Quote :

"Just because some local government determines what the best speed limit is for the lowest common denominator of a driver is doesn't mean going faster is dangerous."

No, physics means going faster is dangerous. Of course, having a large delta-v with the other cars around you (which are most likely speeding) is *also* dangerous.

Quote :

"And I think we can assume that everyone in this thread is responsible enough to closely follow the speed limits in urban and residential areas."

Given the extremely low percentage of people I see following the speed limits anywhere, I'd say we can assume the exact opposite.

12/11/2012 3:21:21 PM

Quote :

"Just because some local government determines what the best speed limit is for the lowest common denominator of a driver is doesn't mean going faster is dangerous."

i think the thousands of studies that show that speeding is a major cause of traffic accidents means that going faster is dangerous. common sense also leads to that conclusion.

(and local governments don't set speed limits, except on locally-owned roads, which there aren't a lot of)

12/11/2012 3:23:47 PM

Safety dictates that speed n-1 is always safer than n. There are no other factors to consider. Thus, speed limits should be zero.

12/11/2012 3:50:11 PM

There are reasonable arguments to be made about safe traveling speeds given road conditions, topology, traffic patterns, likelihood of pedestrians, etc...

And then there's this ^.

12/11/2012 3:53:37 PM

You're just being silly now, but you are right. If everyone only drove 10 mph, traffic accidents, and especially traffic fatalities would dramatically decrease. Speed limits are based on studies that look at the trade-off of convenience vs. safety.

It's not the government trying to interfere in your life.

12/11/2012 3:53:40 PM

The problem is ultimately that we only get to set one level for reasonable risk-tolerance. Plenty of people would set it higher and some would set it lower. But regardless, it's a collective choice and not an individual choice. You can drive slower and you don't really make yourself safer.

The cavalier attitude some people here express reflects the view that our speed limit (and possibly the concept itself) is wholly unreasonable. I'm not sure what the best way to deal with that is.

12/11/2012 4:45:43 PM

Quote :

"You can drive slower and you don't really make yourself safer."

Asserted without evidence. Given no other cars in your immediate vicinity, you are inarguably safer going slower. I don't buy that the increased risk the times there are cars right up in your grill outweighs the risk you're reducing by going a little slower. Lower speed = more room for slower reaction times and less kinetic energy.

This of course says nothing about what the best speed is in terms of risk/travel time trade-offs.

12/11/2012 5:01:59 PM

Quote :

"Given no other cars in your immediate vicinity, you are inarguably safer going slower."

I don't think you'll argue this for the interstate, which comprises a huge fraction of total travel. Sure, there are roads where you can go slower and be safer, but in other cases the optimal conservatism is more of a range. I never meant to imply that there is no sensitivity to your own speed. There is a combination of individual and collective risk determination.

12/11/2012 5:17:40 PM

Quote :

"I don't think you'll argue this for the interstate, which comprises a huge fraction of total travel."

He said if no other cars are in your vicinity. So of course it'd be safer to go 30 on the interstate than 70.

12/11/2012 6:13:45 PM

Colorado has an interstate pace car program, hiring off-duty police officers to purposely slow traffic speeds. It has been a resounding success.

Quote :

"“I tell people you have to slow down to go faster, and that’s really hard to think about. But it’s the same concept if you think about pouring rice through a funnel. If you dump a bunch of rice in, it clogs, you get a few that come through. But if you go slow and easy, you get a heck of a lot more through in a faster period of time,” Stacey Stegman with CDOT said."

12/11/2012 9:11:29 PM

Quote :

"I don't think you'll argue this for the interstate, which comprises a huge fraction of total travel. Sure, there are roads where you can go slower and be safer, but in other cases the optimal conservatism is more of a range. I never meant to imply that there is no sensitivity to your own speed. There is a combination of individual and collective risk determination."

I think everyone should be able to agree with this. As to rural areas and interstates people are naive to think it's all about safety. That was never the intent of the original federal 55 mph speed limit.

Quote :

"Of course, having a large delta-v with the other cars around you (which are most likely speeding) is *also* dangerous."

It's been shown that the speed that 70% (or more) of vehicles on a given road is the safest speed. So if 70% of the people on I-40 are going 75, its the safest speed. In fact Michigan has a law related to this in which some of the speed limits are determined by the speed that most people travel.

[Edited on December 12, 2012 at 8:15 AM. Reason : k]

12/12/2012 8:13:28 AM

12/12/2012 4:53:26 PM

Where is the baby?

12/12/2012 6:23:08 PM

^^^why did you post that last quote if your response is basically supporting what the quote said? if the findings are that it is safest when people travel the same speed, then a large delta-v would be unsafe

12/12/2012 9:42:17 PM

Because I said that most people speed. So the people that follow the limit are the ones causing the delta V. Make sense now?

12/13/2012 8:09:37 AM

Again, even the best driver in the world is putting himself in danger by speeding, precisely because somebody else driving poorly might require him to slow down below a certain speed to avoid an accident. If he's going too fast to slow down that much, and he's over the speed limit, it's his own fault if he gets hurt.


[Edited on December 13, 2012 at 11:01 AM. Reason : .]

12/13/2012 11:00:48 AM

Quote :

"Because I said that most people speed. So the people that follow the limit are the ones causing the delta V. Make sense now?"

I'm pretty sure that actual data would prove you wrong. As in, the distribution has a longer tail on the high speed side.

But even putting that aside, going 15 mph over the speed limit creates about the same risk as going 25 mph under the speed limit.

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/speedlimits.html

12/13/2012 11:24:39 AM

(arbitrary units)

12/13/2012 11:55:55 AM

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_distribution)

12/13/2012 12:11:05 PM

This thread needs some Russian dashcam gifs.

12/13/2012 12:12:31 PM

Quote :

"Again, even the best driver in the world is putting himself in danger by speeding, precisely because somebody else driving poorly might require him to slow down below a certain speed to avoid an accident. If he's going too fast to slow down that much, and he's over the speed limit, it's his own fault if he gets hurt. "

I don't disagree with this statement. But I have no problem accepting the risk of going 20-30 mph over the speed limit on a mostly empty interstate. I'm not saying this is something I often do but under proper conditions I see nothing wrong with it.

[Edited on December 14, 2012 at 9:54 AM. Reason : k]

12/14/2012 9:53:15 AM

Quote :

"Because I said that most people speed."

well it's easy to make your argument work when you frame it in completely false pretexts

12/14/2012 9:39:06 PM

What? Almost everyone speeds.

12/15/2012 1:26:16 AM

The statement "everyone speeds" could be taken to mean that everyone has sped at one point in their life. I think it would be fair to say that almost everyone speeds at least occasionally.

One crazy thing I've noticed is how bad speedometers seemingly are. In most cars I've tried this in, it seemed like the speedometer consistently gave about 3 mph lower than what the GDS unit will assess. I think it makes most sense that they're adjusted to be conservative, so that people don't speed without knowing it and blame the equipment.

But there's a problem with that. If a device gives me a value that's anything other than a best estimate because of how it thinks I'm going to behave, then I'm going to adjust my behavior based on how I think the device is lying to me. In the end, it's just another way for people to mentally discredit the system. It reinforces the thinking that "yeah, there are rules, but they're not reasonable, so we have no obligation to the rule itself."

If you're cruising down the road in 70 mph zone, you're really going the speed limit if the needle is a little bit beyond the mark.

12/15/2012 11:17:48 AM

Quote :

" In most cars I've tried this in, it seemed like the speedometer consistently gave about 3 mph lower than what the GDS unit will assess."

That's interesting as I have never witnessed that phenomena in any vehicle (equipped with OEM sized wheels/tires). All vehicle speedometers are slightly off from the vehicle's true speed from the factory. However they are all off in that a higher speed is displayed, not the other way around, for obvious reasons.

12/17/2012 2:37:10 PM

I, too, have never seen them reading low. I have seen them reading high.

12/17/2012 3:21:51 PM

Quote :

"But I have no problem accepting the risk of going 20-30 mph over the speed limit on a mostly empty interstate."

Are you willing to accept this risk on behalf of those you share the road with?

12/17/2012 10:33:36 PM

^^, ^^^ dammit, I meant to say it reads higher. You are correct, that's what I meant to argue

12/18/2012 12:48:09 PM

The Police State Comes To Arkansas

Quote :

""[Police are] going to be in SWAT gear and have AR-15s around their neck," Stovall said. "If you're out walking, we're going to stop you, ask why you're out walking, check for your ID." Stovall said while some people may be offended by the actions of his department, they should not be. "We're going to do it to everybody," he said. "Criminals don't like being talked to." Gaskill backed Stovall's proposed actions during Thursday's town hall. "They may not be doing anything but walking their dog," he said. "But they're going to have to prove it." . . . "This fear is what's given us the reason to do this. Once I have stats and people saying they're scared, we can do this," he said. "It allows us to do what we're fixing to do." . . . "To ask you for your ID, I have to have a reason," he said. "Well, I've got statistical reasons that say I've got a lot of crime right now, which gives me probable cause to ask what you're doing out. Then when I add that people are scared...then that gives us even more [reason] to ask why are you here and what are you doing in this area." . . . "Anyone that's out walking, because of the crime and the fear factor, [could be stopped]," he said . . . Individuals who do not produce identification when asked could be charged with obstructing a governmental operation, according to Stovall."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/radley-balko/the-police-state-comes-to_b_2321878.html

[Edited on December 18, 2012 at 1:10 PM. Reason : ]

12/18/2012 1:09:13 PM

^^lol

Quote :

"Are you willing to accept this risk on behalf of those you share the road with?"

What part of "mostly empty" did you misunderstand? I would never pass someone on a 2 lane interstate with a delta V of 30 mph.

12/19/2012 11:44:15 AM

^^ if they actually proceed to ID everyone on the street like he's saying, I'm curious to see how long that lasts.

it might only take one good lawyer (or their client), stopped and ID'd without real PC, before they change their tune. I hope so, anyway.

12/19/2012 5:53:54 PM

^^ I guess I misunderstood the part where you said mostly and not completely, which is apparently what you really meant. I also misunderstood the part where single-vehicle accidents occur in a vacuum, involve only the driver, and have no impact on others.

12/19/2012 10:28:11 PM

2/8/2013 9:59:02 AM

Only police should have guns.

2/8/2013 10:35:30 AM

Anecdotal evidence is not evidence. Should I start providing examples of children killing themselves with unsecured guns (there was a good one with a pink handgun earlier this week) and would that make any point whatsoever?

Also, what does this have to do with being a police state? A disgruntled ex-cop goes on a killing spree?

[Edited on February 8, 2013 at 10:54 AM. Reason : .]

2/8/2013 10:53:28 AM

I think that the point was that they are so trigger happy they shot at two blue trucks because they were blue trucks.

While in no way do the circumstances of this, and the fact that the cops are on high alert and probably a little nervous, excuse shooting at innocent people, it does make it a poor example of excessive police powers

2/8/2013 11:16:06 AM

If there's no recourse for the shootings then I'll agree. Expecting cops to be emotionless robots who never make mistakes is dumb.

2/8/2013 11:37:41 AM

7/5/2013 1:41:29 PM

Refusing to put your window down makes it look like you are trying to hide the smell of your breath or that of drugs. The police were rightly suspicious because of that, and likely would not have bothered him further if he complied. Putting your window down is not unreasonable, but I guess some of these libertarian police baiters think it is. However causing a fake reaction by the dog in order to search the car was obviously some bullshit.

7/5/2013 6:00:53 PM

he was perfectly within his rights. folks like you are the reason they get away with this shit.

7/5/2013 6:19:35 PM

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/07/%E2%80%9Cwhy_did_you_shoot_me_i_was_reading_a_book_the_new_warrior_cop_is_out_of_control/

Mentions the poker game in Cary that got raided. I think a fellow TWWer was at that one.

7/8/2013 11:55:12 AM

^^ Are you sure that you are not required to roll down your window if asked by police at a traffic stop or checkpoint? Regardless though, the cop never even asked if he was drinking.

Also, I don't know if the cop was intentionally causing the dog to alert, but false alerts happen all the time and they are almost impossible to track or confirm. I'd guess only a small percentage are because the officer is causing the dog to alert, but it does still point out the problem of using them the way they do at stops. The recent Supreme Court case involving dog searches was decided based mostly (though not entirely) on other issues, however the questioning during the case pointed out a lot of these issues. see Florida v. Jardines, 11-564.

7/8/2013 12:39:27 PM

i'm pretty skeptical about cops (see the thread in chit-chat about the cop shooting the dog), and the cop was being a dick, but the kid was being a douche and was asking for it. It probably could have all been avoided if he rolled his window down another inch or two instead of being a douche and saying "no, it's fine". Of course that angered the cop and made him suspicious of the kid. If the kid rolled his window down further and the cop was still a dick, then I'd criticize the cop.

7/8/2013 1:06:21 PM

Evidence of a GOP state:
http://dangerousminds.net/comments/masked_heavily_armed_paramilitary_rent_a_cops_are_freaking_out_wisconsin

7/9/2013 6:01:02 PM

^^Either way, I'd be going to court over the scratches on my paint from that dog.

7/9/2013 8:42:17 PM

everything i've ever read says that enough space to talk and hand him your papers is enough. if anyone knows what the NCGS says about it, i'd like to hear. however, the cop is going to do everything he can to write you a citation at that point. he'll probably ask you to exit the vehicle, which is legal for him to do. at this point, you can legally roll up the window, remove the key from the ignition, exit the vehicle, and lock the doors. he'll probably try to radio for a dog. if the dog can't be there in a reasonable amount of time (rule of thumb is 15 minutes, i think) and he can't otherwise form "reasonable suspicion", then he has to let you go with your citation.

your best bet is to roll the window down like they want. if they want to search your car, they will find a way. therefore, you're best off making them think it's not worth the time and effort to do so.

7/9/2013 9:47:03 PM

It just sounds exhausting to care about procedure and what you can/can't do. Maybe I'm contributing to the apparent 1984 that the US has become from reading TWW, but it's so much easier and quicker to just do what they ask... every time I've been polite I've gotten a warning and that's all (in WV, NE and NC).

7/10/2013 7:59:22 AM

Third Amendment violation? Questionable given that police are technically not soldiers. That being said, breaking down a door, throwing a person out of his home, pepperballing his dog just so you can get a tactical advantage is a gross violation of personal rights.

http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/05/nevada-family-says-police-occupation-vio

7/10/2013 10:23:21 AM

I hope they make the argument that the agency receives federal funds, receives federal (and often military) training, often works with federal agencies in the enforcement of federal laws, and is thus not effectively different for the purpose and intention of the amendment

7/10/2013 12:02:15 PM

Woman almost shot in a warrantless invasion of her home by police
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20130718/COLUMNIST/130719612/2256/NEWS?p=1&tc=pg

7/21/2013 1:46:48 PM