Playing childish racing games in regular traffic at the limit (or beyond) one's abilities deserves absolutely no respect there. Radar detection enabled much more of this, and countless innocent deaths down the line.
They say speak only well about the dead, I'd say speak of them as they deserved, each of us builds our own legacy.
I suspect most users are not racing. They're probably driving a comfortable 80mph in 65mph and just don't want to get a ticket for a completely reasonable speed in a modern car.
And there are large parts of the country with open roads and low traffic. I’ve been in places in the southwest where you could see another car coming for miles, if there had been one, and there wasn’t. The roads were level and clear. There was no safety-related reason to strictly obey the speed limit, but heaven help you if you get stopped.
Doing 95 in Oakland? Take the car and crush it for all I car. Doing 95 out in the middle of nowhere with no one or nothing but yourself to hurt? Don’t let me stop you.
Around here, the problem isn't the people going faster than the speed limit. The problem is the driver who absolutely must go 10, 15 or 20mph than the other cars. The weaving and dodging is so dangerous. It's one thing to risk your own life. These people are risking everyone else's by zipping around them.
Anyone 10+ mph outside the flow of traffic in either direction, combined with overly aggressive or overly cautious moves (i.e. unpredictable compared to other drivers) are dangerous. Unfortunately you can't convince half this group they are part of the issue and the other half doesn't care.
In the modern era (since 1971), there have been hundreds of thousands of miles run, and 2 single car accidents, 1 of which was a team that would never have been invited currently, and the other accident was literally driven away from.
I know you only drive highly focused, and don't e.g. eat food or drink or adjust your radio (go look at the numbers!), so you certainly have the right to say this.
Because if you did, you'd be more dangerous than these "childish racing games".
> I know you only drive highly focused, and don't e.g. eat food or drink or adjust your radio (go look at the numbers!), so you certainly have the right to say this.
Yes I normally do, I have laser projection on windshield in BMW of all info I need, rest is on steering wheel. The fluent connection with environment around car is worth every penny and less tiring. The only time I look elsewhere in the car is when stationary, and not many reasons to do so.
Anyway what does this has to do with breaking the law? Its the same vein as not paying taxes, 'I am better and above the rules'.
It's infracting the law, and the law is immoral and wrong, therefore not worthy to be followed.
Also, to be clear, I don't "normally" Cannonball across the country, I only do it under special circumstances. But I understand that you make the choice to drive inattentively even though it's a moral wrong and endangers others.
Most folks that drive like that can't or dont want to afford a $300 radar detector. Most folks I know with radar detectors are responsible types. The irresponsible types don't even bother.
They got 85% of the town’s revenue from speeding. There was a drop from 55 to 45 well away from anything where there was any obvious reason to slow down. If you were doing 46 when you passed that sign, you got a ticket.
I ham a ham radio license and should probably know this stuff, but I don’t play near the edges where I’d ever need to worry about the details. It seems nuts to me that it’s illegal, anywhere, to notice what radiation (technical sense) is around me. “Hey, watch out, in Kentucky it’s illegal to see orange” is about as logical as anti-detector laws. You’re pointing an emitter at me and I’m not even allowed to know? That’s crazy.
Morally, I agree 100%. But legally, detection is banned in some jurisdictions (Virginia, Washington DC, most of Canada, etc.) so it's ambiguous to say "we have a right" without at least defining which population and which definition of right.
I accept these definitions. But undefined, readers could be very confused thinking that specific jurisdictions and/or legal rights are being discussed.
I use one but I do not usually speed - because most police cars in my state have radar signals on at all times, it basically tells you if there are any police cruisers within ~1 mile. I believe cops are dangerous and unpredictable so this is useful information to me.
I mean it heavily depends on what skin color you have - I grew up in LA and saw the rodney king beatings. People of myself and my family’s skin color have had to be careful for a lot longer than the last 10 years.
I hear ya. If someone with skin a different shade than mine says they’d prefer not to talk to the police, I’m not going to argue.
About 10-15 years ago when everyone got cameras was when it changed in my mind from something you heard about too often, but randomly, to seemingly every freaking day with hard evidence to prove it.
I know it’s been going on a lot longer than 10 years. I think it’s kind of like rogue waves. The people involved had been telling stories forever about the things they’d seen. Now that we have recordings everywhere, what do you know, rogue waves all over the place. And people who’d experienced them are like, yeah, we’ve been trying to tell you for ages.
Realistically they are - the speed everyone drives (5 over the posted speed limit) is about the speeds most people are driving on the no speed limit sections of the Autobahn.
OK. I have a 1.5 hour drive. I leave on time. I run across a driver doing 10mph under the speed limit. I'm late.
OK, I leave 10m early. I run across an accident. I'm late.
OK, I leave 15m early. I run across a surprise document check and the officer is extra chatty. Combined with the traffic choke point I'm late.
OK I leave 30m early for everywhere I go. I'm still late or early and never on time because I can't moderate my speed because someone thinks its 'risky'.
Finally, the pollutes more argument doesn't hold up. Just because you have an 'eco' car doesn't mean its economical at traffic speeds. The safest way to drive is maintain the flow of traffic and be predictable (i.e. not slow and no unsafe hyper-mileing maneuvers), and suddenly cars that aren't underpowered microboxes are using less gas anytime you aren't doing 30mph in a city at constant speeds.
Which hyper-mileing maneuvers are unsafe other than going too slow? I assume there are some or else you wouldn't need to mention it following "not slow."
Personally, I sometimes try to use just the right amount of fuel on an uphill such that once I crest the hill, I can maximize the duration/distance that I'm in complete overrun (fuel cut) before my speed drifts too far from the speed limit, and then I correct my speed at that point. Coasting to even lower speeds would improve MPG, but unsafe when followed, so I definitely avoid that. Cresting the hill well below the speed limit, knowing that the downhill will swiftly correct for that, isn't too risky in most situations.
> The amount of energy required to travel the same distance is not linear to speed, at all.
If it were linear, speed would have no effect on efficiency.
> Power from engines ...
But their efficiency can't improve with v^-3, so air friction wins. Just check the consumer reports on cars' fuel efficiency. Optimum efficiency is around 80km/h for most cars.
All the economic evidence of risk homeostasis, and general consistency around the subject, suggests your preferences writ large are at odds with and part of a battle with human nature. That's fine for an opinion but the implications are pretty dire for interventions - like squeezing a balloon there will inevitably be side effects.
Not trying to diminish the consequences of said risks.
A successful strategy probably involves accounting for and maybe even improving the competing economic interests rather than picking one and stifling it.
Intentionally driving slower than traffic flow, causing impediments and angry drivers to pass you on the left and right is far more dangerous. E.g. the left lane campers and road vigilantes.
Regardless of EV/ICE, the amount of pollution from tires is directly influenced by how much traction is being utilized. Excessive acceleration, deceleration, hard cornering, weight, etc. all lead to excessive tire wear and EVs tend to have elevated figures in all these categories (except cornering I suppose). Instant torque is fun (so unnecessary acceleration is common), braking is regenerative (so minimizing braking isn't as critical to range), and batteries weigh a lot. Therefore, tires shed more quickly.
As for pollution from burning fuel, yes EVs are much better, but there's still some fuel involved upstream in many cases, and the drag from high speed results in less range which means more fuel for a given distance.
I’d probably agree with you over a beer about the former. The latter? EVs don’t pollute more at higher speeds (modulo the tire thing), but they use their charge faster and have to recharge sooner, and whatever’s providing that electricity uses just a little more resources than it would otherwise.
He will be missed; he's a hero in my social circles.