Do you warn on-coming drivers of the speed-trap you just passed?

[RPM90]

Originally Posted by panoz7

A model t can only go 45 mph. Even if it could get up to 10 over in a 70, I can't imagine how it would handle.

When I was a kid we had a john deere gator. We lived on the top of a tall hill that I'd often have to drive down. Compression braking kept the top speed down to around 15 mph. One day I realized that if I put it in neutral I could let it coast as fast as I wanted down the hill. It was fine up until about 20 mph but anything above that was terrifying. The suspension just couldn't handle even moderate bumps at that speed. I suspect a model t would be similar at 80 mph.

My opinion on speed limits probably won't be a popular one on this forum, but here goes: given the "quality" of american drivers I don't want any road to have a speed limit above 75 mph. If the speed limit is 75 some people will be going 90. I have a feeling if the speed limit was 95 some people would be going 110 that have no business going that fast in cars that can't handle those speeds.

Our cars may be faster now than they were 50 years ago, but our reaction times aren't. I don't want that texting idiot behind me to be going any faster than they already are.

All that said, I think speed traps are idiotic. I'd much rather they go after texters and tailgaters, but I guess that's a lot harder. I always flash my lights if there's a cop hidden on the side of the road, and I appreciate it when others do it for me.

There is sense to your point.
If the limit were 90mph, yes some would be going 110mph.

I agree that reaction times aren't any better.
However, modern cars ability to compensate for the lack of increased reaction time has to be taken into consideration.

Modern cars are far safer at speed than most vehicles of the 60's, 70's, and even 80's. Brake systems are much better, have distribution control, and many have a "boost" function that can sense if the driver removes his/her foot off the accelerator quickly, implying they may need full brake force.
These systems apply greater pressure even if the driver is only applying moderate force. This stops the vehicle faster, as most people don't utilize making brake force in emergency stops.
This directly assists lack of increased reaction time.

Nearly all cars have ABS, which helps with maximum braking and shorter brake distances, and also provide steering while braking to avoid a collision instead of just surviving it. Tires are the main ingredient in stopping, and they are MUCH better than they've ever been.
The use of LED's in brake lights offer a few milliseconds of faster light up helping other drivers respond quicker. It may not seem like much, but even if it decreases an emergency stop by 10-15 feet, that's 10-15 feet more than they had before, and that could make the difference between only a tightly clinched sphincter or burns on your face from air bag deployment among other worse injuries.

Steering systems are more direct. Suspensions keep body motions in check so quick lane change manuvers are safer.
All these things add up and give drivers added control and safety.
Plus, all these things also help drivers on roads that aren't built so well.

Imagine driving a 1970's station wagon with it's hyper power steering where sneeze could result in a 2 lane unintended change. Or the wallowing suspension where one dip can send the whole car into a rocking horse motion before it settles back down, unless it meets another dip/bump that keeps the motion sickness going. And all that on bias play tires with chewing gum sidewall squishy-ness.

Soon, systems will be required that can sense the vehicle in front of you.
Based on travel speed, and what the car in front is doing, the system can pre-load the brake boost pressure to give maximum braking IF you need it. IF the system knows the driver should be applying the brakes NOW but they aren't, the system can do it for them.
Yes, it may seem draconian, but in day to day high traffic areas, a system like that in every car will be a welcomed technology.

Also, by using GPS, a system would know what's happening several cars in front of you, several cars in front of them, and etc...
So if the 20th car in front of you, that you can't see, hits the brakes hard to avoid bambi, all the cars behind that one can react giving much needed heads up to all the cars, even in the other lanes next to us.

If we can combine all that great safety enhanced technology with MUCH better drivers training, it would be even better.

[panoz7]

Originally Posted by RPM90

However, modern cars ability to compensate for the lack of increased reaction time has to be taken into consideration.

You make a good point. I may be overly sensitive since I was rear ended a few months ago.

Taking your argument to an extreme, if cars could drive themselves, there would be no speed limit. I doubt very many people on this forum would be very happy if they just sat around while their cars did all the driving. I'm sure there's a happy medium in there somewhere, but personally, I'd gladly put up with a lower speed limit if it meant less government required automation.

I think our time would be better spent advocating for better drivers education (and better vehicle inspections / road maintenance) than pushing for higher speed limits.

[dorkdog]

Originally Posted by J0E

I bet I could drive a Model T 10mph over the speed limit on any given road and be completely in control of the vehicle at all times. This "theory" is sheer nonsense and the proof is in the form of The National Maximum Speed Law. It was a "provision of the 1974 Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act that prohibited speed limits higher than 55 miles per hour (89 km/h). It was drafted in response to oil price spikes and supply disruptions during the 1973 oil crisis." -Wikipedia.

The law wasn't repealed until 1995 and many states still use 55 as a rule of thumb no matter how well constructed the roads are.

This doesn't even touch on the fact that cars are much much better today than they were even 10 years ago, let alone 40+ when most speed limits were set.

We can agree to disagree, but the physics involved in a car making a turn, sideloads, vectors and such are certainly not nonsense. If traffic is to travel around a corner at a given speed, the corner must be banked in order for gravity to offset the centripetal force sending the car off the road. I don't really care if you think it's nonsense, but Newton might take offense.

Roads that are still kept at 55 are kept that way simply because they were built under the auspices of a law restricting the speed limit to that number. Truth be told, the road can handle faster traffic (it has to because of emergency vehicles) but many if not most motorists simply aren't trained to drive a car at speeds in excess of the roadway's design.

And I fail to see how the existence of a law supersedes the laws of physics - can you please explain that to me?

So, can we agree that a given road has a maximum safe speed based on its design and the abilities of some 'average' vehicle, and the government has chosen to disregard that number (based on safety) and opt for a lower number (based on fuel economy)? That the design and intent of the speed limit has changed? I can accept that...

[dorkdog]

Originally Posted by RPM90

If we can combine all that great safety enhanced technology with MUCH better drivers training, it would be even better.

I wonder, though, if all this tech will take the fun out of it. I like my BMW not for the tech it offers (some of which I downright dislike) but for the fun of driving it. Soon, will it be illegal to go 'off the grid' and pass a car or engage in some spirited driving? Will the OP's question become moot as there will be no need for poilice if the GPS is controlling and sequencing my car? Won't it basically be like riding a monorail? Why would we need driver training if the car drives itself?

I have a friend who flies Airbus aircraft. We got our pilot licenses together in high school; he did it as a career. He boards the plane, runs the radio, presses a few buttons, then sits back and waits for the plane to (almost) land itself. He's there to finesse the landing and to be onhand in case of a problem that is not yet rectifiable through programming. He admits he has the most boring job in the world and that it's more fun driving to and from the airport in his Cherokee.

For now.

[jkoral]

Answering the original question, no, I do not warn other drivers of speed traps.

<selfish>
I am not against speeding drivers from getting pulled over and ticketed, my only goal is to avoid getting pulled over *myself*. A cop with a pulled over motorist on the highway, is one less cop available for monitoring my speed. Most speed enforcement should be akin to shooting fish in a barrel, I proactively try to avoid being the shot fish, but I take no action to warn the other fish -- I want the easy odds to remain in the cop's favor.
</selfish>


Speaking of the different types of roads where speed enforcement occurs, I was out for a run the other day when a car flashed it's lights at me (I thought). I wasn't sure why, but as I came upon our neighborhood elementary school (where my two youngest kids go to school), there were two town police hiding behind a tree clocking drivers. The speed limit is 40mph before the school, but lowers to 30mph in front of the school (and 20mph with flashing lights when the school day is starting/ending). I appreciate seeing these types of traps, I don't want motorists flying by at 50mph when kids are on the sidewalks and buses/carpools are pulling in/out of the school.

[ejm3]

I got flashed this morning on my way to work on a backroad and would most likely have been bagged had I not been warned. Thanks to the guy in the blue Jeep Wrangler.
I warn if I think it will actually help other drivers.

[Judge]

Originally Posted by jkoral

I am not against speeding drivers from getting pulled over and ticketed, my only goal is to avoid getting pulled over *myself*. A cop with a pulled over motorist on the highway, is one less cop available for monitoring my speed.

Survival of the fittest. Can't hate on that.