1
   

Prius Outpollutes Hummer

 
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Mar, 2007 06:43 am
Chai wrote:
Why would you be an idiot it you stayed in the right lane and didn't get in anyones way and got to your destination at the same time they did, using less gas and spending less money.


Because most freeways are only two lanes, and anyone going that slow in either one f--ks up the flow of traffic, and should be ticketed for doing so.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Mar, 2007 07:24 am
Anybody who sticks to the legal speed limit should be ticketed?

Now there's logic for you..
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Mar, 2007 07:28 am
nimh wrote:
Anybody who sticks to the legal speed limit should be ticketed?

Now there's logic for you..


There are minimums as well - and they are typically set too low for safety on clear roads. Speed differences are what cause most problems. US freeway speed limits range from 55-75 - but nobody goes slower than 70, except those that want to impede.
0 Replies
 
Chai
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Mar, 2007 07:31 am
Yeah, especially when I said those that don't get in anyones way. Rolling Eyes

Most highways are 2 lanes? Where? In bum-f*ck egypt?

Do you mean 2 lanes going one way, and 2 lanes the other? Well, yeah, around town, where you wouldn't be going 75 anyway unless you were on crack. Those are roads.

Highways are 3 lanes (at least) going each way.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Mar, 2007 07:34 am
No, they're not, not in MOST of the U.S. Two lanes each way is the norm.

And I think you are talking about freeways, not highways. Highways are often only one lane each way with a dashed painted line down the middle.

Still, if the limit is 70, and you're going 55, you are a danger to other drivers.
0 Replies
 
Chai
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Mar, 2007 07:40 am
Again, if drivers going less than 70 STAY OUT OF OTHERS WAY. what's the problem.

the minimum speed is well below 55 on a highway.

anyway, what's the deal with the thinking that because a road is built for what you say is 70, you are required to drive that speed? That is sheep thinking.

From what observe on a daily basis, people who are driving 70 and above are in no way driving safely, especially with the distractions of cell phones, kids, and free starbucks.

I'd like to see the stats on accidents accuring when drivers where going one speed or another on the highway.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Mar, 2007 07:42 am
Do you drive a Volvo? Laughing
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Mar, 2007 07:43 am
The NRA says that over a million accidents a year could be prevented by arming every car.
0 Replies
 
Chai
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Mar, 2007 07:53 am
cjhsa wrote:
Do you drive a Volvo? Laughing



huh?
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Mar, 2007 11:41 pm
cjhsa wrote:
nimh wrote:
Speed differences are what cause most problems.
There are reasonable grounds to ague that it's the speed differential itself that causes a consequential percentage of multi-car accidents and not the absolute speed per se, and in fact some countries are listening to this idea. Accident stats and posted speed limits aside however, I don't see much energy conservation on the streets of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.


Quote:
The primary conclusion of this research is that the majority of motorist on the nonlimited access rural and urban highways examined in this study did not decrease or increase their speed as a result of either lowering or raising the posted speed limit by 4, 10, or 15 mi/h (8, 16, or 24 km/h). In other words, this nationwide study confirms the results of numerous other observational studies which found that the majority or motorist do not alter their speed to conform to speed limits they perceive as unreasonable for prevailing conditions.

The data clearly show that lowering posted speed limits did not reduce vehicle speeds or accidents. Also, lowering speed limits well below the 86th percentile speed did not increase speeds and accidents. Conversely, raising the posted speed limits did not increase speeds and accidents. The majority of motorist did not drive 5 to 10 mi/h (8 to 16 km/h) above the posted speed limit when speed limits were raised, nor did they reduce their speed by 5 or 10 mi/h (8 to 16 km/h) when speed limits were lowered.

Because there were few changes in the speed distribution, it is not surprising that the overall effects of speed limit changes on accidents were minor. It is interesting to note that compliance decreased when speed limits were lowered and accidents tended to increase. Conversely, when compliance improved after speed limits are raised, accidents tended to decrease.

Based on the sites examined in 22 States, it is apparent that the majority of highway agencies set speed limits below the average speed of traffic as opposed to setting limits in the upper region of the minimum accident risk band or about 85th percentile speed. This practice means that more than one-half of the motorist are in technical violation of the speed limits laws.
http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel.html
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Mar, 2007 06:19 am
If I fly an aircraft at 70MPH and follow the freeway, and you drive a car and do your best to maintain 70MPH, I will beat you every single time. The reason? You have to avoid all the pokey butt obstacles.
0 Replies
 
Chai
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Mar, 2007 08:03 am
That is the best arguement I have ever heard in my life.

I think there should be a strong push for every person to get an airplane and fly them over roads at 70mph.

If any of these airplanes lower their speed to 65, their asses should be shot out of the air by phantom jets.



Oh, and those friggin' ambulances. Did you know you are actually supposed to slow down, even pull off the road when one of them is behind you with those whirly lights and sirens going on?

What kind of bullshit is that? Those lights and sirens need to be taken out of those vehicles immediately.

And schoolbuses? Oy, don't get me started.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Mar, 2007 08:17 am
the lady Diane and meself have 2 german cars. A Porsche and a Chrysler plus one american truck, a Toyota.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Mar, 2007 08:18 am
But do you fire your NRA-sanctioned automatic weapons at slow drivers? That makes you a real American.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Mar, 2007 08:21 am
DrewDad wrote:
But do you fire your NRA-sanctioned automatic weapons at slow drivers? That makes you a real American.

Yes, yes of course we do. There are way too many illegal aliens in New Mexico and some of them drive too slow. You can't take chances.
0 Replies
 
Slappy Doo Hoo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Mar, 2007 08:22 am
I think on MA highways, the speed limit is usually 65mph, with a minimum of 45. 45 would be ridiculously slow, but no matter what, you can't chastise anyone for simply driving the speed limit. Unless they're in the passing lane holding up faster traffic...common sense should come into play there.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Mar, 2007 08:30 am
Texas law says "slower traffic keep right," so impeding faster lanes breaks the law.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Mar, 2007 08:35 am
Chai wrote:
That is the best arguement I have ever heard in my life.


I've been here how long and you finally figure that out??? Laughing

Dys - had to laugh at your three car post. An awful lot of Michigan hates Toyota but for no reason other than fear of change. Detroit keeps electing same-minded politicians, who try to attract business by raising taxes... smart, eh? Latest: Dow Chemical is being sold and moving most manufacturing to India....
0 Replies
 
Slappy Doo Hoo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Mar, 2007 08:53 am
DrewDad wrote:
Texas law says "slower traffic keep right," so impeding faster lanes breaks the law.


There are signs up here on some of the highways too...I want to say Maine has them, and people follow the suggestion for the most part. In MA, people are flat out a$$holes, and think it's their right to impede traffic in the left lane as long as they're going the speed limit. All this does is cause road rage(or a handful of nickels being tossed out the sunroof onto their windshield). Pulling over to the right for passing cars doesn't make you any weaker of a person.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Mar, 2007 09:00 am
They do the same thing here, but sometimes for a different reason. Michigan has no money and get little from the feds to build roads, so they take shortcuts - literally. Many on/off ramps and major merges on the the left. You'll be tooling along passing in the left lane and suddenly there's a car over your left shoulder. Very odd, especially if you're from California where major efforts have been put forth to put all the ramps on the right, even if it involves expensive flyovers. There are even places where two onramps appear - on each side of a freeway, simultaneously.

I could understand it if there was a space problem like Boston or NYC but there isn't. It occurs repeatedly in the middle of nowhere.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/20/2024 at 09:12:39