Husband got 2 tickets on top of Grapevine in CA- question? Please read!!?!

So what you are saying is that a cop can't catch an unsafe driver from the side of the road?

Do you think doing 51 in a 35 mph zone is safe? 16mph over the speed limit seems unsafe to me.

Speed is a factor in around 1/3 of all fatal car accidents. I think what you mean to say is higher posted speed limits have no affect on road safety.

 

If you can say that with a straight face, then you should join the infamous Burlington Liars Club and enter the competition, link here: http://www.burlingtonliarsclub.com/

The winner of the first competition in 1929 was a police chief who said he had never told a lie in his life. I think that you, as a trucker who says he has never exceeded speed limits would be the instant winner. Go for it, I will be cheering for you.

As for me, when I was a rookie driver running my first trip (only a 500 mile run), I tried to obey all signs because I wanted to be a perfect driver like you, but I kept seeing signs stating "clean rest rooms ahead." It took me 2 months to finally complete my 500 mile run and deliver the load. I had cleaned 450 rest rooms, used 267 rolls of paper towels, three cases of bowl cleaner and 86 bottles of Windex. I was tired and I was out of log book. So I gave up trying to be perfect.

So tell us, Old Six Pack, how do you manage to be so perfect? (This is your cue for another tall tale)

 

Without going to the trouble of double checking the information you didn't check out, I'm going to assume we're both correct when we identify Big Sky Country as the state that had no speed limit on their stretch of interstate highway, ...... and had no problems with "safety", or lack thereof, as defined by the feds.

However, that fact, in and of itself, created a problem with the federal government. The problem was there was no problem. So a problem was created so the federal government could solve a problem that didn't exist prior to their mandated reduction of highway speeds, so they could take credit for the solution to a non-existent "safety" problem, and also creating the illusion that all the states agreed with the feds that speeds above 55 mph were excessive and created an unsafe condition.

But Montana was more realistic, basing their opinion on facts gleaned from reviewing their own safety statistics and concluding that, based on factual evidence, they weren't experiencing a "safety" issue that the federal government claimed every state was experiencing, and for that reason the federal government encouraged all the states to set a speed limit that the feds claimed was "safer", --- although I don't recall any research conducted by the feds to arrive at that conclusion.

When Montana preferred to go by factual road safety records instead, the federal government cautioned the Montana officials that their decisions could, potentially, cause serious problems. The Montana officials didn't agree and made it known that they saw no logical reason why they should post speed limits on their stretches of interstate highway in the perceived interest of "safety".

It was then that the federal government informed Montana that they'd receive no federal funding if they didn't post lower speed limits, --- in the interest of "safety", of course. Montana officials tried to reason with the feds to no avail. The problem that Montana was creating for the feds was that it would cause other states to doubt the accuracy of the fed's claim that "speed kills". Threatened with the loss of needed federal funding, Montana reluctantly agreed to post speed limits on their portion of interstate highway.

If my memory serves me correctly, that happened during the "oil shortage" of the late 1970's, in an effort to conserve fuel. Years later when the alleged "oil shortage" was over and states were raising their speed limits above 55 mph on the interstate highways, the feds predicted the result would be a drastic increase in the carnage out on the highways, and warned of higher death and serious injury rates as a direct result of allowing higher speeds, reminding us again that "speed kills". But the states didn't listen and raised speed limits anyway. Some states increased from 55 mph to 70 and 75 mph, much to the horror of the feds, who were sure that would cause a problem.

If lowering the death and injury rate noticeably is a "problem", the feds were correct. However, if the interest was truly "safety" reasons, and the prevention of deaths and/or serious injuries, the feds were incorrect.
Imagine that.

If reactions to actions are actually based in fact, the fact may be that by forcing states to lower their speed limits, it's quite possible that the federal government actually contributed to the recorded increase in traffic deaths and serious injuries nationwide in their claimed attempt to save us from ourselves.

For starters, the slogan chanted that, "Speed Kills" is totally incorrect. If speed kills, how is it possible that land-speed records of over 600 mph have been set at Bonneville Salt Flats in Utah by human drivers who lived to tell about their experience? According to the fed's reasoning, they should be deader than dead. But they're not, and I think that's proof that speed doesn't kill. What does have the potential to kill and/or injure is when there's a sudden stop involved at most any speed. Unrestrained mass in motion meeting a stationary, solid object, is actually the problem to be concerned about, not speed per se.

Physics tells us that, in actuality, two matters can not occupy the same space at the same time. It's also true that two, or more, objects traveling at the same speed in the same direction do not collide with each other. Contrast those facts with states that insist on split speed limits in their claimed interest of "safety" and one could conclude that safety kills, using the same illogical logic used by those who are trusted to have our best interest in mind, --- who apparently don't follow a thought through to a logical conclusion, --- thereby actually creating what they claim to be preventing. It seems the facts are too confusing to comprehend for them, so instead they have a typical knee-jerk reaction to solve a problem that doesn't exist in reality, and instead actually has the opposite effect concerning "safety" on the highways. Which, IMO, proves that there are none so blind as those who will not see the error in their way of thinking, --- if thinking is actually involved in their reasoning process in the first place.
Ya reckon.

In conclusion, I urge everyone to drive safely to save lives. I figure the life y'all save could be mine, and I appreciate that.
Yes I do. :smt045

 

Strat24, what is your source? Here are excerpts from http://www.truckinfo.net/trucking/stats.htm that says, " Estimates of 41,000 to 45,000 traffic deaths occur every year within the U.S. Fewer than 9% of those deaths involve commercial vehicles. More than 80% of those accidents are the fault of the non-commercial driver."

So, since the 4-wheeler is at fault in 80% of the accidents involving commercial vehicles, then it should follow that safety could be most improved by targeting the 4-wheelers, and not the commercial vehicles. Strat24, my quick research today indicates that your arguments opposing the Iceman's revenue vs. safety concept FAIL on many levels, unless you can provide a legitimate source for your stats.

 

Where do you get your 1/3 from? The Feds? That's a joke, read some independent studies of the speed kills slogan. I never stated that 51 in a 35 was safe, I don't know why they had the speed limit set at that. So I can't say, but on open Interstate 75-85 is perfectly safe. But, just as an example the highway department lowered the speed limit on the Interstate, near where I live, for maintenance. The speed limit remained lower and people were still getting tickets 6 months after the maintenance was complete.

 

Even if it was 1/3, that means 2/3 werent caused by speed. This is just like how the ATA, who supports mandatory speed limiters, says that 20% of truck accidents caused by excessive speed occur over 65mph...that means 80% occur less than 65 mph....I love ######## statistics.

I have reached triple digit speeds (but not starting with 6) in a car and motorcycle on an interstate highway. car was late at night, motorcycle was on a sunday afternoon after i had completely confirmed no troopers in the area.

The 3am car ride, there was nothing unsafe at all about it. Most interstate highways are designed for speeds *atleast* that high, with some corners to slow down for.

The motorcycle, well, most of the cars were doing 85 or so anyway....i was even in the right lane the whole time....i slowed down because there was an overpass approaching However this was not so bright on a michigan road.


I want to build a land speed record test vehicle. I probably wont break any records but I bet the dont have any class for a SEMI TRUCK!


But seriously, ive watched them and both tracks are so long that you can be geared waay high. I saw bikes that had to be pushed to get going, but were exceeding 200 mph. I just think it would be great fun. I'd build a car out of a darn 55 gallon drum (jk).

 

I can't find the one I was reading earlier but I did find this one. http://www.saferoads.org/issues/fs-speed.htm . I said 1/3 of Fatal accidents not 1/3 of all accidents. How many accidents are fatal?


All I have to say is 51 in a 35 is not safe.

 

I agree 75-85 is safe on the interstate. I never said anything against raising the posted speed limit.

 

How do you completely confirm no troopers are in the area?

 

Here is something that might help if anyone gets a speeding ticket.

http://www.blurofinsanity.com/Speeding.html