing the connecting logic.

What is the alternative, and how do you propose to enforce a dynamic speed
limit that adapts to the drivers’ skill level?

Who determines skill level, and how do you determine skill level, and why
would we want a public system where people are near the limits of their skill
level?

Also curious - are you sure that skill level is the primary cause of traffic
accidents and fatalities? Do you have any data on that? How does it compare
with race drivers who’ve died in crashes, are those due to skill level?

I don’t think speed limits are “static” because of skill level. I presume
speed limits are static because 1) physics - energy of impact is proportional
to the square of your velocity. Double the speed is 4x the damage / chance of
death. 2) There’s safety in a low speed differential in traffic regardless of
the limit. It’s safer to pass at 5mph faster than it is to pass at 60mph
faster. 3) It’s fair to all, in the sense that the same rule applies to
everyone, and enforceable.

~~~
ethbro
As to an alternative, we've come a long way technologically since 1974. If we
wanted to, RF enabling cars to be remotely interrogated, and encoding driver
qualifications is well within our reach.

As to skill level, the current system has a cursory driver's test, coupled
with (in some states) minimal re-qualification criteria. This means that an 18
year old new driver, a 40 year old experienced driver, and an 80 year old with
barely passable eyesight are effectively lumped into the same bucket. To me,
that feels like safety theater. And as with any theater, leads to widespread
law breaking. In my opinion, any law which is commonly ignored is a bad thing
and should be reworked to be more enforceable / in line with expectations.

As to accidents and fatalities normalized per skill level, we have general
motor vehicle fatality statistics [1] (specifically note fatalities per
million VMT pre-1995 and post-1995, when the federal speed maximums were
substantially relaxed [2]). Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any comprehensive
driver skill level test, with sufficient sample size, on which to draw
statistics.

We can say that, per the 2018 NHTSA report [3], alcohol impairment was
involved in 29% of overall fatalities. We can also say that ~50% of fatalities
were unrestrained by safety devices (given ~90% documentation of restraint use
at time of accident). They also note that "distraction-affected crashes"
comprised 7.8% of total fatalities. Which is to say it's tenuous to hold skill
as proxy for responsibility, but there are some very large percentages of
fatalities exacerbated by non-speed-related irresponsible driving behavior.

I feel like race drivers would be a poor comparison, due to limited sample
size and confounding effects (e.g. leading / high performance drivers more
likely to take risks and push limits).

(1) absolutely has merit. (2) is debatable, but I'll agree also has merit. (3)
seems like my real bone of contention with the current system.

It's naively "fair," in that it treats everyone and all vehicles identically.
It's also incredibly sub-optimal, given the vast variance in drivers and
vehicles.

If I had my druthers, I'd mandate all cars / drivers support remote
interrogation (license class, if you don't want to open the privacy can of
identity), then have a graduated series of license tests between standard (C)
and commercial (CDL).

Then drastically increase speeding fines & automated fining, if you're caught
speeding without an appropriate license qualification.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_United_Sta...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_United_States#Federal_speed_controls)

[3]
[https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/...](https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812826)

~~~
dahart
Also within our reach is automated photographic enforcement. That would be
_much_ easier and way more realistic to implement than somehow trying to
manage different speed classes based on skill or whatever.

I still just don’t see a real problem with a static speed limit, or why
something graduated by skill is called for and what it would help.

Having fines graduated by ‘skill’ would just be more of a declaration that
it’s okay to break the law and speed if you’re a ‘better’ driver, whatever
that means. It doesn’t make that much sense to me, the better drivers are
already the ones choosing not to speed. Personally, I’d rather have more
enforcement so that people just didn’t speed. I honestly hope that self-
driving cars eliminate aggressive driving from our roads and let people relax
while they travel. Speeds are already too high in a lot of places, and people
have unrealistic expectations while they drive.

The last thing I want is some clowns claiming to be better drivers expecting
to be allowed to drive 100mph through traffic. The very desire to driver
faster that current speed limits is solid evidence in my book of a lack of
driving wisdom, which I would call a lack of skill. The choices we make to
avoid bad situations are more important than our reaction times or ability to
recover from them. (Just like coding!)

I don’t know if that’s what you’re suggesting, because you didn’t make it
clear, but that seems to be your implication. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

Your suggestion is sounding a little to me like it could be a way for richer
people to pay for more licensing to get traffic advantages. Speeding tickets
already favor wealthy people and hurt poorer people disproportionately. The
licenses we currently have don’t measure skill, they establish only the
minimum standards needed for driving a motorcycle or car or 18 wheeler, no
licensing in our system is capable of distinguishing the skills of different
drivers.

It’s not really the case that the law is lumping everyone into the same bucket
based on skill, I think that’s a misinterpretation, a specious framing but not
what the law intended nor what it communicates. The speed limit is a
declaration of what the safe speed of a given road and today’s vehicles are -
again, because physics.

Speed limits are affected by popular opinion, and in some places, like in the
western US where the speed limits have been hiked up to 80 mph, or even 85 in
Texas, these limits have been raised in some locales by law makers in spite of
the Highway Patrol’s objections and evidence that accidents and fatality rates
are higher with the raised limits.

> It’s also incredibly sub-optimal, given that vast variance in drivers and
> vehicles.

So by what metric is it sub-optimal? How do you arrive at the conclusion that
it’s “incredibly” sub-optimal? What does optimal mean, and what are you
suggesting? I don’t get it yet. Are you saying more skilled drivers should be
allowed to driver faster than other people, or just suggesting that fines
should be lower? Who, exactly, is being harmed by speed limits, what is the
damage being done, and what is the alternative? There are statistics showing
increased rates of death in higher speed limit areas, so you need to have a
pretty convincing argument that a thousand people being stuck at 70mph are
being hurt more than someone getting killed.

I just don’t see it being realistic for some people to be allowed to drive
much faster than others in traffic. This would add extra tension to already
tense heavy traffic commutes, how does it solve anything? I suspect the
unintended consequence of increasing the speed differential would be more road
rage and more road fatalities.

~~~
ethbro
> Having fines graduated by ‘skill’ would just be more of a declaration that
> it’s okay to break the law and speed if you’re a ‘better’ driver, whatever
> that means.

You misunderstand. I'm proposing actual limits be different for different
classes of drivers. So C1 gives you 50 mph max on a given road, C2 60, etc.

> no licensing in our system is capable of distinguishing the skills of
> different drivers

A CDL clearly requires additional knowledge beyond a standard license. E.g.
brake failure modes and technical operation.

> The speed limit is a declaration of what the safe speed of a given road and
> today’s vehicles are - again, because physics.

So between 1994 and 1996 all roads and vehicles became substantially safer?

> these limits have been raised in some locales by law makers in spite of the
> Highway Patrol’s objections and evidence that accidents and fatality rates
> are higher with the raised limits

To put it bluntly, Highway Patrol does not seem like an objective third party
in this matter.

>> It’s also incredibly sub-optimal, given that vast variance in drivers and
vehicles.

> So by what metric is it sub-optimal? How do you arrive at the conclusion
> that it’s “incredibly” sub-optimal? What does optimal mean, and what are you
> suggesting?

Total travel time has an economic cost. Very few people work at full
productivity while driving their cars.

An optimal allocation would be permitting everyone to drive at a precise
maximum speed, calculated on the basis of all their attributes which effect
likelihood of accident, and standardizing for likelihood of outcome.

Some of those attributes are constant from driver to driver (road geometry,
weather).

Some of those attributes are variable (driver skill, attention, tendency to
drive drunk, vehicle performance, vehicle maintenance).

Unless you're willing to argue that the variable attributes have neglible
effect on accident likelihood or that their variable range is negligible, I'm
not sure how you arrive at anything less than "incredibly sub-optimal" given
static speed limits for everyone.

> Are you saying more skilled drivers should be allowed to driver faster than
> other people, or just suggesting that fines should be lower?

The former.

> Who, exactly, is being harmed by speed limits, what is the damage being
> done, and what is the alternative?

Everyone, but particularly drivers, by economic inefficiency. The alternative
is my modest proposal.

> There are statistics showing increased rates of death in higher speed limit
> areas, so you need to have a pretty convincing argument that a thousand
> people being stuck at 70mph are being hurt more than someone getting killed.

See earlier points about the difficulties in normalizing statistics for
proposed driver skill level.

> I suspect the unintended consequence of increasing the speed differential
> would be more road rage and more road fatalities.

Possibly, in additional to innumerable other things we haven't considered.

But my point is that we can't, on the face of things, defend the current
system as the best we can possibly do.

~~~
dahart
Using cars at all isn’t the best we can possibly do.

> Very few people work at full productivity while driving their cars.

Very few people work at all while driving their cars; their commute is outside
of their paid working hours. What is the economic cost of commuting time? This
is a serious question. You’re not paid for non-work hours, so by choosing to
live far away from your job, or work far away from where you live, you’re
choosing to trade away your own free time, and choosing to pay more in gas
(often, but not always, in return for lower rent/mortgage). There is no loss
to the economy in terms of the time spent.

So what — _exactly_ — is optimized economically by having higher speed limits?
Where — _exactly_ — would more money come from if the speed limits were raised
for some people? And are you proposing to have the speed classes only apply
while commuting to work, or at all times? What would be the justification for
doing it at all times?

It would help if you’d elaborate on your proposal with real numbers. Do you
want to drive at a higher speed than you can right now, or do you want people
you believe to be unskilled to have to slow down compared to today? How fast
do you want to drive? How much faster will your commute be? 50mph roads
probably aren’t as common as 65mph highways. What do you imagine the actual
speeds to be on the highway in your system?

Your calculus, as presented so far, is completely ignoring:

1- the economic costs of safety, or lack of it. Every crash can cost those
involved tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars, and it goes up when there’s
serious hospital time involved. See the term “expected value” in statistics.
You have to account for the risks and probabilities of a negative outcome in
order to even know if your proposal can pay off.

2- the fact that drivers in a lower speed class would need to be able to react
to the faster drivers; in effect they would need to be as skilled in order to
share the same roads safely.

3- traffic, not the speed limit, is the limiting speed factor almost
everywhere that long commutes exist.

But hey, if you’re proposing that we make new, separate roads for the multi-
speed-class system, maybe I’m for it. Everyone who thinks they’re better
drivers and wants to ignore the risks can go drive together on their own road.

> So between 1994 and 1996 all roads and vehicles became substantially safe?

No, but both the US interstates _and_ the cars have together become
substantially safer over the last 50 years.

I’m curious why you’ve dismissed the Highway Patrol? You’re not objective
either, why are you ignoring the people who actually have to respond every
time some idiot in a fast car who thinks he has “skill” loses traction and
hits someone else or wraps himself around a telephone pole?

~~~
ethbro
> Using cars at all isn’t the best we can possibly do.

Granted. But any solutions to _that_ are several orders of magnitude more
expensive.

>> Very few people work at full productivity while driving their cars.

> Very few people work at all while driving their cars; their commute is
> outside of their paid working hours. What is the economic cost of commuting
> time? This is a serious question.

Employers are not the only economic productivity in a person's life. Child
care and raising, socializing with friends, shopping, starting a business,
learning new skills.

Point being, _nothing_ economically productive (in the broader sense) is
generally happening when someone is driving in a car.

> It would help if you’d elaborate on your proposal with real numbers. Do you
> want to drive at a higher speed than you can right now, or do you want
> people you believe to be unskilled to have to slow down compared to today?

The former. It'd be batty to suggest that the current speed limits, justified
as the _maximum possible_ speed for a _minimally skilled_ licensed driver,
should in fact be lower for some drivers, if we were actually differentiating
drivers!

> How fast do you want to drive?

As fast as balances safety concerns! With current performance vehicles, taking
into account hypothetical differential speeds using current highway and
interstate speeds, I'd say ranges of 70 - 100 mph for the same piece of multi-
lane (on one side) road.

> How much faster will your commute be?

Given the above, you'd arrive in 70% of the time at 100 mph, no?

> Your calculus, as presented so far, is completely ignoring: > 1- the
> economic costs of safety, or lack of it.

I'm not ignoring it. I'm valuing it as balanced against the economic
inefficiencies of alternatives. If optimizing safety were our primary goal, no
one would be allowed to drive at all.

> 2- the fact that drivers in a lower speed class would need to be able to
> react to the faster drivers; in effect they would need to be as skilled in
> order to share the same roads.

Not sure that completely holds, but I catch your drift. You'd definitely still
want to limit speed differentials according to road section, as they
effectively do in Germany.

> 3- traffic, not the speed limit, is the limiting speed factor almost
> everywhere that long commutes exist.

> But hey, if you’re proposing that we make new, separate roads for the multi-
> speed-class system, maybe I’m for it. Everyone who thinks they’re better
> drivers and wants to ignore the risks can go drive together on their own
> road.

I look at traffic as a failure of transportation policy. You're not going to
speed your way out of traffic, because it's a throughput problem. So this is
irrelevant where speed-limiting traffic is concerned.

>> So between 1994 and 1996 all roads and vehicles became substantially safe?

> No, but both the US interstates and the cars have together become
> substantially safer over the last 20 years.

I was using those years, when the federal speed cap was removed, to poke a
hole in the idea that US speed limits follow intrinsically from any sort of
physical principles. I would say that they're more governed by a political
process, attempting to balance multiple competing interests.

> I’m curious why you’ve dismissed the Highway Patrol? You’re not objective
> either, why are you ignoring the people who actually have to respond every
> time some idiot in a fast car who thinks he has “skill” loses traction and
> hits someone else or wraps himself around a telephone pole?

Because they're substantially funded by speeding fines? [1]

And if you think local government and officers are blind to their primary
sources of revenue, then I've got a bridge to sell you...

[1] [https://www.governing.com/gov-data/other/local-
governments-h...](https://www.governing.com/gov-data/other/local-governments-
high-fine-revenues-by-state.html)

~~~
dahart
>> Using cars at all isn’t the best we can possibly do. > Granted. But any
solutions to that are several orders of magnitude more expensive.

Strong disagree. Right now - the state of Covid work-from-home - is partial
evidence. Other countries and some US cities like New York offer more
evidence. Try to estimate the amount of private money spent on cars and car
maintenance annually by all citizens, and guesstimate what we could buy in
shared transportation resources, with the same amount of money. It would be
extraordinarily difficult to change America's habits, but I don't buy that it
would be more expensive. I'd argue the opposite, we are currently spending
_way_ more money than necessary in return for fictional ideas of personal
freedom.

> I'd say ranges of 70 - 100 mph

Well, we're already there in much of the west, we already match speed limits
on the Autobahn. In urban cities, I can't think of a highway I've ever
commuted on in the east coast or west where it's possible to safely sustain >
70mph for long stretches, and I've never, in decades, had the opportunity to
do that while commuting. Raising the speed limit simply wouldn't change that.

The radius of turns, and weather conditions are confounding factors for your
wish. You're advocating speeds that don't leave adequate reaction times for
unforseen situations, crap in the road, motorcycles, large trucks, or any
number of things that regularly occur in the real world.

> Given the above, you'd arrive in 70% of the time at 100 mph, no?

Extremely unlikely, you're jumping to an invalid conclusion that raising the
speed limit on the highway by a percentage would yield a proportional
_average_ travel reduction. To achieve that average, you typically have to
peak much higher. You're not accounting for the off-freeway portion of your
trip. And you'd have to perfectly sustain top speed the whole time, which is
most places and in most traffic not possible, unless you're making assumptions
you haven't explained yet.

I'm still not seeing the money. You've made a hand-wavy purely theoretical
argument with logical gaps that somehow more money would appear in my pocket
if only I could drive faster. How would that happen? What makes you think that
people wouldn't respond by moving 30% further away for even cheaper housing
(which would then rise in price due to increased demand)?

> I look at traffic as a failure of transportation policy.

Why? There are more cars on the road every year, that will automatically yield
more traffic. And it's just as much a failure of transportation
infrastructure, which was intentionally crippled by the lobbying of automakers
in the US. It's also a failure of urban planning. We wouldn't have to commute
if we lived closer. How would increasing speed limits as a policy fix traffic?

> Because they're substantially funded by speeding fines?

I believe that claim is false in most states. Can you provide a source please?
The Highway Patrol in most states is primarily funded by taxes, and tickets in
metropolitan areas are normally a small minority of their general fund. Often
the revenue from fines goes to other city & state projects, and not back to
the Highway Patrol.

Your theory fails to adequately explain why the Highway patrol is _constantly_
begging people to slow down and be safe, posting signs about limits, being as
obvious as possible about their speed monitoring, and not enforcing anywhere
near as much as they could. You may want to take a few minutes to read the
annual Highway Patrol report for your state and a few others. They are
dominated by a focus on safety.

You're already trying to sell me a bridge with a gap in it. Call me completely
unconvinced, let's agree to disagree.

~~~
ethbro
>>> Using cars at all isn’t the best we can possibly do. >> Granted. But any
solutions to that are several orders of magnitude more expensive.

> Strong disagree. Right now - the state of Covid work-from-home - is partial
> evidence. Other countries and some US cities like New York offer more
> evidence.

I'm not sure 25% unemployment and one of the densest American cities are
applicable counterexamples.

> The radius of turns, and weather conditions are confounding factors for your
> wish. You're advocating speeds that don't leave adequate reaction times for
> unforseen situations, crap in the road, motorcycles, large trucks, or any
> number of things that regularly occur in the real world.

See earlier points about variability in vehicle performance, driver skill, and
reaction times.

>> Given the above, you'd arrive in 70% of the time at 100 mph, no? >
Extremely unlikely, you're jumping to an invalid conclusion that raising the
speed limit on the highway by a percentage would yield a proportional average
travel reduction. To achieve that average, you typically have to peak much
higher. You're not accounting for the off-freeway portion of your trip.

I was assuming both of us could apply Amdahl's law.

> I'm still not seeing the money. You've made a hand-wavy purely theoretical
> argument with logical gaps that somehow more money would appear in my pocket
> if only I could drive faster. How would that happen? What makes you think
> that people wouldn't respond by moving 30% further away for even cheaper
> housing

You seem to be focused on individual money, as opposed to costs / benefits to
the economy, in aggregate.

> Your theory fails to adequately explain why the Highway patrol is constantly
> begging people to slow down and be safe, posting signs about limits, being
> as obvious as possible about their speed monitoring, and not enforcing
> anywhere near as much as they could.

I believe we have very different views of law enforcement, and their
motivations as a branch of executive government.

> Call me completely unconvinced, let's agree to disagree.

Probably for the best. This doesn't feel like a good faith debate at this
point.

------
hprotagonist
i mean gas is dirt cheap and the roads are empty; what better time than now?

~~~
jrjrjrjr
brakes are good, tires, fair.

~~~
LanceH
full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes...

------
VectorLock
Given that I can get around easier at 5pm in a major metropolitan area than I
could at any other time of day 3 months ago I'm hardly surprised.

------
11thEarlOfMar
Getting it into the 26 hour range is important for take off and landing. I
haven't seen details, but you'd likely want to leave New York at 3:00 AM and
thereby arrive in LA at 2:00 AM, avoiding the heaviest city street traffic. I
know from personal experience that roadways are the lightest overnight Sunday-
Monday. Maybe depart on Sunday 3:00 AM and arrive Monday 2:00 AM.

------
nfoz
Meanwhile, in Canada: teenager charged with going 308 km/h (191 mph) in his
dad's car on Toronto highway.

[https://www.citynews1130.com/2020/05/10/ontario-
police-19-ye...](https://www.citynews1130.com/2020/05/10/ontario-
police-19-year-old-charge-stunt-racing/)

~~~
Exmoor
The USA _just_ managed to edge them out:
[https://www.heraldnet.com/news/stanwood-man-arrested-
after-d...](https://www.heraldnet.com/news/stanwood-man-arrested-after-
driving-192-mph-on-u-s-2/)

Having driven the stretch of road in this article many times, the idea of
going more than three times my typical speed on it makes me break out into a
cold sweat. It is not flat, not straight, and is directly adjacent to oncoming
traffic. Other articles indicated the driver failed a DUI test as well.

------
craftinator
So it's sort of like a contest to see who can be the biggest asshole then?

~~~
downerending
I'd say acting in utter disregard to human life is a bit worse than merely
being an asshole. I'm pretty okay with life imprisonment for these guys.

~~~
craftinator
I pitched an idea for punishment for this behavior a while back (I'm in
Portland, where street racing is a major issue right now), and got downvoted
like crazy for it, but I'll try again here. Each time they are caught,
surgically remove one finger. Either they'll take the hint that people want
them to stop, or if they keep it up they won't be able to grip the steering
wheel. Win-win.

