100 MPH Speeding Ticket...

[FROG MAN]

Like to have a $100 for everytime Mamamo hit me on the head. Just cause I opened her up a little running with Skid & Yammer Dan. That was before a certain slow second gen was purchased. I better not say anything about the Red Baron and Blue Beast solo's Warden might be listening.:whistling:

[Yammer Dan]

Or Dodge Hemis.....

[FROG MAN]

Now you know why I sold my Vmax. Never got to hit 5th gear without blowing out a prescription eyecare lense. To expensive to run it as I don't wear a full face helmet.

[Yammer Dan]

Bout time for another ride.

[midnightventure]

I have a friend that is a Mo highway patrolman. He is one of the few that has been shot by a high powered rifle and lived. Years ago when both our sons were on the same baseball team I sat with him and he told me about driving his personal Crown Vic across country on vacation at 85 mph.

 

The only bad bike accident I ever was in I was running slower than normal. If I had been running my normal speeds I would have been well past the intersection before the lady in the van turned.

[Stache]

While I have a certain sympathy for the "Good driver" argument, I'm forced to admit that there will always be that circumstance when being a good driver isn't enough.

 

When mama blue hair appears in front of you without warning... when the piece of pipe falls off the truck you're passing... when the kid in daddy's audi decides to make a race of it far above his skill level.

 

Yes, good riders have the ability to avoid/evade danger more efficiently than bad riders, but Murphy is out there. If you are better able to avoid danger at 100mph than I am, then you are also better able to avoid danger at 60mph than I am.

 

I have been above the posted speed limit on occasion, for reasons I felt justified the risk to myself, other road users, and the risk of a fine to me. I don't make a habit of it because I can enjoy the ride just as well at the posted limit, the more so because I'm confident I'm within the limits of my skills..,

 

If you choose to drive at supra-legal speeds, at least take a moment to think about the increased risks to you, and to me. My children drive on these roads....

[twigg]

While I have a certain sympathy for the "Good driver" argument, I'm forced to admit that there will always be that circumstance when being a good driver isn't enough.

 

When mama blue hair appears in front of you without warning... when the piece of pipe falls off the truck you're passing... when the kid in daddy's audi decides to make a race of it far above his skill level.

 

Yes, good riders have the ability to avoid/evade danger more efficiently than bad riders, but Murphy is out there. If you are better able to avoid danger at 100mph than I am, then you are also better able to avoid danger at 60mph than I am.

 

I have been above the posted speed limit on occasion, for reasons I felt justified the risk to myself, other road users, and the risk of a fine to me. I don't make a habit of it because I can enjoy the ride just as well at the posted limit, the more so because I'm confident I'm within the limits of my skills..,

 

If you choose to drive at supra-legal speeds, at least take a moment to think about the increased risks to you, and to me. My children drive on these roads....

 

Couldn't agree more. Mama Blue Hair, however, won't be pulling out in front of you on a clear Interstate ... clear of everything except you and a laser gun waiting for a pay day.

 

You would be doing nothing dangerous, far less reckless yet in some States that could get you arrested, while in others you wouldn't even be stopped.

 

Nonsensical ....

 

And here is the real issue ... We need laws to help increase the safety of us all. Yet those laws also need to be sensible, and accepted as such by motorists. If they are capricious, or if LEOs tell us that speed kills when we know that it doesn't, not on it's own, then those laws fall into disrepute and are ignored.

 

A case in point .... I would quite happily ignore most speeding on Interstates and other major routes, and hammer very hard those speeding past schools and in neighborhoods, where most accidents actually occur.

 

The only tolerance there would be a sensible judgement of the prevailing conditions, and a small allowance for inaccurate speedos.

[Guest tx2sturgis]

Wow.

 

I find myself in agreement with twigg. Never thought that would happen!

 

 

 

With complete respect to Officer Scott Nelson, the often quoted 'Speed Kills' catchphrase is cute I suppose and easy for people to remember, but completely wrong.

 

 

It should really be stated as 'Speed Costs'...because higher speed=more fuel burned-and/or-higher fine if caught over the limit.

 

But speed in and of itself is harmless. Otherwise all airline passengers and crews would be dead. All Nascar drivers would be dead. And all passengers on 'bullet trains' would be dead.

 

They ALL travel at high speed.

 

I do agree that higher speeds PLUS an impact is what puts you in the hospital or morgue.

 

Not that different from the 'Buckle Up' campaigns that warn you at gunpoint to buckle that seatbelt in your personal 4 wheel vehicle, but allow the state to haul busloads of children in schoolbuses un-restrained.

 

Wow...this one got political...ooops! How did that happen? Sorry boss....

 

 

 

 

[twigg]

See tx2sturgis ... that didn't hurt a bit :rotf:

 

The problem with my approach is that many jurisdictions here in the US would have to find another revenue stream

 

I was stopped, in my car a few years ago, on a motorway in the UK. It was 4am, the road was clear, dry and deserted. A car cruised up behind me and the blue flashing lights went on.

 

"Damn! Now I'm in trouble".

 

I was asked if I knew what speed I was driving ... "probably in excess of the speed limit", I replied politely.

 

"Over the last 17 miles you have averaged 103 mph", I was informed.

 

"However, given the conditions I do not consider that you were driving inappropriately. I want to check your tire condition, and if they are okay you can be on your way".

 

The tires were just fine and I drove home. That was a Police Officer that earned the respect of a motorist.

[BradT]

The tires were just fine and I drove home. That was a Police Officer that earned the respect of a motorist.

 

Up here you would have needed a ride home.

 

Definetly Agree.

 

Brad

[Guest Swifty]

I am a lurker here, mostly, but thought I'd chime in on this one since I have a little experience in this area. I am a State Trooper with 18 years of experience. I have issued literally thousands of tickets, and believe it or not, most are NOT for speeding. I have worked about a thousand motor vehicle crashes of all types and varieties and am a trained traffic crash reconstructionist.

 

Speed kills. Lets get into the math: Kinetic energy is possessed by any object in motion. Kinetic energy is harmless when dispersed over any amount of time, i.e. a controlled stop. We all feel the deceleration, but suffer no ill effects. It is when this Ke is dispersed suddenly that we have problems. The mathmatical formula for determining Ke is 1/2 the mass of the object (weight) times the velocity (speed) squared. This is expressed in familiar terms as foot/pounds or in the case of traffic crashes pounds/mph.

 

In simple terms, a vehicle of known weight traveling 55mph possesses a certain amount of Kinetic Energy. If you accelerate the vehicle to 70mph, the energy nearly DOUBLES! If you don't believe me, do the math. The energy goes up exponentially...litterally. That is two times the energy to dissipate during a crash event going only fifteen mph faster. That is the fundamental mathmatical truth of the relationship between Speed and crashes. Newtonian physics applies to all of us.

 

As far as any "Tolerance" allowed by LEO's....in my state the speed limit is just that. A LIMIT. As in the upper end...the most allowed.....don't go faster than this. That being said it looks a little bad if I have to taser a guy that I stopped for 57 in a 55. Most guys I know want to make certain they have stopped a violator for something worth the inherant risks involved in a traffic stop.

 

And you are right, you can't outrun Motorola. Ride safe.

 

Scott:322:

...(groan)

[FuzzyRSTD]

I am a lurker here, mostly, but thought I'd chime in on this one since I have a little experience in this area. I am a State Trooper with 18 years of experience. I have issued literally thousands of tickets, and believe it or not, most are NOT for speeding. I have worked about a thousand motor vehicle crashes of all types and varieties and am a trained traffic crash reconstructionist.

 

Speed kills. Lets get into the math: Kinetic energy is possessed by any object in motion. Kinetic energy is harmless when dispersed over any amount of time, i.e. a controlled stop. We all feel the deceleration, but suffer no ill effects. It is when this Ke is dispersed suddenly that we have problems. The mathmatical formula for determining Ke is 1/2 the mass of the object (weight) times the velocity (speed) squared. This is expressed in familiar terms as foot/pounds or in the case of traffic crashes pounds/mph.

 

In simple terms, a vehicle of known weight traveling 55mph possesses a certain amount of Kinetic Energy. If you accelerate the vehicle to 70mph, the energy nearly DOUBLES! If you don't believe me, do the math. The energy goes up exponentially...litterally. That is two times the energy to dissipate during a crash event going only fifteen mph faster. That is the fundamental mathmatical truth of the relationship between Speed and crashes. Newtonian physics applies to all of us.

 

As far as any "Tolerance" allowed by LEO's....in my state the speed limit is just that. A LIMIT. As in the upper end...the most allowed.....don't go faster than this. That being said it looks a little bad if I have to taser a guy that I stopped for 57 in a 55. Most guys I know want to make certain they have stopped a violator for something worth the inherant risks involved in a traffic stop.

 

And you are right, you can't outrun Motorola. Ride safe.

 

Scott:322:

 

Yes sir, I agree, thank you. Your reaction time is also limited at these higher speeds, even making things a little worse. I work for the State Hwy Dept. and most of these nonsense drivers will not even slowdown much even when the highways become slick and even more hazardous. People will learn to slow down, but I hope it is not at the cost of my life or my families life. I have saw so many nonsense accidents while on the roads working snow and ice removal. I have saw them wrecking before they actually knew it themselves.

 

A vehicle is also only tested at a certain speed to tolerate a crash, they are not tanks. They are 2000 lbs of steel and rubber with explosive fuel on board and some souls or souls inside all this. You are in charge of the driving your vehicle and the safety of not only your selfish self but others around you and with you. I must drive on the same roads as you. This is very serious. I say if you pull them over for 15 mph over the posted speed, give them the stiffest penalty available. If it don't work the first time, take away the right to drive.

Edited February 7, 2012 by FuzzyRSTD
Because my estimation of 10 mph over is not reality, more like 15.

[jfoster]

I have come across this attitude before and in that respect fully understand where it comes from.

 

However, it is completely wrong, at least insofar as it uses irrelevant information to bolster a poor point.

 

There is no dispute that the faster a vehicle is traveling, the more likely it is to do serious damage ... IF IT HITS SOMETHING.

 

Speed, in of itself, does not cause a vehicle to hit anything. Do guns kill people. or do people kill people, with guns?

 

The only dangerous aspect to speed, is speed used inappropriately, and we are back to the bad driving argument. Speed limits, per se, are a complete irrelevance in this debate.

 

None of this addresses the disparity between jurisdictions. Is it safe to drive at 85mph on an Interstate in Texas? If so, then why is it considered dangerous to exceed 65mph in others? What is more, I wonder if LEOs from those "other" States would come here and tell us that exceeding 65mph was dangerous, because it was the speed limit, and would they get into a

fight with the Texas LEOs who were busy laughing into their radar guns?

 

Let's remember that accidents have causes. What is "accidental" is that there was no intention to cause the incident, but they still have causes and there is still someone, or more, to blame. Every accident, with the odd exception of some freak events that couldn't

reasonably be anticipated, has bad driving as the root cause. Speed may be indicative of bad

driving, but not always so.

 

One of the problems we have is that "Good Driving" is not taught. We teach to a test and a set of rules, many of them arcane and contradictory. Driving is not a test to pass, it is a life skill to learn, and keep learning. One of the things one learns is what the appropriate speed

to drive at is given the prevailing conditions. That may, or may not be the posted speed

limit.

 

Speed limits are determined by each state since 1995, prior to that the Feds set the national speed limits from 1973 to 1995 to states that wanted highway funding (if I understand it right). They do studies to determine what an appropriate speed limit should be. For example, west Tx may be set at 85 mph due to the amount of traffic vs another state that a higher percentage of traffic. Do they make sense, sometimes.

[FuzzyRSTD]

Speed limits are determined by each state since 1995, prior to that the Feds set the national speed limits from 1973 to 1995 to states that wanted highway funding (if I understand it right). They do studies to determine what an appropriate speed limit should be. For example, west Tx may be set at 85 mph due to the amount of traffic vs another state that a higher percentage of traffic. Do they make sense, sometimes.

 

Yes, I read that quite some time ago also. Thank you for making that point. It not only includes the amount of traffic, but also the attitude of the drivers in that area. I have helped set up the speed sensors and radars on the roadways for studies. States have done these studies for years in unmarked cars and other ways to help determine speed factors. These speeds are not just picked out at random. There are a lot of different things considered. I believe we are living way to fast and people think they must drive faster to accommodate their lifestyle, silly I know, but take a look at the next vehicle passing you by with no respect to the speed limit and see for yourself. Are they above the law of the land ? Our forefathers put forth efforts to try to keep piece and help all to live to see another day with laws that work.

 

For me I will stay with in my range of 5 miles of the speed limit, unless in an emergency situation or passing. I took my wife to the hospital a while back for possible heart attack. I got onto interstate 64 west and had my emergency flashers on and was running 85 - 90 mile per hour (limit here is 70 mph). I was passed by three vehicles running in excess of my 85 - 90 mile per hour before I got off the interstate. All out of state vehicles. :confused24::confused24:

[Trader]

I was stopped, in my car a few years ago, on a motorway in the UK. It was 4am, the road was clear, dry and deserted. A car cruised up behind me and the blue flashing lights went on.

 

"Damn! Now I'm in trouble".

 

I was asked if I knew what speed I was driving ... "probably in excess of the speed limit", I replied politely.

 

"Over the last 17 miles you have averaged 103 mph", I was informed.

 

"However, given the conditions I do not consider that you were driving inappropriately. I want to check your tire condition, and if they are okay you can be on your way".

 

The tires were just fine and I drove home. That was a Police Officer that earned the respect of a motorist.

 

 

A friend who travels extensively told me there are some areas (I think it was England) that will issue you a fine if your AVERAGE speed between tolls is too fast. IThey calculate it should take so much time to travel from a to b and if you do it too much faster then they ticket you.

I guess it's like the marks on the high way used by planes to time speeders...only that's only a short distance!

[Yammer Dan]

So if I make it from DQ to DQ too fast I'm going to get a ticket??? What about those 2nd Gens??

[BradT]

So if I make it from DQ to DQ too fast I'm going to get a ticket??? What about those 2nd Gens??

 

There still enjoying the ride, don't need to stop for a break as often.

 

Brad

[FuzzyRSTD]

So if I make it from DQ to DQ too fast I'm going to get a ticket??? What about those 2nd Gens??

 

Yammer, that would depend how hot of a day it is, would it not ? The hotter, the faster you may run. For the ice-cream may melt.

[twigg]

A friend who travels extensively told me there are some areas (I think it was England) that will issue you a fine if your AVERAGE speed between tolls is too fast. IThey calculate it should take so much time to travel from a to b and if you do it too much faster then they ticket you.

I guess it's like the marks on the high way used by planes to time speeders...only that's only a short distance!

 

That would be France, not England. England has very few toll roads and France has lots.

 

This practise is pretty rare and you would have to be traveling pretty damned fast to fall foul of it.

 

The speed limit is 81mph anyway, and a single gas stop is enough to bring down the average. Personally I think it's a rumour started by the French, to slow people down a bit.

 

I have ridden with friends all the way from north to south regularly cruising at around 100mph, and never had an issue at toll booths.

 

Oh yeah ... and we were still passed regularly by French motorists who are, presumably, not even a bit concerned by this ... er ... feature!