At that rate, it would take over a quarter of a mile to go from 80 to 0...
OT: Reporter and camerman shot on live tv in Virginia
- Thread starter bac2therac
- Start date
At that rate, it would take over a quarter of a mile to go from 80 to 0...
I got if from a calculator on a website. I think they include reaction time. It might have been wrong here is a link that says 388 feet. Some vehicles might get 150 feet but that is in optimal conditions and don't include reaction time.
Seriously... I don't know how he managed to come up with that crap.
Quick check on just one "middle of the road" example near and dear to the hearts of everyone here - the Honda Accord EX-L V6 takes 159' to go from 70 to 0. (Car & Driver instrumented test April 2013)
388' including reaction time is reasonable given a reaction time of about 2 seconds (which is very long).
Bear in mind, though, that reaction time is a more or less relative thing in traffic. It's almost never that you're cruising down the road at 70mph and come to find an obstacle dead in the road 300' in front of you. Under most conditions, as you have to stop, so does everything in front of you, which negates some of the reaction time handicap.
Absolutely incorrect. Even the most average sedan can come to a stop in 200 feet. Even factoring an extremely conservative 3 second reaction time, the vehicle will travel 286 feet before the brakes are applied. The sum is 486'. At 75 mph, that increases to 600'. Please be more realistic with your arguments.
In New Jersey? Highways may be designed for that but are the vehicles. You may have a a sports car that can do what you claim but what about the rest of the vehicles out their. Sports cars and attentive drivers don't represent the 85%. The 85 percent are operating lower performing vehicles with less than desired skill. If vehicle requirements and driver ability were to a higher standard than I'd be with you but i'm not comfortable on the road with other people doing 80+ Especially not in Texas. Texans can't drive. They just aren't bright enough to operate their cars. I really am looking forward to driverless cars.
Both the Giffords and the Ft. Hood shooters were stopped after firing off the last of the 30 bullets in their gun's "magazine". So only having 17 fired bullets instead 30 probably made a huge difference.
To your second point, I guess you were against a more aggressive public policy against terrorism after 9/11 since it was only one incident. Got it! Enough of the Current Events Board....wait a minute.
I'm confused... Are you not from New Jersey? Everything @RUsSKii says about the Turnpike is correct. I've logged hundreds of thousands of miles on the Big Road and left lane "flow of traffic" velocities in excess of 80mph are the norm, and it's not unusual to encounter pockets of left lane traffic flow between 90 and 100 mph depending on time of day and traffic conditions.
And if you were seriously familiar with traffic engineering, you would also know that traffic engineers unanimously say that people will drive at whatever speed meets their comfort level given current conditions, regardless of the speed limit.
For the record, most serious and responsible firearms enthusiasts, particularly those of us who have had firearms combat training, are perfectly fine with **reasonable** magazine capacity limits, if for no other reason than stuffing a 30 round mag into a Glock is a sure sign of an idiot.
In New Jersey, year 2015? Absolutely. As an over-generalization, at least 85% of cars/vans/SUV's manufactured after the year 2000 can safely accelerate to, maintain, and stop from 80 mph. More specifically, let's start with acceleration/cruising. A vehicle needs approximately 36 horsepower to overcome the air/drag forces occurring at 80 mph, which arguably just about all do. (as an empirical example, my 120 hp 1988 Honda Accord could easily accelerate to and maintain 100 mph). Maintaining that speed to overcome rolling resistance takes a little less power. Even being ultra-conservative, a total stopping distance of 650' (perception and deceleration combined) is needed from 80 mph. Unless your brakes fail from complete lack of maintenance, your 15- or less-year-old vehicle will absolutely be able to stop within that distance or less.
All these numbers reflect a very average family sedan, and admittedly mediocre driver who isn't very focused on the road or well-trained for their particular vehicle. As an individual in my given car, I can certainly do much, much better, at the risk of getting pulled over and ticketed of course.
I am not talking about buses or trucks either. Although the NJ Turnpike specifically takes care of that by separating the roadways for those.
Last edited:
I'm from New Jersey. In the last 12 years I've lived in Texas DC, and New Jersey. Most of my time in New Jersey and DC I chose not to have a car. Except for driving long rural stretches I almost always find that when I'm on highways, in Austin, Houston, or on the Turnpike and especially the Parkway the average speed people are doing rarely tops 50.
I don't talk to traffic engineers much, i mostly just work with their data. I do think most people drive at speeds they feel comfortable at, but for one person that could be 60 for one person and 110 for another. Is it a good idea to have people driving at such disparate speeds?
In the strictest sense, no. You should talk to the engineers more. One of the other things they would tell you is that the primary danger of highway travel is not speed, but rather speed differential.
In a more realistic sense, this is only a problem for shitty American drivers and law enforcement because the concept of lane discipline isn't taught to new drivers in this country, it tends to not be enforced in most jurisdictions and in some states it isn't even part of the traffic code.
Fortunately, that's starting to change. Several states have recently caught on to something that the NJ State Police have been doing for years, which is to issue serious summonses to idiots who use the left lane for their speed limit sight-seeing tours. On the NJTP it's such a serious business that a trooper will stop a driver doing 65 in the left lane before he'll stop a driver doing 80 in the left lane. On the Turnpike an observing trooper will give you a "standing 8 count" - if you're in the left lane and you haven't passed another car in 8 seconds, you will be pulled over and issued a summons for either "failure to keep right" (if there's no traffic) or "Impeding the flow of traffic" (if your obnoxiousness has other cars stacked behind you).
If by against a more aggressive public policy you mean:
killing Americans with drones
warrantless wire taps
striping naked before plane rides
dumping out my Poland Spring bottle before boarding
having my banker disappear for 15 minutes every time I deposit or withdraw more than $10k
then yes, I'm against that.
Any other absurd Red Herrings you want me to filet?
Yes, I'll confirm that speed differential between cars is actually more dangerous than both cars moving at a higher speed. But you're exaggerating jiggs; the maximum difference would be normally be 35 mph, between cars traveling 85 mph in the left lane and a vehicle moving at perhaps 50 mph in the right lane, with a middle lane in-between. Speaking specifically for the NJ Turnpike in normal conditions, if you're going any less than 75 mph stay in the middle lane, any less than 65 mph stay in the right lane, and anything less than 50 you probably shouldn't be on that particular highway in the first place.
I love that the NJ State Police are cracking down on improper left-lane discipline, and really hope that the rest of the country follows suit. 4Real summed it up nicely.
They haven't figured out the left lane thing here in Texas. I drive to Houston about one a month and about every 5 miles there is someone doing 55 in the left and oblivious. They also apparently think turn signals are for commies and merging is something you resist at all costs.
Rights are not Defined in the constitution. They are Recognized in the constitution. The rights are intrinsic to you humanity or a gift from God depending on your politics.
You said we have to give up some rights to live in a civilized society - I can't imagine one. What are you talking about? Do you know what the definition of a Human Right is?
How many have you gotten easily? Please be specific and explain the detail or are you just talking out of your ass?
Folks in Afghanistan, Iraq, France in WWII, and countless other insurgencies would disagree.
Arms are whatever the current state of the art is up until crew served weapons according to most historians. However many folks historically owned Cannon personally in the Revolutionary and Civil wars.
It's way too easy to get a gun
said no New Jersey resident ever...
You can buy a superfund site faster than you can get a handgun in Jersey.
said no New Jersey resident ever...
You can buy a superfund site faster than you can get a handgun in Jersey.
What does mental health support mean? Does that mean restricting guns from mentally ill people?
And please spare me on "we have gun control" BS. Anyone can get a gun in about 3 minutes. It's a joke.
I hear they'll be sending in the Green Berets.
As soon as the weather clears in the spring.
Because... ya know... Army. llo
Now you're just being an idiot. I will give you until this time tomorrow to go and get a handgun legally. It will take you 6 weeks min to get a FID and permits. Then order, background check and then finally take home. Oh and you have to wait 30 days if you want a second one.
Stop talking out of your ass, grownups are talking here.
Dude you are that middle. I have owned handguns and have lived in civilized society for 50 years. None of my firearms have hurt anyone. Why in your opinion do I have to give them up?
What about this civilized society you keep referring to require me to give up my human rights?
Please answer the question.
And none of my posts suggest that you need to give up your guns. Stop being so thick.
I can't believe you're 50 and are putting up a silly straw man. My point is you can't just go around buying whatever weapons you want. There are laws that limit what you or I can add to our personal arsenal just like there are laws that govern the speed limit. Those are freedoms/rights/wants/needs/desires/pursuits/whatever-you-want-to-call-them that we agree to give up to be part of this American society.
(Prayers to the victims, and their families.)
IMHO, that's exactly where things are headed. Can't ban the guns, can't ban the ammo. Ban the people. Under Clinton, can't remember the year, if you were guilty of misdemeanor domestic violence, you could not posses a firearm. It was even ex post facto legislation.
Now the Feds will cast a wider net to include "mentally ill". It will probably include anyone that was ever psychologically evaluated (whether they were deemed "unfit" won't matter), on anti-depressants, or treated for stress related disability. This will probably snag north of 50% of all gun owners, and unfortunately alot of vets.
The common thread in reports about shootings over the last 5 or so years has been: shooter treated for depression/on anti-depressants, history of mental illness/bizarre behavior/radical views; gun was legally obtained. Notice that the press has stopped concentrating on "how easy it is to get a gun on the street. gun show straw purchases, etc" It's all about legally obtained. Ban the people by creating a very wide definition of "mentally ill". It is on the way. My bet is via executive order before Obama leaves office.
