Taken to the extreme the "increased reaction time" argument should be applied so that nobody travels faster than 10 mph. After all, speeding is inherently riskier because it reduces reaction time. Heck, maybe everyone should just walk so that we maximize the reaction time that we all have.


We have to draw the line somewhere, just like we draw the line at .08 BAC.

Here's a question. Is it ok to let someone go who has .081 BAC? The answer is no. Why? Because .08 is the line that we as a society draw, and that's the law. Just like 75mph may be the speed limit so 80mph is against the law. You have to have consistency in the enforcement of all laws, not just the ones you like.

I think the challenge is that the risk in drinking goes up exponentially faster than the risk associated with speed, all other things being equal.



You won't get argument on that point from me (since there's no evidence to support it either way). I would actually tend to that hypothesis myself. My point again though is that speeding (and other risky behavior) is what ultimately kills. And you don't have to be drunk to do it. Thus it shouldn't be taken so lightly as it curently is.

Another analogy. Take hate crime. A gang of dudes of a certain race beat to death another dude of a different race. Murder is murder and should be prosecuted as such. If we have to use the extenuating circumstance of the hate aspect to get them all the harshest sentence, then we are being too lax in our prosecution of murder by itself.

[/indent]
It's interesting that you are willing to accept the line that society has drawn for the BAC level but do not accept the punishments that society has determined for speeding.

Why is it interesting to you now all of a sudden? That's been the point of all my posts today. Maybe you need to go back and read mine again too.

Edit: I don't accept the current BAC cutoff either. And for the record, I think the punishment for drunk driving is still far too lax.

Of course it doesn't apply to all the Mr. Jones' out there genec. That would be an absolute.

Given that there are millions of Mr. and Mrs. Jones' out there exceeding the speed limit everyday and the relatively low accident rates that are solely caused by the Jones' exceeded the speed limit by a moderate amount (as are the rest of the folks who are part of the same traffic stream) the risks to the Jones, and to other folks is relatively low.

All of your "what ifs" and worse case scenarios don't change that.

I'll agree that the risks to the Jones' are low... especially in their seatbelted airbaged vehicles... it's the "other folks" I am really worried about. (as I may just be one of them). And since cyclists barely represent 2% of all trips out there... and so many hug the curb (according to many opinions here) then they are not likely to be hit by the Jones' in any large numbers... are they? But surprisingly pedestrians die at a much higher rate for their trip percentage than do motorists... must be part of that group of "other folks," eh?

But regarding the Jones' in general... according to NHTSA, 1/3 of all accidents are speed related. So I suppose those 15,000 or so deaths are to be considered relatively low?

I know this is a tangent... but speeding is a pet peeve for me. You and I have crossed "pens" on this before. I just wanted to chime in. We aren't gonna resolve anything here, but I had to throw in my 2 cents.

I know this is a tangent... but speeding is a pet peeve for me.

To me, intentional speeding is unforgiveable. To increase risk that greatly just to save a few minutes is ridiculous. For those that blame "peer pressure" or "everyone else is doing it," go jump off a bridge with everyone else too while you're at it.

As for the habitual speeders, their license should be taken away because they obviously haven't learned to control their car fully. I actually know some ppl who speed because they're incapable of reading their speedometers while driving. Scary.

Post busted DUI drivers' mug shots in the morning paper.

Compared to the total miles that speeders drive vs. total miles that drunks drive, yes. Hence my use of "relatively."

Some other points of interest about speed-related fatalities:

The NHTSA (2004 data) claims that 40% of the 13,000 speed related deaths involved drivers with a BAC of .08+. 30% were between .01-.07

44-48% (depending upon age group) of those speed-related fatalities involved drivers that were not wearing their seat belts.

86% of those fatalities occurred on roads that were not Interstate highways

21% of the speeding drivers did not have a valid drivers license

Hmmm interesting, so drunk and speeding eh. I thought I had read that it was a breakdown of 1/3 due to excessive speed, 1/3 due to drunk/drugs, 1/3 due to inattention. Now I have rounded the numbers a bit to make them easier to remember.

The issue I have a hard time with is the 86% non interstate deaths... that means these idiots (using the term loosely) were out driving the same streets I cycle... and that IS what concerns me.

Heck if 86% were interstate related deaths... I'd breath a sigh of relief.

But darn; "fast and drunk..." I'm gonna start wearing armor. ;)

It's interesting because you're inconsistent about when the line that we as a society draw is applied.

That is incorrect. I'm arguing for more severe punishment when the line is crossed when it comes to speeding, not to re-draw lines.

BTW, intentionally speeding can save hours sometimes, not just minutes. It can also be much more fun.



Wow ok. Please stay out of my state, thanks.

Funny, I always thought that the penalties were too lenient considering the risk to others.
I completely agree, but for some strange reason, most of our DUII clients seem to think they're being picked on by "The System". :rolleyes:

...and yet in the comment that I replied to you were perfectly fine with letting society set the BAC limits while at the same time not being satisfied with society setting speeding penalties. Hence my point about the inconsistency.



What state is that?

I'm still waiting for an answer to my questions (1) about how you equate "habitually speeding" with not learning how to fully control a car and (2) How did you determine that the risk is "increased greatly"? and (3) Risk to whom?

Having been through driving schools, and done just a touch of scca driving (but still a novice), I can tell you that there are substantial differences in ability required to control a car in emergency maneuvers at 65 vs 85-90mph. Don't kid yourself. Everyone thinks they are a good driver. Probably less than 5% actually are.

Also it's been improperly noted in many instances that speed decreases reaction time. Reaction time is a constant usually relating to the time it takes to create an action (ie gas to brake). What speed decreases is the time available to make that decision. They are not the same thing. Speed's greatest problem is increased breaking distance.

Speeding is more dangerous than driving the speed limit, or at least very close to it. It's why most states add wreckless driving to the charge when going more than 20mph over the posted limit.

Here's an interesting stat I just got via email via MD's advocacy group, One Less Car
"Its a shocking fact, but a person hit by a car at 30 mph has an almost 90 percent chance of surviving, while if that same person is hit at 40 mph the chance of survival is less than 20 percent."

The question was "How did you determine that the risk is "increased greatly"?
The same principles apply during emergency maneuvers at 65 and 85-90 mph. The inputs just need to be more subtle as the speed increases since it is easier to upset the vehicle.
I know I'm not kidding myself. The differences are not as substantial as you are making them out to be.
Nevertheless only 5% are capable of performing emergency maneuvers at 90mph where as 70% get them at the speed limit. -This accding to one of my instructors and demonstrated by the class.


You're getting into the "complete stop" fallacy. In order to perform an emergency maneuver it's not always necessary to come to a complete stop. Avoiding a hazard is often enough.
No I'm talking about threshold breaking and avoiding the hazard. Getting from 90-45 is much harder than 60-45. You have a better shot at survival at lower impacts, as does the person in the car you impact. If you are only able to brake for 3 seconds, the impact forces are much worse when you're starting at 90 than when you're starting at 65.


Yes, in some cases, but the question is how are you determining that the risk is "greatly increased"?
By what I've observed with my own eyes, and hold your breath...logic. Great is a subjective term. I'm using that term because I saw it in 100% of the students in one of classes. Obviously it's a small pool to sample from but nevertheless, it's what I observed.


I'm also still trying to figure out how you equate "habitually speeding" with not learning how to fully control a car. How did you come to that conclusion? I don't think I mentioned that initially. There isn't a causal relationship, but those that speed are going to generally be less cautious. I can tell you that most drivers in scca (at least the ones I've met) realize that the track is the place for speed, not the highways and they drive like it whether they are pulling a trailer or not.


Wreckless driving sounds like something to strive for! (rimshot)

Nice.:rolleyes:

This is all common sense and the reason speed is a factor in 30-40% of fatalities. The faster you start at, the faster you're going when there is an impact, the more likely you are to be injured or injure someone else. There is no argument to those facts of physics.

What was the emergency maneuver that your class was doing and how big was your class? I've never seen that high of a failure rate and it doesn't follow my experience. That's a very high failure rate.
it was a skid recovery. no one got it the first time. class was probably 15ppl and probably 15 years ago. in subsequent classes it probably hasn't been that low, but again, I firmly believe that the vast majority of ppl can't handle emeg situations. they seem to all overcorrect. Adding speed to the mix only adds fuel to the fire. If you can brake, steer and correct in an emerg while doing 85, you're the exception to the rule, imo.

If you avoided the hazard there are no impact forces...
of course. My point being it's easier for the average joe to avoid after 2-3 secs of braking when down to 45 vs 60.

Avoiding a hazard does not necessarily require decelerating to 45. In many cases it's a simple steering input, coupled with a bit of throttle. Yes, you want to be going as slowly as possible if you're going to hit something else.

I think that we're really splitting hairs at this point.
fair enough



Ok, anecdotal evidence based upon your observation of one class. I understand what you're basing your opinion on now.

My bad. That was the other guy.
I'm basing my opinion on several classes and what I've observed in 20+ years of traveling the highways. The only thing I've said that isn't annecdotal is the 30-40% speed factor in fatalities, and no one is disputing that. If you remove it, the accidents would go down. You can't logically say they wouldn't.


Wow, we have vastly different experiences then. Almost all of the track guys that I've observed driving to the track (five tracks in fact) have been speeding, whether they were towing or not.
I should probably clarify that I'm sure they weren't going 55. At that point I'm talking 85-90.
I've only traveled to one track regularly, and another probably 10-15 years ago.

lemme try to stick this in between the flames. from the www.signsonsandiego.com article,

"She lately had been pursuing a career as an emergency medical technician"

She can hit'em and then treat'em. Full service EMS!



...I'm an EMT, btw.

Darn good question... I have never figured that one out either.

As far as PR, boy that sure is a long way to go for publicity. I would think running nude down the beach would do more for some careers.

Maybe riding a bike in a public place might do even more. :D

Wouldn't that depend on the celeb? (running on the beach nude). After all, suppose Micheal Moore did that! :eek:

how would everyone feel if we applied the same criteria to speeding tickets? Get caught speeding, three days in jail. Period.
I could live with that. Bring it on!

Drink drivers should receive an instant and minimum gaol sentence. I don't know what that sentence should be, but it should be substantial. Whether they have an accident or not.