Would you agree that there has never been an accident that was a result of "speeding"? - Page 2

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Would you agree that there has never been an accident that was a result of "speeding"? (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 9/5/2010 7:58:56 AM EDT

[#1]

Well yeah, but there are all kinds of cars, drivers, road/weather conditions that would lead you to say that they need to stick to the speed Limit. A 1998 Nissan Sentra loaded down with 5 adults doing 90 in a 45 is definitely speeding.

Posted: 9/5/2010 7:59:54 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
Speed limits are arbitrary. They don't take into account the weather conditions, your experience level, whether it's day or night, what type of car your driving, traffic congestion levels or other road conditions.

This is true. But it does take into account the least common denominator.

Ever wonder why we don't have autobahn style freeways in the US? It's partially because the engineering and construction of the German autobahn is far better, more complex and expensive than freeways we build in the US, but it's also because we have many MANY vehicles that, while legal to operate on public roadways, are simply unsafe for unlimited speed conditions. And we as a society are generally too stupid to be able to handle unlimited speeds.

Posted: 9/5/2010 8:00:40 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:

Quoted:

The fact is there has never been an accident that was a result of "speeding".

Accidents marked as a result of "speeding" actually occure from "driving to fast for the conditions".

Two totally different things.

Isn't speeding kinda defined as driving too fast for the conditions?

Did you see the post where that bicyclist got clobbered by that SPEEDING driver? I'd say it wasn't poor road conditions that led to it, it was a driver... well... SPEEDING.

93mph is too fast for the conditions of an intersection with people driving around 10 to 20 mph, walking, and bicycling.

What is the maximum speed to safely travel in those conditions?

Conditions constantly change.

No beating around the bush. Pick a number. Go watch the video, pause it whenever you would like, and pick a number. Then come back with the number and the time.

Pick your second.

Posted: 9/5/2010 8:03:05 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Speed limits are arbitrary. They don't take into account the weather conditions, your experience level, whether it's day or night, what type of car your driving, traffic congestion levels or other road conditions.

This is true. But it does take into account the least common denominator.

Ever wonder why we don't have autobahn style freeways in the US? It's partially because the engineering and construction of the German autobahn is far better, more complex and expensive than freeways we build in the US, but it's also because we have many MANY vehicles that, while legal to operate on public roadways, are simply unsafe for unlimited speed conditions. And we as a society are generally too stupid to be able to handle unlimited speeds.

I can agree with your statement.

Posted: 9/5/2010 8:03:51 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I've never read a stupid post on arfcom......some are just not well thought out.

My point is arguable.

It's argumentative. Your hypothesis is flawed, however. I caused an accident by speeding.

Explain your accident and I'll prove you wrong.

Listen, I try to be nice, but I was there. Were you? I don't have time to waste on the internet with someone who wants to argue semantics rather than face facts.

Oh, Well. You get backed into a corner and suddenly you "don't have time to waste on the internet".

Explain your "accident".

I am getting ready for Church. Waiting for one child to get her shoes on and then heading out the door. There is no corner into which I am backed. I was speeding. Your "going too fast for the conditions" is, by definition, speeding, which is going too fast. A Semantic argument is a weak argument. I am sure it makes perfect sense in your head, but the obvious amount of people disagreeing with you should be a clue as to just how weak that argument is. You are not more enlightened than the majority here. You are merely grasping at straws.

Posted: 9/5/2010 8:04:09 AM EDT

[#6]

Wannabe great debator with a bad case of "my intellectual e-penis is bigger than yours" in a semantics throwdown.

Either that, or a guy who got a ticket, thinks he's too smart to be constrained by mere laws (though not smart enough to distinguish between "to" and "too" and "your" and "you're"), and sporting a mean case of the redass.

I'll pass.

Posted: 9/5/2010 8:04:12 AM EDT

[#7]

I understand the OP's point. Around here, an officer may exercise his discretion and cite you for driving too fast for conditions even if you are driving at or below the posted speed limit. So, if it's raining and you're doing the speed limit, an officer can cite you for driving too fast for conditions, but not for speeding.

On the other hand, when I was a kid, an officer pulled my mom over as we were on the way to church on a nice, sunny autumn day. He told Mom that she was driving perfectly safely for conditions, but unfortunately had exceeded the posted speed limit.

So, I can understand how the OP can say that speeding does not cause an accident because it is perfectly reasonable to believe that, say on a wet interstate, a driver can travel at or under the posted speed limit of 70mph. Then, let's say he comes up on traffic that has slowed or stopped for some reason. Our driver hits the brakes hard but ends up hydroplaning into the car in front of him. He did not violate the speed limit, but he was certainly driving too fast for conditions.

Posted: 9/5/2010 8:07:42 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Speed limits are arbitrary. They don't take into account the weather conditions, your experience level, whether it's day or night, what type of car your driving, traffic congestion levels or other road conditions.

This is true. But it does take into account the least common denominator.

Ever wonder why we don't have autobahn style freeways in the US? It's partially because the engineering and construction of the German autobahn is far better, more complex and expensive than freeways we build in the US, but it's also because we have many MANY vehicles that, while legal to operate on public roadways, are simply unsafe for unlimited speed conditions. And we as a society are generally too stupid to be able to handle unlimited speeds.

I can agree with your statement.

Then you're agreeing that unlimited speeds would be inherently unsafe. I'm talking about the broad application to society - since it would be patently unsafe for a very large number of drivers and vehicles, it is then applied to everyone.

Or do you think there should be exceptions? How would exceptions be handled and classified? Special drivers licenses? Special vehicle qualifications? Should the law books be 100x more complex like our tax laws to get out of or gain exception to a general law applied to everyone? Or should you be excused if you get caught doing 130mph on a flat, dry, empty highway because it was perceived to be 'safe' at the moment?

Posted: 9/5/2010 8:09:00 AM EDT

[#9]

Head hurts

Posted: 9/5/2010 8:13:44 AM EDT

[#10]

Thinking about the OPs post, while I'm not conceding, I have arrived at this:

Is all speeding unsafe? No.
Is all driving at unsafe speeds 'speeding'? No.

Posted: 9/5/2010 8:14:39 AM EDT

[#11]

I think if you are caught exceeding the speed limit, then it's a speeding ticket. Whether it's a .gov money making scam or not is for another thread.

If you are in a collision and found to be the cause due to your "excessive" speed then it's careless or imprudent driving. The collision would be evidence that you exceeded your capacity to control your vehicle, and often it's because you were going faster than was prudent for the current conditions (aka speeding, unless it was due to other dumbassedness, like "I spilled my latte in my crotch and jerked the wheel"). If during investigation of the "accident" you admit you were doing 80 in a 55 then you can be cited for speeding.

Posted: 9/5/2010 8:17:24 AM EDT

[#12]

This thread is so full of ignorance it's comical. Do most of you think that when the DOT establishes a speed limit that they do so on the premise of "what number will allow for the most tickets to be written"? This is absolutely not the case. The fact is that no matter what you set the limit at, there will be those that have to exceed it. Are there cases where most motorist feel that a particular road has too low a limit, of course. Most of the time it is for a legitimate reason that is not apparent to everyone. Limits are based on many factors and is based on the AVERAGE driving conditions. It is up to the judgement of the drivers to decide when the limit is too fast for unusual conditions. I read in a NIHTSA study that for every 10 mph you exceed the speed limit your odds for becoming involved in a fatal accident double.

Posted: 9/5/2010 8:17:28 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Speed limits are arbitrary. They don't take into account the weather conditions, your experience level, whether it's day or night, what type of car your driving, traffic congestion levels or other road conditions.

This is true. But it does take into account the least common denominator.

Ever wonder why we don't have autobahn style freeways in the US? It's partially because the engineering and construction of the German autobahn is far better, more complex and expensive than freeways we build in the US, but it's also because we have many MANY vehicles that, while legal to operate on public roadways, are simply unsafe for unlimited speed conditions. And we as a society are generally too stupid to be able to handle unlimited speeds.

I can agree with your statement.

Then you're agreeing that unlimited speeds would be inherently unsafe. I'm talking about the broad application to society - since it would be patently unsafe for a very large number of drivers and vehicles, it is then applied to everyone.

Or do you think there should be exceptions? How would exceptions be handled and classified? Special drivers licenses? Special vehicle qualifications? Should the law books be 100x more complex like our tax laws to get out of or gain exception to a general law applied to everyone? Or should you be excused if you get caught doing 130mph on a flat, dry, empty highway because it was perceived to be 'safe' at the moment?

+1

This is why I'm glad I didn't join the Army. Too much lowest common denominator. Is stupid requirement X necessary for me? Probably not, but gotta do it anyways, because Joe Blow is too stupid to NOT drink and drive without 87 hours of anti-DUI 'training' per fiscal year.

That's all that a speed limit sign IS. A group of people agreed that driving faster than X speed was unsafe, no matter the conditions.

Posted: 9/5/2010 8:21:10 AM EDT

[#14]

Speeding has never killed anyone. Crashing at high speed has though

.

It's the same for people who are afraid of flying. Flying never killed anyone but crashing into the ground did.

Don't be afraid of flying, be afraid of the ground

Posted: 9/5/2010 8:28:45 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Speed limits are arbitrary. They don't take into account the weather conditions, your experience level, whether it's day or night, what type of car your driving, traffic congestion levels or other road conditions.

This is true. But it does take into account the least common denominator.

Ever wonder why we don't have autobahn style freeways in the US? It's partially because the engineering and construction of the German autobahn is far better, more complex and expensive than freeways we build in the US, but it's also because we have many MANY vehicles that, while legal to operate on public roadways, are simply unsafe for unlimited speed conditions. And we as a society are generally too stupid to be able to handle unlimited speeds.

I can agree with your statement.

Then you're agreeing that unlimited speeds would be inherently unsafe. I'm talking about the broad application to society - since it would be patently unsafe for a very large number of drivers and vehicles, it is then applied to everyone.

Or do you think there should be exceptions? How would exceptions be handled and classified? Special drivers licenses? Special vehicle qualifications? Should the law books be 100x more complex like our tax laws to get out of or gain exception to a general law applied to everyone? Or should you be excused if you get caught doing 130mph on a flat, dry, empty highway because it was perceived to be 'safe' at the moment?

I honestly don't know what I think about the part in red. I guess it's confusing that some have to "suffer" because others do not have the ability to think correctly.

From what I read, When Montana did away with their speed limits on certian roads there were fewer accidents, but the ones that did occure were more often fatal.

I am not someone who wants to fly up and down the road. If speed limits were abolished I'd probably still go the same speed that the "abolished speed limit" use to be.

And no, I did not get a ticket recently.

Posted: 9/5/2010 8:32:48 AM EDT

[#16]

I would agree that you are setting a logical trap based on semantics.

I would disagree that there has never been an accident that was a result of "speeding" I once saw a horse trailer going too fast down a mountain, burn the grease off the bearings, seize the wheel up and crash.

an accident caused by going too fast for the mechanical limits of the equipment. i.e. Speeding.

luckily no horses were involved at the time or injured but watching the wheel seize,skid and eventually separate and pass the guy towing the trailer was terrifying and eventually hilarious.

Posted: 9/5/2010 8:49:01 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
The fact is there has never been an accident that was a result of "speeding".

Accidents marked as a result of "speeding" actually occure from "driving to fast for the conditions".

Two totally different things.

You are pole vaulting over mouse turds.

Posted: 9/5/2010 8:52:03 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
No, I don't agree.

You can also disagree with the law of gravity, but it probably still applies to you.

Posted: 9/5/2010 8:53:16 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Thinking about the OPs post, while I'm not conceding, I have arrived at this:

Is all speeding unsafe? No.
Is all driving at unsafe speeds 'speeding'? No.

Ding, ding ding - we have a winner.

Posted: 9/5/2010 9:17:50 AM EDT

[#20]

let's just jump straight to Human-caused disaster.

The dark side to epistimological parsimony: obfuscation of meaning.

Posted: 9/5/2010 9:31:24 AM EDT

[#21]

Garbage man = Waste removal engineer
Maid = Household maintenance technician
Stripper = Live performance actress

Too fast for conditions = too much speed = speeding

Posted: 9/5/2010 9:32:38 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:

No, I don't agree.

You can also disagree with the law of gravity, but it probably still applies to you.

It's not gravity. It's attraction of objects with mass. Jeez...

Posted: 9/5/2010 9:47:24 AM EDT

[#23]

Physics is name of this game too.
Traction is what you need to play it here and the amount of traction is limited by many things. Every move requires traction from driving fast to stopping fast and every move of the steering wheel even rolling along at a steady pace in straight line takes some. The faster you go the less traction you have leftover for steering, stopping and simply holding the road and when you need more traction than you have... Whammo!

Posted: 9/5/2010 9:51:45 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Driving too fast for conditions is a form of speeding.

Wrong.
Say a posted speed limit on a road is 55 mph. It starts to snow or ice. Your driving 50 mph and go around a curve on this 55 mph posted iced road and wreck.

I know that facts and logic are both frowned upon in traffic law threads, but in the scenario described above, under Section 22350 of the California Vehicle Code the driver could be cited for speeding.

22350.  No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed
greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather,
visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the
highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of
persons or property.

I don't doubt that the law is different in other states.

Posted: 9/5/2010 12:48:35 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Driving too fast for conditions is a form of speeding.

Wrong.

Say a posted speed limit on a road is 55 mph. It starts to snow or ice. Your driving 50 mph and go around a curve on this 55 mph posted iced road and wreck.

The only reason we have "speeding tickets" is becuase there are "speed limits" posted.

Then you get a ticket for "too fast for conditions", not speeding.

Posted: 9/5/2010 12:56:21 PM EDT

[#26]

I'd venture to say the vast majority of "speeding" tickets issued in CA by non-CHP officers are for CVC 22350 - which is a "too fast for conditions" section....... The reason I have the CHP caveat is because of CVC 22349 which is simply exceeded 65mph and is primarily used on the highways which CHP does the majority of enforcement.

Semantics............

Brian

Posted: 9/5/2010 1:01:08 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Speed limits are arbitrary. They don't take into account the weather conditions, your experience level, whether it's day or night, what type of car your driving, traffic congestion levels or other road conditions.

Just how do you think speed limits are set? What factors do you think are taken into account when road has a 35mph speed limit?

Brian

Posted: 9/5/2010 1:03:52 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
The fact is there has never been an accident that was a result of "speeding".

Accidents marked as a result of "speeding" actually occure from "driving to fast for the conditions".

Two totally different things.

I wouldn't agree, and would instead posit that you're quibbling over unimportant minutiae.

Posted: 9/5/2010 1:05:03 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

The fact is there has never been an accident that was a result of "speeding".

Accidents marked as a result of "speeding" actually occure from "driving to fast for the conditions".

Two totally different things.

Just pay the fine and go to traffic school.
John

Posted: 9/5/2010 1:06:56 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
The fact is there has never been an accident that was a result of "speeding".

Accidents marked as a result of "speeding" actually occure from "driving to fast for the conditions".

Two totally different things.

This conundrum also applies to running a red light or stop sign. There has never been an accident that was a result of "running a red light" or " running a stop sign" The accident was caused by the encounter of an obstacle in or beyond the intersection, including the end of the road.

Posted: 9/5/2010 1:14:21 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Thinking about the OPs post, while I'm not conceding, I have arrived at this:

Is all speeding unsafe? No.
Is all driving at unsafe speeds 'speeding'? No.

Posted: 9/5/2010 1:27:08 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
The fact is there has never been an accident that was a result of "speeding".

Accidents marked as a result of "speeding" actually occure from "driving to fast for the conditions".

Two totally different things.

Double-speak

Whut'cha trying to prove?

Suppose you were flying down the road 120mph...and the tire shredded.....izzat a 'condition' ? Lot's of 'conditions' involved in driving...the vehicles condition....the roads condition...the idiot behind the wheels condition...the idiot behind the other vehicles wheel...exceeding the speed limit is called 'speeding'....driving to fast on a road covered with black ice and wiping out = driving too fast for conditions.

Posted: 9/5/2010 2:09:24 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Driving too fast for conditions is a form of speeding.

Wrong.

Say a posted speed limit on a road is 55 mph. It starts to snow or ice. Your driving 50 mph and go around a curve on this 55 mph posted iced road and wreck.

The only reason we have "speeding tickets" is becuase there are "speed limits" posted.

1) You're dumb.

2) Learn to English.

3) You've been here since 2003? How is this possible?

Say posted speed limit is 20; you're in a school zone. You're going 50 in a residential because your car is just so damn badass and you want the whole neighborhood to know it. Kid steps out into street. You hit kid. What do you call that?

Say posted speed limit is 60. You're racing some friends on the highway, going about 120. Again, your car is a totally badass tricked out 92 civic yo. You lose control of car. "Accident" results. What do you call that?

Nah that wasn't speeding. Naah.

How old are you? You type like you didn't graduate high school.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Would you agree that there has never been an accident that was a result of "speeding"? (Page 2 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us