Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/5/2010 7:08:14 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 9/5/2010 7:10:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/5/2010 7:10:31 AM EDT by tc2k11]


Link Posted: 9/5/2010 7:11:02 AM EDT
Originally Posted By tc2k11:




first post nails it.
Link Posted: 9/5/2010 7:11:58 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 3Trip:
Originally Posted By tc2k11:




first post nails it.


Explain why.

Link Posted: 9/5/2010 7:14:02 AM EDT
Well, I guess it all depends what the definition of "is" is.
Link Posted: 9/5/2010 7:16:41 AM EDT
People stabbed to death shouldn't count as stabbing victims since they didn't die from stabbing, they died from a loss of blood.

Link Posted: 9/5/2010 7:18:16 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/5/2010 7:18:46 AM EDT by Snake_driver]
True, the whole speeding ticket thing is a scam for government entities to raise needed cash without raising taxes. The speed limits are set for the dumbest one seventh of the population so that those with an IQ just above that of a rock can handle their vehicle without going out of control.

In the old days when a highwayman with a gun stopped travelers and extracted money from them, people would catch the scoundrel and string him up from the nearest tree. Now, highway robbery is sanctioned by the government as good policy.
Link Posted: 9/5/2010 7:20:14 AM EDT
Driving too fast for conditions is a form of speeding.
Link Posted: 9/5/2010 7:23:18 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/5/2010 7:24:28 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Silas:
Originally Posted By 3Trip:
Originally Posted By tc2k11:




first post nails it.


Explain why.



speeding, in laymans terms, is when your going too fast.
Link Posted: 9/5/2010 7:25:47 AM EDT
No.

Time/distance problem wherein a driver looks, sees clear, then starts into the roadway he saw as clear. During those two or three seconds he's using to shift a foot from the brake to accelerator and get into the road, a speeding vehicle has closed the distance. Bang.
Link Posted: 9/5/2010 7:25:55 AM EDT
Originally Posted By California_Kid:
Driving too fast for conditions is a form of speeding.


Logic is not permitted in traffic law posts.
Link Posted: 9/5/2010 7:25:59 AM EDT
I've never read a stupid post on arfcom......some are just not well thought out.
Link Posted: 9/5/2010 7:27:07 AM EDT
Originally Posted By California_Kid:
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.



Link Posted: 9/5/2010 7:27:31 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/5/2010 7:29:45 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Peengwin:
No.

Time/distance problem wherein a driver looks, sees clear, then starts into the roadway he saw as clear. During those two or three seconds he's using to shift a foot from the brake to accelerator and get into the road, a speeding vehicle has closed the distance. Bang.


He wasn't hit by a "speeding" vehicle. He was hit by someone "driving to fast for the conditions". The conditions for the person driving down the road changed when he saw driveways up ahead.

Link Posted: 9/5/2010 7:29:50 AM EDT
Speeding is still an element in many accidents. If you were driving too fast for conditions, you were speeding. If you were following too closely, you were speeding too fast for the distance between the vehicles. Etc etc etc.
Link Posted: 9/5/2010 7:30:38 AM EDT
No, I don't agree.
Link Posted: 9/5/2010 7:31:57 AM EDT
I think that video was from Serbia/Bosnia and the car that hit the bicyclist was travelling in excess of 150 kph/93 mph. It looks like his leg is actually torn off at impact and lands near the body in the street. Find a good translator to get the rest of the news blurb....
Link Posted: 9/5/2010 7:31:58 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Harvster:
I've never read a stupid post on arfcom......some are just not well thought out.


My point is arguable.

Link Posted: 9/5/2010 7:33:58 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Silas:
Originally Posted By Harvster:
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.
Link Posted: 9/5/2010 7:34:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Silas:
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.
Only if I can say that some people are in no condition to "speed". If someone has a terminal case of full retard, it won't matter at what speed they're going. If that's a condition, then yes. Some people shouldn't be allowed to go 5mhp in an empty field with a tractor.

Link Posted: 9/5/2010 7:35:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/5/2010 7:35:21 AM EDT by Silas]
Originally Posted By tc556guy:
Speeding is still an element in many accidents. If you were driving too fast for conditions, you were speeding. If you were following too closely, you were speeding too fast for the distance between the vehicles. Etc etc etc.


Two different things.

The ONLY reason "speeding" exist is becuase of "speed limits"

"Driving two fast for the conditions" does not need a law to exist.
Link Posted: 9/5/2010 7:36:22 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Stegadeth:
Originally Posted By Silas:
Originally Posted By Harvster:
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.

Link Posted: 9/5/2010 7:36:25 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Silas:
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.

Do you self-identify as a libertarian?


Jane

Link Posted: 9/5/2010 7:37:01 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Silas:
Originally Posted By Harvster:
I've never read a stupid post on arfcom......some are just not well thought out.


My point is arguable.


It would be an even more sound argument if one knew the correct usage of to vs too....

Link Posted: 9/5/2010 7:37:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Silas:
Originally Posted By Harvster:
I've never read a stupid post on arfcom......some are just not well thought out.


My point is arguable.

Those two statements are not mutually exclusive.

Link Posted: 9/5/2010 7:37:38 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Snake_driver:
True, the whole speeding ticket thing is a scam for government entities to raise needed cash without raising taxes. The speed limits are set for the dumbest one seventh of the population so that those with an IQ just above that of a rock can handle their vehicle without going out of control.

In the old days when a highwayman with a gun stopped travelers and extracted money from them, people would catch the scoundrel and string him up from the nearest tree. Now, highway robbery is sanctioned by the government as good policy.


My current nomination for stupid post of the day.
Link Posted: 9/5/2010 7:38:20 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Silas:
Originally Posted By Stegadeth:
Originally Posted By Silas:
Originally Posted By Harvster:
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.
Link Posted: 9/5/2010 7:40:52 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Silas:

Two different things.

The ONLY reason "speeding" exist is becuase of "speed limits"

"Driving two fast for the conditions" does not need a law to exist.


You are making too much of a distinction. The driver driving too fast for conditions was in fact "speeding", or going faster than s/he should have.
Link Posted: 9/5/2010 7:42:23 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Stegadeth:
Originally Posted By Silas:
Originally Posted By Stegadeth:
Originally Posted By Silas:
Originally Posted By Harvster:
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".

Link Posted: 9/5/2010 7:43:12 AM EDT
Originally Posted By tc556guy:
Originally Posted By Silas:

Two different things.

The ONLY reason "speeding" exist is becuase of "speed limits"

"Driving two fast for the conditions" does not need a law to exist.


You are making too much of a distinction. The driver driving too fast for conditions was in fact "speeding", or going faster than s/he should have for the conditions.


Link Posted: 9/5/2010 7:43:18 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Silas:
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.


Link Posted: 9/5/2010 7:43:47 AM EDT
So what is speeding?

So the speed limit is 70mph? Why? I think it is because a group of people decided that 70mph in that zone was as fast as a person could safely travel for the conditions in that zone.

Do you disagree with the group? Why? Are you capable of safe travel at higher velocities? Am I? Is Joe Retard down the street capable of safe travel in that zone at 60mph?

If I speed through a school zone, even by 1mph, I am driving too fast for the condition set for drivers to drive in that zone.

Do you not agree with the condition signs posted?
Link Posted: 9/5/2010 7:45:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Silas:
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.

Too fast for the conditions?

Does those "conditions" include the design speed of the roadway and all geometric factors?


Link Posted: 9/5/2010 7:46:19 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Silas:
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.


Stupid premise.

There are no accidents, only collisions. Each crash has identifiable contributing factors, and speed is certainly one of them.

Link Posted: 9/5/2010 7:47:22 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Matthew_Q:
Originally Posted By Silas:
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.

Link Posted: 9/5/2010 7:47:52 AM EDT
It's not war... it's "declared armed hostile conflict".

I'm not gonna call it war any more because war is misleading. War is like, bad and stuff. Plus there's that whole Congress thing, so I'm not gonna call it war anymore.

Link Posted: 9/5/2010 7:48:38 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Silas:
Originally Posted By tc556guy:
Originally Posted By Silas:

Two different things.

The ONLY reason "speeding" exist is becuase of "speed limits"

"Driving two fast for the conditions" does not need a law to exist.


You are making too much of a distinction. The driver driving too fast for conditions was in fact "speeding", or going faster than s/he should have for the conditions.




Like I said...you are splitting hairs. The person is still speeding
Link Posted: 9/5/2010 7:49:18 AM EDT
Originally Posted By rock71:
Originally Posted By Silas:
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.


Stupid premise.

There are no accidents, only collisions. Each crash has identifiable contributing factors, and speed is certainly one of them.



No, there are accidents. Hit a patch of black ice on the road and have a collision - accident. Run over a nail or obstacle on the road too small for you to see, have a blow out and lose control of your vehicle - accident.

Collisions are completely avoidable. MOST traffic 'accidents' are collisions, because some dumbass wasn't paying attention. However, some ARE accidents, caused by things that one of the involved vehicle's operators could not have avoided or forseen.


This topic is full of semantics and fail.
Link Posted: 9/5/2010 7:49:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Silas:
Originally Posted By Matthew_Q:
Originally Posted By Silas:
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?

Link Posted: 9/5/2010 7:49:51 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Silas:
Originally Posted By Matthew_Q:
Originally Posted By Silas:
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.



But that wasn't 'speeding' was it? He was well within the legal posted speed limit, wasn't he??
Link Posted: 9/5/2010 7:51:15 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Sykkone:
So what is speeding?

So the speed limit is 70mph? Why? I think it is because a group of people decided that 70mph in that zone was as fast as a person could safely travel for the conditions in that zone.

Do you disagree with the group? Why? Are you capable of safe travel at higher velocities? Am I? Is Joe Retard down the street capable of safe travel in that zone at 60mph?

If I speed through a school zone, even by 1mph, I am driving too fast for the condition set for drivers to drive in that zone.

Do you not agree with the condition signs posted?


I do not agree with your arguement.

You cannot set "conditions". They are constantly changing.

One second the conditions might be ok to travel at 85mph. The next second they might be ok to travel at 5mph.

Link Posted: 9/5/2010 7:53:36 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Matthew_Q:
Originally Posted By rock71:
Originally Posted By Silas:
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.


Stupid premise.

There are no accidents, only collisions. Each crash has identifiable contributing factors, and speed is certainly one of them.



No, there are accidents. Hit a patch of black ice on the road and have a collision - accident. Run over a nail or obstacle on the road too small for you to see, have a blow out and lose control of your vehicle - accident.

Collisions are completely avoidable. MOST traffic 'accidents' are collisions, because some dumbass wasn't paying attention. However, some ARE accidents, caused by things that one of the involved vehicle's operators could not have avoided or forseen.


This topic is full of semantics and fail.


I agree with this part, but if you hit ice and crash, then you were driving too fast for road conditions, and if you have a blowout, then you suffered a mechanical defect. Both of these, while unintentional, are not accidents.

Link Posted: 9/5/2010 7:54:13 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Sykkone:

Originally Posted By Silas:
Originally Posted By Matthew_Q:
Originally Posted By Silas:
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.

Link Posted: 9/5/2010 7:54:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Matthew_Q:
Originally Posted By Silas:
Originally Posted By Matthew_Q:
Originally Posted By Silas:
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.
But that wasn't 'speeding' was it? He was well within the legal posted speed limit, wasn't he??
I don't think the OP wants to believe that they have to follow the 'speed limit signs'. I think we need to call them 'a group imposed this condition on Silas' driving in this zone' signs. Maybe that's the root problem. 'I know better than the speed limit signs, because I can drive safely at a higher speed(rate of travel, sorry)'.

Link Posted: 9/5/2010 7:54:31 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Silas:

You cannot set "conditions". They are constantly changing.

One second the conditions might be ok to travel at 85mph. The next second they might be ok to travel at 5mph.



Conditions may change, but usually when you see people being cited for driving too fast for conditions, the conditions are clear to see and the person should have known enough to slow down. The guy who thinks its still OK to race down the interstate in the pouring rain at 75 MPH and then winds up in the ditch should have known to slow down.
Link Posted: 9/5/2010 7:54:53 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Silas:
Originally Posted By Sykkone:
So what is speeding?

So the speed limit is 70mph? Why? I think it is because a group of people decided that 70mph in that zone was as fast as a person could safely travel for the conditions in that zone.

Do you disagree with the group? Why? Are you capable of safe travel at higher velocities? Am I? Is Joe Retard down the street capable of safe travel in that zone at 60mph?

If I speed through a school zone, even by 1mph, I am driving too fast for the condition set for drivers to drive in that zone.

Do you not agree with the condition signs posted?


I do not agree with your arguement.

You cannot set "conditions". They are constantly changing.

One second the conditions might be ok to travel at 85mph. The next second they might be ok to travel at 5mph.



Speed limits posted take into account optimal or average conditions - that which the least common denominator can safely handle.

What would you propose as another system? Speed limit signs like this:

55mph for IQs less than 70
65mph for IQs above 70 and cars newer than 1990
75mph for IQs above 115 and cars newer than 2000
All speed limits 10MPH slow when raining or for 2 hours after raining
Except if you have a government rated 'high performance vehicle'


Your 'argument' is simply semantics. You don't want to CALL it speeding.
Link Posted: 9/5/2010 7:57:02 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 9/5/2010 7:58:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Silas:
Originally Posted By Sykkone:
So what is speeding?

So the speed limit is 70mph? Why? I think it is because a group of people decided that 70mph in that zone was as fast as a person could safely travel for the conditions in that zone.

Do you disagree with the group? Why? Are you capable of safe travel at higher velocities? Am I? Is Joe Retard down the street capable of safe travel in that zone at 60mph?

If I speed through a school zone, even by 1mph, I am driving too fast for the condition set for drivers to drive in that zone.

Do you not agree with the condition signs posted?
I do not agree with your arguement.

You cannot set "conditions". They are constantly changing.

One second the conditions might be ok to travel at 85mph. The next second they might be ok to travel at 5mph.
I am willing to bet that out of all the posters in this thread, we would all disagree on an exact number for a particular zone. I think you're the 'flyer' of the group. Does that mean you're wrong? No. It doesn't mean anyone else is wrong either.

Everybody is equal, but some are more equal than others?

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top