Slashdot Mirror


Geek and Gadgets Set Cross-US Speed Record

Brikus writes "And you thought your car had gadgets. In this story from Wired magazine, we hear about Alex Roy and his quest to break the record time for a cross-USA road trip. One of the biggest roadblocks to breaking the record: highway patrol officers, about 31,000 along the way. So Roy decked out his E39 BMW M5 with a thermal camera, radar/laser detectors, GPS devices, police scanners, and other high-tech gadgets and toys."

805 comments

  1. Team Polizei by User+956 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This guy's brilliant although he does have his share of rough spots with the cops.

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
    1. Re:Team Polizei by Divebus · · Score: 2, Funny

      Stealth at its best.

      --

      Most of the stuff on /. won't survive first contact with facts.
    2. Re:Team Polizei by unixcrab · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This guy is an idiot and should have his license revoked. Anybody who thinks the public roads are his personal race track should be shot in the knee caps so that he may never drive again. what a prick.

    3. Re:Team Polizei by somersault · · Score: 2, Funny

      You can drive fine without legs. Anyone who wants to shoot another human being in the kneecaps should be shot in the kneecaps so that they can see what a prick they are o_0

      --
      which is totally what she said
    4. Re:Team Polizei by d3vi1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not necessarily. Some american drivers suck, and because of that american motorway speeds are incredibly low. Almost everywhere in Europe the maximum speed is around 80 mph, and everywhere you can safely drive at OVER 90mph, while in the US it's at 65 or 75mph. The problem with the american drivers is that they hardly ever use the mirrors. I've seen drivers going directly from the carpool lane to the exit quite a few times without ever bothering to check the damned mirrors. From my point of view, automatic gear-boxes combined with driving only on motorways, leads to bad drivers. I've also seen drivers with their feet on the dashboard. I can't possibly imagine how on earth is the driver supposed to brake and avoid a possible accident with his feet up.
      They give an 18 year old a gun, they allow him to drive (which is potentially dangerous) at 16, but he can't have a beer until he's 21. Figure that out.
      It seems pretty normal to me to learn about the effects of alcohol _BEFORE_ you can get a weapon or drive a car.
      Getting back to the subject at hand. I think that the US should make the drivers license exam (the practical part) a lot harder. Driving on a mountain-side road with a lot of hairpin-turns in a manual gearbox car (possibly on snow or other bad conditions), teaches one about driving more than 1000 hours on a motorway. I also think that the guy has a very serious point by doing that.

      --
      UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever ones.
    5. Re:Team Polizei by DudeTheMath · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Harder raod tests? Sure. Mountain hairpin turns? In snow? There aren't enough taxes in the state of Florida to bus everyone who wants a license to West Virginia or something.

      Where I live, roads are mostly straight, mostly flat, and occasionally under water; that's what they need to test. My mom used to say she'd much rather drive in snow than rain, since the idiots thought they could drive in rain.

      But regardless of driver training, nothing can prepare you for some idiot coming up behind you at twice your speed. I'm good about using my mirrors (unlike most Americans, I have almost no overlap between my rear-view and side-view mirrors, so I have almost no blind spot). If I want to change lanes, I signal, check the mirror, and go. What looks like a two-second following distance disappears in, you guessed it, two seconds if the idiot is travelling at twice my speed.

      Don't undersestimate the startle factor, either, as somebody blows by you at 70mph, relatively. How many accidents (and near accidents) did this guy leave in his wake, with people he never touched?

      You might say it's the American sheep culture, that on European roads you have to expect people to pass you at high rates of speed. But that's because it's legal in (parts of) Europe. Here, we expect "bad boys" to whip by at maybe twenty over the limit. This guy's a moron if he thinks he can't hurt anyone he doesn't hit.

      --
      You save only 59 seconds over 8 miles by going 75 instead of 65. Do you really have to pass that guy? Do the Math!
    6. Re:Team Polizei by ObiWanStevobi · · Score: 1

      Huh? Speed limits were created for fuel economy, not safety. And whats with all the bullshit generalizations? Automatic transmission doesn't have anything to do with it. I'll agree they suck to drive, but they don't make you a worse driver.

    7. Re:Team Polizei by lazy_playboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      US drivers are weird. In Britian in moderately heavy commuter traffic it's unusual for any cars to be going under 70mph. Most are travelling between 75-85mph, and a few at 85-95mph. It's not usual for someone to pass at over 100mph. But US drivers have a coronary if someone even thinks about pushing past 70...

      And we have very few problems. Speed kills? My arse it does. Most British drivers (especially commuter drivers) are good at regularly checking mirrors, and if someone is coming up rapidly will usually pull in to let the car pass. Not everyone does because some people are arses about it, but we have very few accidents none-the-less.

      You speak of a 2 second gap being closed too quick for you to cope with... surely you can judge how quickly a car is approaching in the mirror? If the car is approaching rapidly, just let it pass before pulling out! It's not hard, is it?

      Oh, are Americans taught to signal before checking the mirror? That's a bit of a no-no here for good reason. You only indicate after you've checked it's clear, otherwise a driver in the bit of road where you want to be might think that you've not seen them and take potentially dangerous avoiding action.

      How many accidents did Roy cause? None, I'll bet. Of course it's a silly thing to do, but he's not biting babies heads off.

    8. Re:Team Polizei by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Speed limits were created for ticket revenue generation.

    9. Re:Team Polizei by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You save only 59 seconds over 8 miles by going 75 instead of 65. Do you really have to pass that guy? Do the Math!"

      Hmmmm, except I do 95mph instead of 65mph over 100 miles regularly and do perfectly safely thank you. You do the maths.

    10. Re:Team Polizei by Ferretman · · Score: 1

      Hey, you're being silly...."they" don't "give" an 18-year old a gun. Though I got my first gun at age 12, come to think of it.

      Though that WOULD be a neat idea...

      "Howdy boy, you're a man now. Here's your gun, here's your driver's license, here's your Voter Card--now go be a good citizen and remember not to vote Democratic!".

      Ferretman

      --
      Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
    11. Re:Team Polizei by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      The 55mph speed limit was supposedly created for fuel economy, all the rest are about safety. FYI: all my cars get better fuel economy between 75-110 mph than below 70. I actually did 35mpg @ 95mph through the mountains over a 300 mile stretch. I've also driven 155mph, ~250kph, on the glorious autobahn in Germany, so no, this isn't unusual or odd or even dangerous if you know what you're doing. It's one way I clocked 10s of thousands of miles in Europe in general. Also, there's nothing quite as interesting as getting passed while you're going 150mph. Those ferraris and porsches really do drive, and we won't mention the suicide rockets (motorcycles.... gives me shivers).

      Note: trucks, including pickups and SUVs, almost all uniformly obtain better fuel economy below 70 mph, as do most underpowered small-engined econo-boxes.

      Automatic transmissions remove the need to pay attention from various aspects of driving. This is fine once you know how to drive, but doesn't help you "learn" to drive, which is what makes you a better driver. My biggest beef with automatics is they're largely unresponsive and don't do what I want them to.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    12. Re:Team Polizei by JCSoRocks · · Score: 1
      YES! I agree 100%. American drivers are ridiculous. People can't even merge correctly onto the freeway let alone stay on it for any period of time without looking ridiculous. I regularly get stuck behind people trying to merge in a 65 MPH area while they're going 45 MPH... and we wonder why traffic comes to a halt during rush hour!? I've been on the road when it's as full as it is during rush hour and I've gone 60+. Other times I've watched person after person slowly merge onto the freeway and gum up the whole thing. ugh. Sadly, our cops are more obsessed with enforcing popular (and lucrative) speed laws than they are any of the other driving laws (turn signal, anyone from California?).

      Mirrors you say? Judging traffic? I WISH. That'd require them to think about someone other than themselves while they're driving... In all my years of driving I think I could count on two hands the number of times someone has preemptively moved out of the fast lane because I was coming up on them. The rest of the time it's either tailgate until they move or it's the ol' three lane pass (you gotta move over three lanes to the right, pass them, then move back. ridiculous.)

      Which reminds me... people here don't even know what the lanes are for. Despite "slow traffic keep right" signs... Here in Oregon, I still do most of my passing in the right most lane - because it's empty, and the left lane is full of people that are convinced that they're going "as fast as anyone needs to go!". *sigh* thank God I work from home now!

      Calm down mods... I'm an American too :P

      --
      You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
    13. Re:Team Polizei by paganizer · · Score: 1

      Ever step back, take a look around, and consider the possibility that you are a whiner?
      I realize you would probably me happier in a Matrix-like virtual reality environment where there was no actual danger of you or yours being physically injured, but their is a significant minority of the population that enjoys actually living, not just walking in place until the day they die.
      if you were just being a troll, I apologize, good job.

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
    14. Re:Team Polizei by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

      I think that the US should make the drivers license exam (the practical part) a lot harder. I read an article once in The Wall Street Journal about how the driving exam in Britain is notoriously difficult. Ironically, this doesn't do all it could to keep the roads safe... a decent number of people just go unlicensed.

      FYI, if you didn't know, there are... what, at least 51? different drivers license agencies each with their own set of tests and eligibility rules and such (50 states + DC) which may differ substantially. This does have its upsides, but precludes the US as a single, unified entity from making the tests harder.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    15. Re:Team Polizei by maxume · · Score: 1

      There aren't any hairpin mountain turns within about 1,000 miles of here. Taking students to such a thing would get a bit expensive(and I love how you insinuate that only America has drivers that suck, as if it weren't a natural human phenomenon that some people are bad at things and have no idea about it).

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    16. Re:Team Polizei by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as he doesn't drive on a cell phone, he's undoubtedly a better, safer and more responsible driver than 98% of the other idiots on the road, and with infinitely more situational awareness. I'm fine with it.

    17. Re:Team Polizei by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Huh? Speed limits were created for fuel economy, not safety.

      Speed limits were created fre revenue enhancement. Not for safety, and not for fuel economy. They're there to provide extra money to local budgets in the form of speeding tickets.

      Note that in neither the fuel economy nor safety models would it make sense to lower Interstate speed limits in cities (same limited access, same road designs). And yet speed limits are lowered by 5-10 mph in most cities while driving on the Interstates.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    18. Re:Team Polizei by MM_LONEWOLF · · Score: 1

      Britain, hell Europe. I'm currently attending a high school in South Dakota, and every year we have approximately 5 or 6 foreign exchange students, almost exclusively from Germany. Just 2 or 3 years ago, a foreign exchange student was killed when she went to a party with her host family's son, there was drinking involved, and he let her drive home. Needless to say, it did not end well. He was in the hospital, and she was in the morgue the next morning. This year, another german foreign exchange student was talking to me about the exam in Europe. She said that the driving age over there is relative to the drinking age over here, if people actually obeyed the drinking age law. She also said that it costs as much as a cheap car just to get into the class. It is taken very seriously in Germany, and they do their best to ensure all drivers are as good as the government can possibly make them.

      --
      To live without killing is a thought which could electrify the world, if men were capable of staying awake long enough.
    19. Re:Team Polizei by Kyle_Katarn-(ISF) · · Score: 1

      As far as the low highway speeds? I don't know about over in Europe, but we have tons of semis on the roads here. Maybe y'all's can go faster, but my Freightliner has a top speed of between 80-90MPH loaded. And that's pushing it. And down here in South Carolina, 90%+ of the roads are two-lane. So there ARE practical reasons for the lower speeds. I could stand an increase from 55 though. But around here, at least, the cops won't pull you unless you're doing 20+ over the limit.

      Oh, and I completely, 100% agree with you about the idiot drivers. They give a kid a car at 15, and tell him to go drive. Thank the Lord you can't drive a semi until you're 21...

    20. Re:Team Polizei by CodeArtisan · · Score: 1

      As George Carlin has said, Americans generally like to indicate after they have changed lanes, so you can tell where they have been. In all seriousness, though, the Interstate (= motorway) around here has such a crappy surface and such narrow lanes, 55 mph is fast enough for an upper speed limit.

    21. Re:Team Polizei by DudeTheMath · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I said nothing about my inability to cope with a gap closed in two seconds; I'm worried about the guy coming up behind me. I'm pretty good at judging how quickly someone's approaching, and letting the guy who's going 80 pass me before I pull out to do 70 around the guy who's going 65.

      What I'd hoped to express is that someone going 140 is completely out of the ken of the American driver. It's entirely possible that someone going 70mph faster than me is not even visible when I form the intent to pass (and first check my mirror: I was taught check, signal, then check again), or is just so far back that his speed can't be accurately judged.

      And as far as biting babies' heads off: Someone roared up behind a couple I know who were passing someone else, and sat on their bumper at 75mph (in a 55mph zone) honking and flashing. As soon as they were ahead of the car they were passing, they signalled and pulled back into the center lane only to be creamed by someone coming in from the right. The asshole who'd forced them over probably never knew he'd been the effective cause of an accident behind him. Their toddler, properly strapped in the back seat, was killed by a bumper that came over the back deck. Amazingly, they're still together.

      --
      You save only 59 seconds over 8 miles by going 75 instead of 65. Do you really have to pass that guy? Do the Math!
    22. Re:Team Polizei by Surt · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but are you seriously suggesting that we encourage our 18 year old gun toting drivers to drink before we send them out on the road?

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    23. Re:Team Polizei by Stray7Xi · · Score: 1

      It all depends on where you are. Most highways 70-75 is usual traffic speed. It's completely reasonable to assume someone won't be travelling 70mph over that as the GP suggested. With the traffic loads on normal highways even at 100 you're not visible at a 2 second window because at that speed you're weaving in and out of traffic (obscured by other cars).

      I have no problem with speeding on open highways with common courtesy (Pass on left, merge right so others can pass you if they want to go faster) but then its not possible to go 140 since you have to slow down when the guy going 80 wants to pass the guy going 70.

    24. Re:Team Polizei by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      It's kind of hard to merge safely at 65 when you have 20 feet to do it in. Perhaps your highways are built better?

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    25. Re:Team Polizei by japhmi · · Score: 1

      People can't even merge correctly onto the freeway

      Oregonians can't merge, that's 100% true (I'm also an Oregon driver). I don't know how many times I've had to gun it or slam on the breaks so that the person merging doesn't simply ram into me.
      --
      "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys" P. J. O'Rourke
    26. Re:Team Polizei by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      You mean you're not allowed to drive a semi until you're 21. I've seen many a trucker who can't drive for shit. As an average though, they are better than most of the retards on the road, and I always give 'em room and let them in when they're signaling. I just wish I could punch the semi who's going 65 in the left lane of the road where the speed limit's 75, barely passing the people in the lane next to him, coming up on a hill that'll make him slow down. Just look in front of you! Your truck won't keep it's speed up that hill, get the fuck over and out of the way of people whose vehicles WILL handle it!

    27. Re:Team Polizei by Mattintosh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      the US should make the drivers license exam (the practical part) a lot harder

      Agreed on the tests-should-be-harder part, but I hate to burst your bubble here. "The US" doesn't issue driver's licenses. Each state is responsible for that. There is no federal driver's license.

      Driving on a mountain-side road with a lot of hairpin-turns in a manual gearbox car (possibly on snow or other bad conditions), teaches one about driving more than 1000 hours on a motorway.

      And this is why each state is responsible for its own driving tests. The highest mountain peak in the state I live in (Missouri) is about 1500 ft. above sea level. And you can't really drive up it (it's Taum Sauk Mountain, which is privately owned and has a broken reservoir on top of it). The worst driving conditions in this state are: 1) The interstates, 2) the bog-mire country roads, and 3) anywhere in suburban St. Louis or Kansas City. In that order.

      Learning to drive on the interstates is an exercise in keeping yourself mentally awake despite not seeing anything noteworthy for miles. The reward for this is your life. Failure means death under the rear wheels of a tractor-trailer.

      Learning to drive on crappy country roads is an exercise that teaches how not to get stuck. Failure means calling and paying a tow-truck, or at least Farmer John down the road, who probably has a tow chain and a diesel farm truck with enough torque to remove you from the mud ruts.

      Learning to drive in suburban hell is a must if you are going to ever buy something anywhere in this state. Real shops don't exist in urban and rural areas. Urban areas get the foo-foo shops (coffee shops, restaurants, antiques stores, artisans' shops, etc.). Rural areas are heavy on machinery repair, gas stations, and a select few fast-food joints. But the good-intention-paved streets of suburbia are where you can actually buy things you need in day-to-day life. Like toilet paper. And shoes. The reward for learning how to deal with driving those streets of hell is, again, your life. If you fail this test, you are undoubtedly pinned between a BMW containing a dead guy with two cellphones embedded in his head and an SUV (a.k.a. "Yuppie Tank" or "Urban Assault Vehicle") containing one clueless soccer-mom that swears she did nothing wrong, despite the obvious fact that Bimmer Boy is dead and you're soon to be.

      What really needs to happen, though, is a change in the law and a change in the enforcement of the law. One of these things is not like the others... see if you can spot it.

      Q: Why should you stop for a red light?
      A: Because someone else will probably hit you if you don't.

      Q: Why should you signal before turning or changing lanes?
      A: Because someone else will probably hit you if you don't.

      Q: Why should you turn into the near lane instead of the far lane?
      A: Because someone else will probably hit you if you don't.

      Q: Why should you obey the speed limit?
      A: Because the cops will write you a ticket if you don't.

      Speed limits don't prevent anything. In fact, most accidents during the morning commute (statistically, the highest accident rate is during the morning rush hour) are at a low speed, when everyone is going 35 mph on the interstate (where the speed limit is 60). So here's a thought... instead of punishing "maybe-crime", punish actual crime. You went too fast? Who cares? You ran into someone? That's a violation of motor vehicle laws. The primary law in the matter says that you must keep your vehicle under control at all times. An accident is a loss of control (unless you meant to hit someone, in which case it's vehicular assault). If you hit someone, you've harmed them, either physically or financially. Who's the victim when you break the speed limit? Nobody. It's just about half a notch short of thought crime.

      So get rid of speed limits and teach people how to avoid causing accidents instead of how to avoid the cops. Then impose strict penalties upon those that cause accidents. That alone would fix most of the problems on the roads in the US.

    28. Re:Team Polizei by wertarbyte · · Score: 1

      If I want to change lanes, I signal, check the mirror, and go.

      ...while the motorcycle driver who was approaching you from behind at twice your speed recovers from his heart attack. NEVER signal without looking. Look, THEN signal, look again, go. A car around 10m in front of you signaling a change to your lane while you approach it with a signficant speed difference is NOT something you are looking forward to.

      --
      Life is just nature's way of keeping meat fresh.
    29. Re:Team Polizei by fluffy99 · · Score: 1

      One consideration for speed limits is to ensure safe merging. If everyone had a car with plenty of merging power, or the states put in adequately long acceleration lanes, there's no issue with raising the highway speed limits.

    30. Re:Team Polizei by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      City's have an increased level of traffic which increases the chances people are stopped. I know people who where hit because of this.

    31. Re:Team Polizei by Michael+O-P · · Score: 2, Informative

      And apparently you have never driven through a small town with an overzealous police department.

      --
      I'm Peggy.
    32. Re:Team Polizei by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even when you're in a hurry, you need to check to make sure you're changing lanes correctly. It's very sad that their baby was killed, but it wasn't the fault of the faster driver riding their ass. If they want to blame someone else, it should be the asshat who passed on the right and swooped into their lane combined with them not ensuring the lane they were moving into was clear.

      I'm going to post anon since it sounds like I'm pro-baby death and it reads harsh.

    33. Re:Team Polizei by macabresoul · · Score: 1
      I am from Los Angeles, and I agree. Most people here drive like retards on the freeway.

      In all my years of driving I think I could count on two hands the number of times someone has preemptively moved out of the fast lane because I was coming up on them.
      This is especially true on the drive from LA to Vegas. Cars going under the speed limit in the fast lane, trucks passing other trucks at 20 miles below the speedlimit (it's a 2 lane road).

      As per someone elses post above, we don't need harder driving tests, we should make everyone learn proper driver etiquette. It's absurd to see people get upset because you flash them to get out of the fast lane, but then again, maybe they never learned that the left lane IS the fast lane. Either way, they are morons.
    34. Re:Team Polizei by lazy_playboy · · Score: 1

      You think it'd be a good thing that this guy dies? You are very weird. I'm glad that an anonymous internet interaction is the closest I'll ever get to you.

    35. Re:Team Polizei by lazy_playboy · · Score: 1
      You said,

      If I want to change lanes, I signal, check the mirror, and go. Which is in direct contradiction to your last post. Why signal before checking the way is clear to change lanes?
      I'm sorry about your story of the accident that involved your friends, I really wish it'd never happened. A couple of points: just because the arseholes were breaking the speed limit doesn't mean all people who break the limit are arseholes. Secondly, you admit that the victim was breaking the speed limit, so that really blows your premise that the other guys' speeding was entirely to blame.

      I really wish the accident you related didn't happen, but why did the driver pull into the center lane into a rapidly approaching car? I've never driven in the US, but I've been led to believe that undertaking is very very common, even though it's technically illegal in most states.

      I'll accept that being passed at 140mph is pretty quick. But umm, aren't we talking about major trunk roads here? Quick is the whole fucking point. There is no point in the majority of drivers being dragged down to the lowest common denominator. All we need is a decently difficult drivers' exam, regular roadworthiness tests on all vehicles and well maintained roads. It's easy for civilised countries, why does the US have such a problem with it? ;-)
    36. Re:Team Polizei by Zenaku · · Score: 1

      What is it with German exchange students and driving? When I was in High School myself, 15 years before you and one state north, I let a very cute German exchange student drive my car, just a mile or so on quiet residential streets, from one friend's house to another. There was no alcohol involved, and she still managed to crash it headlong into my buddy's truck. Then I had to tell my dad that it was some hit and run driver while I had it parked in the street, so she wouldn't get in trouble.

      And I didn't even get laid.

      Not so bad as people dying, I suppose, but. . . damn, I wonder where she is now?

      --
      If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
    37. Re:Team Polizei by lazy_playboy · · Score: 1

      It's completely reasonable to assume someone won't be travelling 70mph over that as the GP suggested. What about the copper trying to make significant progress for a perfectly legitamate reason?

      When I'm on the motorway I try to be aware of anything in the mirrors at least every 3-4 seconds or so. If something is on my tail without me seeing it coming up I give myself a bollocking for 1) not seeing it in good time, and 2) not managing to pull into an inside lane to let them past so that neither me or they need to brake.

      If everyone creeps along at 65mph, everyone just sleeps along in the same lane. A small speed deferential (between 70-100mph) keeps everyone moving between lanes and keeps everyone awake and safe. IMHO ;-)
    38. Re:Team Polizei by JoeShmoe950 · · Score: 1

      I'm glad to live in MA. We are known for our "crazy driving habits," and while we have our fair share of bad drivers, we have faster ones too. Unless things are clogged, the traffic on the Pike usually moves ~80 mph, and the cops don't generally pull people over until ~85-90 mph. Upon visiting Arizona, I noticed that although the speed limit was 70 or 75 in some places, people usually want it. MA on the other hand, has police who are usually not crazy, and people who drive at a decent pace.

    39. Re:Team Polizei by JCSoRocks · · Score: 1

      Our on-ramps are long enough to give you more than the time necessary to accelerate to the posted speed. There are a few exceptions in downtown Portland... but even there, if you floor it, you can get up to 50 easily in an underpowered, fully loaded SUV. (posted speed in Portland is 55).

      --
      You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
    40. Re:Team Polizei by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Towns have different speed limits than highways. The grandparent was bitching because we can't drive 80 like they do in Europe. They don't drive through a towns streets at 80 in Europe. Highway speeds used to be higher in the US, and were decreased dramatically in the 70's in response to the fuel crisis.

    41. Re:Team Polizei by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Right near where I work, there is a big highway with a very short merge zone on the overpass. The actual merge zone is long, but you can only see cars for the last 50 feet or so.

      This is US-19 Southbound at Sunset Point Rd, in Clearwater, FL.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    42. Re:Team Polizei by chis101 · · Score: 1

      In all my years of driving I think I could count on two hands the number of times someone has preemptively moved out of the fast lane because I was coming up on them. The rest of the time it's either tailgate until they move or it's the ol' three lane pass (you gotta move over three lanes to the right, pass them, then move back. ridiculous.)

      If I see a car approaching quickly in my mirror, I will move over if possible to let them pass. However, if I cannot move over because of a car next to me, I'm not moving over until I pass that car, and I'm not going to speed up to accommodate your excessive speed. Be patient, I'll move over when I can.

      Now, your 'tailgate until they move' tactic isn't going to work on me. If you ride my ass, I will match speeds with the car next to me until you back off.

      Don't be an asshole. It isn't your road, and you probably are not as good of a driver as you think you are.
    43. Re:Team Polizei by LuminaireX · · Score: 1

      Speed limits were created to conserve gasoline. They stuck around to generate revenue.

    44. Re:Team Polizei by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      The US speed limit was 55 mph for *fuel efficiency* reasons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law
      (As that page states, it was later raised to 65 mph then repealed.)

    45. Re:Team Polizei by Maxmin · · Score: 1

      On some NYC-area highways, the onramps are either T'd into the main road, some with stop signs! You sit there, at a right-angle to the flow of traffic, wait for a huge break in traffic, then floor it and hope for the best. Nutso...

      --
      O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
    46. Re:Team Polizei by Bluesy21 · · Score: 0

      I think that the US should make the drivers license exam (the practical part) a lot harder. Driving on a mountain-side road with a lot of hairpin-turns in a manual gearbox car (possibly on snow or other bad conditions), teaches one about driving more than 1000 hours on a motorway.
      Personally, I think the manual gearbox would be a help in snow covered mountain roads with hairpin-turns. I love my standard tranny in the winter because it gives me more control of my car especially in bad road conditions.

      I'm not trying to flame you; in fact I mostly agree with you. Most drivers here are horrible and too busy doing something else while driving. I've had to basically force my wife to learn standard in the off-chance she needs to drive my car in an emergency. Her main reason for disliking the standard transmission is because it keeps her from doing everything else she wants to do while driving. Silly me thought she was joking at first. I find it absolutely disturbing that people feel the need/ability to do so many things while driving other than actually paying attention to the road and what is going on around them. Some days I find it amazing that the majority of people make it to and from work everyday.

      Remember, mirrors are only really for putting your makeup on while driving.
    47. Re:Team Polizei by Lunzo · · Score: 1

      I'm good about using my mirrors (unlike most Americans, I have almost no overlap between my rear-view and side-view mirrors, so I have almost no blind spot). If I want to change lanes, I signal, check the mirror, and go.

      Actually you should always check your blind spot, no matter how well set up your mirrors are. The amount of times someone has been sitting in my blind spot right when I want to change lanes... let's just say I think you're very lucky not to have had an accident.

      I also make it a habit to not cruise along in other drivers' blind spots. If they are aware of you then there's an extra safety margin in case things go wrong (e.g. them needing to change lanes suddenly to avoid a hazard). It also saves you from getting collected by people like yourself who don't check their blind spot.

    48. Re:Team Polizei by Fian · · Score: 1

      The standard lane change technique for a car taught in Australia goes:

      -Check mirrors
      -Indicate
      -Shoulder check (blind spot check, turn to look over your shoulder down the drivers side of the vehicle)
      -Go if clear

      The idea is you indicate even if your blind spot is not clear, you are trying to change lanes so any vehicle in your blind spot needs to know that to adjust their position (either forwards or backwards). If you check your blind spot and it is not clear the indicators let the other driver know what you are trying to achieve.

      So why mirror check before indicating? Essentially if you see something in the mirror that says you aren't going to be able to change lanes now (for example some galah approaching at speed trying to overtake you), you don't cause them to react in a possibly dangerous way (heavy braking, swerving).

      Obviously the way you act has to adapt to the circumstance. In heavy traffic, your mirror check will always say the way is not clear but you indicate anyway, again to inform other drivers that you wish to change lanes, hopefully they will adjust to allow it. The shoulder check then serves as your final check before committing to the maneuver.

      Now lets start a flamewar on the correct way to indicate at roundabouts :)

    49. Re:Team Polizei by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

      Germany has a great system for this. You can't drive until you're 18, then you have to take a long and expensive course, then car insurance and gas are expensive. So, you don't get a car unless you really have to. Having a 2nd car is almost unheard of. Germany also has reliable and ubiquitous public transport. Americans are used to going where they want, when they want, and without being on a bus with smelly plebes. So, i'm not sure how that would work here. We allow 16 year olds to drive because many of them have jobs. i think kids that age already have a job... going to school and getting good grades. Parents don't want to cart their kids around, but doing so might keep them out of drugs, pregnancy and STDs.

      --
      Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
    50. Re:Team Polizei by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Anyone who wants to shoot another human being in the kneecaps for wanting to shoot another human being in the kneecaps should be shot in the kneecaps so that they can see what a prick they are.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    51. Re:Team Polizei by somersault · · Score: 1

      Didn't say I wanted to, was just making a point.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    52. Re:Team Polizei by Tacticus.v1 · · Score: 1

      On entry if taking the first exit indicate left
      second exit no indication until passed first exit when you indicate left
      and x> 2nd indicate right until passed x - 1 when you change to indicating left

      and if you dare take the left lane for x > 2 well words do not describe the wrath of a shitty car with a shitty paint job

  2. Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Step 1: Speed across the United States while at the same time documenting your lawbreaking for all to see
    Step 2: ???
    Step 3: Profit???

    1. Re:Makes sense by eklitzke · · Score: 5, Informative

      He waited for the statute of limitations to expire on all of the traffic violations before having the story published, so he's no longer in risk of being prosecuted for them.

      --
      #include ".signature"
    2. Re:Makes sense by Seumas · · Score: 1

      Yes, but he has admitted to previous crimes and plans for future crimes. And we know his name. Seems reasonable enough to arrest him. I don't know about overseas where he has apparently done most of this stuff, but speeding more than about 15mph will get your ass noticed. Especially in long spurts. And once you're noticed, you're going to have cops in every county following you on ground and in the air.

    3. Re:Makes sense by gbulmash · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If he's smart... well not smart, but sensible... he's going to lay low for a little while and coast off the kudos and adrenaline this generated. Yet, if he were sensible, he wouldn't have done this, would he?

      Thing about this is... Yes, it's reckless. Yes, it's stupid. Yes, it's endangering the lives of innocents. But the article remains a damn good read. What's done is done and it made a heck of a story.

      - G

    4. Re:Makes sense by MartijnL · · Score: 1

      And why would he get arrested for something that he has done but can't be prosecuted for anymore and things that he hasn't yet done and therefore haven't broken any laws yet ? I thought the mantra was "innocent until proven guilty" ?

    5. Re:Makes sense by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      Possibly if he discusses this with a mechanic or someone he could be done for conspiracy.

    6. Re:Makes sense by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

      Not that that much on CHICAGO area toll road the limit is 55 and most cars and trucks go 70+

    7. Re:Makes sense by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

      I've routinely driven between 90 and 100 miles per hour from Maryland to Tennessee without ever being bothered by cops. Of course I don't drive an M3 with racing stickers all over it, but 2795 miles in 32 hours is only an average of 87 miles per hour. That's not hard to accomplish unless you plan on ignoring interstate highways.

      The biggest detriment he has is his car. He's a moving "racing" billboard for cops to target. This would be a lot easier if he drove a standard looking car. Of course it wouldn't really "look cool" either.

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    8. Re:Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't the statute of limitations clock stop when you leave the state?

    9. Re:Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conspiracy for what, speeding?

      Quick! divert cops from the bank robbery, there's some speeders approachin' town!

    10. Re:Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not that that much on CHICAGO area toll road the limit is 55 and most cars and trucks go 70+ Try driving on I-4 in Orlando at night (downtown area). The speed limit is 50 (which you rarely can get close to during the day), but everyone does 70+. I'm usually doing 60 through there and I have people fly past me.
    11. Re:Makes sense by jlgolson · · Score: 1

      What? Not hard to accomplish? 90 mph. Average. Including stops for fuel and restrooms and such. For every minute stopped at zero, you have to go 180 to make up for it. Also, his car was stealthed. No stickers.

    12. Re:Makes sense by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

      I missed the "stealth" part about the car. Either way, 90 mph isn't really that difficult when you have multiple drivers available. The only real time you have to spend when stopping is to use the restroom and refuel. Everything else can be done "on the road". Packing food in the car even avoids slowing down to get McDonald's or whatever on the way. When one person is driving the other can sleep so there's less of an issue of sleep deprivation.

      As I said, I've easily averaged 85 miles per hour over a 750 mile trip at least once a year for the last 10 years. I usually do the trip several times a year, and I've never had any issue with it. I stop for gas once along the trip (my car gets about 470 miles to a tank) and usually take two food/restroom stops. I've never felt like it was a particularly difficult task. I rarely go significantly faster than traffic, and I am the only driver.

      The trip in the article is really a non-story. I've had plenty of friends drive across country twice in less than two weeks. (Not two weeks each trip but both trips in less than two weeks time.) Talk to any person in the US military and you'll be able to hear about somebody doing this fairly regularly to go see family, or a girlfriend or whatever.

      Yes it's stupid, but it's certainly not news.

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    13. Re:Makes sense by VAXcat · · Score: 1

      Maybe so....and I wonder if they could be accused of Conspiracy, the penalties for which are often more serious than for the crime involved. Or maybe the federales could come after them for interstate flight to avoid prosecution. I can't beleive that the authorities will just give up - they can always trump up something to come after you on.

      --
      There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
    14. Re:Makes sense by wattrlz · · Score: 1

      They will give up because he's notorious. Alex Roy has got everybody whining about how it impinges on their, "...right not to be smeared accross an interstate highway at 120mph" or, praising his accomplishment instead of worrying about little things like who the RIAA is sueing or what new interpretation of the constitution is bludgeonning the last bit of freedom out of them today. He's part of this century's version of the latter half of bread and circusses and, "The Authorities" would be damned before they'd deprive us of that.

    15. Re:Makes sense by Equis · · Score: 1

      > 2795 miles in 32 hours is only an average of 87 miles per hour

      "Only?" That includes averaging in all his stops at ZERO miles per hour.

      Here's something fun to try: Drive to work or to a friend's house or something. Time yourself from door to door. Drive as fast as you care to. When you get there, make a guess as to what you think your average speed was. Now calculate it by dividing the distance by the time it took to drive it. The real answer will be much lower than you think.

    16. Re:Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I SUPPOSE THE GULAGS MAKE A GOOD STORY TOO, EH?

      God I love making idiot AC remarks in all caps. It's like yelling.

      Captcha: careen

    17. Re:Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and "a heck of a story" for advertising and media dollars seems to triumph over everyday people's lives even more and more often.

      Great job!

      Please let me know of more people to cripple and/or maim in a dark alley the next sometime, since regular people's live's means so little...

    18. Re:Makes sense by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      The only real time you have to spend when stopping is to use the restroom and refuel.

      Cue the astronaut jokes.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    19. Re:Makes sense by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      Depending on how long refueling took, he should've looked into on-road refueling (which, honestly, isn't that difficult with no traffic around). Sure, you can't do 90 when you're doing it, but at least you can be traveling at around 55-60mph, keeping your average speed up.

    20. Re:Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some states, despite U.S. Constitutional problems, have statute of limitations that do not run unless the person is present in the state. Did he drive through Iowa?

    21. Re:Makes sense by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "What's done is done and it made a heck of a story."

      He did it for attention. Attitudes like yours give him what he wants and ensures that he and others like him will repeat it. Instead of dismissing it as something past, why not consider that you're helping to ensure that it will be in the future as well?

    22. Re:Makes sense by recharged95 · · Score: 1
      Step 4: Lose all your $profit$ to either the gov't (police) or lawyers (lawsuits by private or public).

      Same recipe of the (Girls Gone Wild) GGW owner.

    23. Re:Makes sense by TikiTDO · · Score: 1

      Averaging 85 on a 750 mile stretch of road is vastly different from averaging 90 on a 2800 mile stretch of road. I've done the former myself on several occasions, but I can barely do 75 average on a 1500 mile trip. One question is location. If you're driving from middle-of-nowhere, USA to edge-of-nowhere, USA you can probably average 150 if you tried, but these people had to drive though states where even thinking of averaging 90 would put you behind bars. I mean just look at the numbers stated. Quite often they would go upwards of 150 miles. If it was truly that easy why is it they only managed a 90? Also there is a length factor. Even with two drivers you're still in the car for 30 hours with not a wink of sleep. By the time you're 10-15 hours into the drive slowing down would begin to sound like a mighty good idea.

      Also, driving across the country 4 times in 2 weeks means an average of 84 hours per trip. Once you subtract sleeping 8 hours a day you're down to a 56 hour trip, which is nearly twice the record. Even doing it in 1 week is a 42 hour trip. A full 11 hours short of the record, which gives you a full 8 hours to sleep, and still be 3 hours off.

      That said I'm not saying people should go out and do this now. This guy practiced and prepared for this for ages, and even then it was still stupidly dangerous. Just don't make it out to be as simple as your 750 mile drives. An undertaking like this is on a whole other level of magnitude.

    24. Re:Makes sense by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

      First, anyone who thinks multiple drivers on a long trip are not sleeping has never driven on a long "straight through" trip like that. "not a wink of sleep" is highly unrealistic.

      Second, I didn't say the people I know stopped for "8 hours of sleep a day". I said I know plenty of people who've done cross country twice in less than two weeks. Usually that means 2-3 days of driving, straight through, followed by a week or so of visiting with family/friends/lovers/whatever, then another 2-3 days of straight through driving.

      I will still say this is more hype than achievement. It's just not that difficult. As I've said in other comments, there are plenty of places (most actually) in this country where there is next to no traffic and doing high speeds is quite easy. Having multiple drivers does allow sleep, and therefore simply makes the trip easier. Yeah, driving 90+ for 36 hours isn't an easy task, but it's certainly not some big triumph.

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
  3. How to remain inconspicuous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...deck out your car in sponsor logos. I imagine every cop who sees this thing will follow them for quite some time.

    1. Re:How to remain inconspicuous... by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hey! Good idea, great way to get a free escort for a trip when you're not sure whether your old crate will make it once across Nevada.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:How to remain inconspicuous... by Big+Nothing · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Geek and Gadgets Set Cross-US Speed Record"

      Is this guy really a geek? Sure, he likes Star Trek and gadgets, but is that really the definition of a geek? I think not. This guy has lots of money, drives fast, cool cars and did at some point have a girlfriend. That's no geek.

      --
      SIG: TAKE OFF EVERY 'CAPTAIN'!!
    3. Re:How to remain inconspicuous... by RESPAWN · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, the picture in the article was from this year's Gumball 3000 -- an event where they are contractually obliged to deck their cars out in the event's sponsors' logos. It was also an event that took place after Alex's speed record attempt. Jalopnik has some pictures of the car as it was decked out for the transcontinental run. Aside from the abundance of antennas and a few small stickers on the trunk, the car looked like a relatively normal E39 BMW sedan.

      One thing the Wired article also neglected to mention and that was mentioned in one of the Jalopnik articles (that I'm too lazy to look up a link for) was that they actually crafted a cover story in classic Cannonball tradition. Their cover for their fast driving and for all of the gadgets on their car was that they were storm chasers chasing a fast moving front across the country. I find it kind of funny since, to my knowledge, most storm fronts in the US move from West to East, not East to West as they were driving.

      --

      If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will.

    4. Re:How to remain inconspicuous... by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      They were chasing a rare reverse-trend storm, and therefore need to keep up with it, as they only happen once every 5-7 years =)

  4. How stupid... by JustShootMe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wow. If this guy doesn't get warrants out for his arrest because of this story I'll be really surprised.

    Congrats, Roy, I guess. Try not to drop the soap :P

    (I woulda called the highway patrol on him too.)

    --
    For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
    1. Re:How stupid... by tmk · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Wow. If this guy doesn't get warrants out for his arrest because of this story I'll be really surprised.
      There is a certain possibility, that he could be killed.
    2. Re:How stupid... by 427_ci_505 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Alex Roy is essentially the man behind Team Polizei: http://www.teampolizei.com/ Does Gumball rallies and such. This sort of thing isn't new to him. And no matter what, his M5 kicks some serious ass.

    3. Re:How stupid... by belmolis · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hear, hear! I hope they jail the SOB. These people aren't rebels or pioneers, they're dangerous sociopaths. They shouldn't be on the roads.

    4. Re:How stupid... by belmolis · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It occurs to me that these two probably committed a federal crime. They're clearly guilty of felony reckless driving according to the laws of many states. Crossing state lines for the purpose of committing a felony, which is exactly what they did, is a federal crime.

    5. Re:How stupid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      These are also the same group people that killed an innocent couple during last years gumball. How many will they kill this year?

      http://jalopnik.com/cars/gumball-3000/gumballers-nick-morley-and-matthew-mcconville-arrested-after-hit+and+run-fatality-257447.php

    6. Re:How stupid... by marcello_dl · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yet I guess that, should he cause an accident, possibly killing people who have the bad luck of getting on the streets to commute and owning less safe cars than his precious M5, he'll run away like whatever 18 year old drunk coward.

      Shame on slashdot for posting this shit.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    7. Re:How stupid... by rasputin465 · · Score: 1

      Wow. If this guy doesn't get warrants out for his arrest because of this story I'll be really surprised.

      Normally yes, but TFA points out that these guys waited until the statutes of limitation had run out before publishing the story so that they wouldn't get into trouble. I'm no lawyer so I don't know the details of that loophole, but this guy thoroughly did his homework on every other aspect of the trip, so I'd assume he did his homework about the legal ramifications as well.

    8. Re:How stupid... by dgbrownnt · · Score: 1

      Wow. If this guy doesn't get warrants out for his arrest because of this story I'll be really surprised.

      Well, it depends. A big part of the reason the article about a 2006 record-breaking run comes out a year later are the statutes of limitations in the various precincts they traveled through. Since they mention having a lawyer working with them, I would guess they've looked up the rules regarding moving violations in the states, counties, and cities that they traveled through.

      Now, of course, that doesn't mean someone can't nitpick and possibly find a law they broke that they missed in the first run. I'm guessing, however, with their futures on the line and a year to work on it, they were pretty thorough.
    9. Re:How stupid... by radja · · Score: 1, Informative

      a team member of this idiot caused an accident in the 2007 gumball rally, killing a 67yr old man and his wife, both from macedonia. they fled the scene in the other team polizei car, abandoning the victims, and tried to flee the country. they were arrested at the border of albania. you don't have to guess.

      --

      No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
      --Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
    10. Re:How stupid... by rs79 · · Score: 5, Informative

      To be fair:

      1) The couple the racers hit ran a stop sign and were hit by a porsche going 6 miles over the limit
      2) The man had a heart atack when hit and died. His wife died a few days later (not sure why)
      3) The family of the deceased pleaded with the court to let him go. And they did.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    11. Re:How stupid... by RedWizzard · · Score: 0

      You've got a reference to back up your claim that the hit and run incident involved Team Polizei? Nothing I've seen indicates that Team Polizei were in any way involved.

    12. Re:How stupid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Link?

    13. Re:How stupid... by EvanED · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes, but they left the scene of the accident, and tried to flee the country.

      The mitigating factors you mention may bring them down from "string them up by their thumbs" to "super asshole who deserves prison", but the latter is still not a very good state.

    14. Re:How stupid... by tgv · · Score: 1

      At least in the country where I live, running a stop sign does not make you free game. Drivers should still pay attention of people crossing the street at any moment and speeding is not going to help. Anyway, 6 miles is nearly 10%, and I wonder at which point that was measured. The heart attack was clearly induced by accident and the wife's death can also be attributed.

      We're gonna hang 'm all, we're gonna hang 'm all. We don't know who did it but we're gonna hang 'm all.

    15. Re:How stupid... by EvanED · · Score: 1

      Anyway, 6 miles is nearly 10%...

      10%? What kind of roads do you drive on that have stop signs and 60 mph speed limits? [I'm assuming the OP meant 6 mph.] Try more like ~25% above the likely limit (based on what it would be in the US, probably 25mph), in other words carrying about 50% more kinetic energy than they would have been if they were going the limit.

    16. Re:How stupid... by _14k4 · · Score: 1

      I cleaned up a pool of blood that was on the road, about a month ago. The kid in his tricked out Honda Civic wasn't wearing his seat-belt and, on residential roads, at 3am... decided 80 was an ok speed. He hit a suv, pushed his head into the windshield, and that was that. Think he lived, but was probably in a lot of pain.

    17. Re:How stupid... by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 1

      Try more like ~25% above the likely limit (based on what it would be in the US, probably 25mph), in other words carrying about 50% more kinetic energy than they would have been if they were going the limit.

      Which would be a salient point if we were discussing perfectly elastic collisions. But were not, and depending on the locale the speed limits can vary from 30-35 mph based on which street the most lawyers live on. So going 6 miles over the speed limit is hardly the speed demon you want to believe it is.

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    18. Re:How stupid... by EvanED · · Score: 1

      Yeah, ignore this post. There could be non 4-way stops that have much higher limits on the main road than 25 mph. I'm being dumb. (In my defense, I've gotten about 3 1/2 hrs of sleep in the last 44 hours or so.)

    19. Re:How stupid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my defense, I've gotten about 3 1/2 hrs of sleep in the last 44 hours or so.

      You're skipping sleep so you can post on slashdot? Following on from the success of the Asian three-day gamers, are you hoping to set a new record for the most pointless sleep-deprived death ever?

    20. Re:How stupid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    21. Re:How stupid... by radish · · Score: 2, Informative

      This story names the drivers who caused the accident as Morley and McConville, who are named as Team Polizei drivers in this story.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    22. Re:How stupid... by Guppy06 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "The couple the racers hit ran a stop sign and were hit by a porsche going 6 miles over the limit"

      What, no "He knew what he was doing, he was a far superior driver than mere mortals, safe and slow aren't always the same" arguments for the victims? I could make any number of hand-waving arguments in defense of the victim's reckless driving (e. g. local knowledge of how busy the intersection usually is), so why isn't the same courtesy afforded him that you afford the race participants?

      What sickened me the most in the link provided were the comments, which all amounted to "Oh noes, this might affect the race!" Forget that people died, the race must go on, apparently.

    23. Re:How stupid... by tgv · · Score: 1

      6 mph, that's nearly 10km/h. That's not little. And still a 17-20% increase, accounting for 37-44% more kinetic energy. And it does matter, since that happens to have a relation to the length of the braking path (in case I chose the wrong word: the length of the path the vehicle traverses from the moment of braking until complete stop). And don't forget that at a higher speed, you cross a larger distance during the reaction time. So the car definitely hit with more energy than it would have had, had the drivers obeyed the rules.

      I don't know about the qualification "speed demon", but irresponsible comes to mind, as does senseless death.

    24. Re:How stupid... by RESPAWN · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Note, I'm not defending the Porsche drivers, but here's a question I think everybody needs to ask themselves: what would I do if involved in a fatal accident in a 3rd world nation? This didn't happen in the US or England or any other developed 1st world nation where we can count on a properly functioning justice system to determine that the event was indeed an accident and not instead give us a (very short) life sentence in some back woods 3rd world prison. I personally am not sure what I would do, but I can see where it would be easy to panic.

      Additionally, as a fan of the Gumball I kept close tabs on the Macedonian accident story. While I don't have a link, I do remember reading that the Macedonian accident investigators royally botched some part of the investigation, lending further creedance that the justice system in Macedonia may not function quite as it should. Of course, the flip side of the coin is that many people state that part of the reason the drivers got off was due to large "donations" to several parties, including the family of the deceased and members of the government. With no evidence either way, who's to say if the "donations" actually happened, but the claims were more food for thought.

      Lastly, let me say that I think Maximillion Cooper, the organizer of the Gumball, handled the accident situation very poorly. From all reports, he allowed the rally to go on for a full day after the accident before he cancelled it. Next year he's planning to take the rally through North Korea. I think he's a conceited asshole who's letting his pride and image get in the way of what little safety there was on the Gumball.

      --

      If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will.

    25. Re:How stupid... by RingDev · · Score: 1

      To be fair, in many cultures a cash contribution in response to an accident is appropriate. Whether it smells like a bribe to us is immaterial.

      Heck, if this had happened in the US, what would the out come have been? (assuming the driver stayed at the scene). The deceased ran the stop light, so there's no way a jury would convict him of vehicular manslaughter, but a civil court wrongful death case would have been likely to succeed since the driver was participating in a race. In the end, the race league and driver would have had to cough up a chunk of cash to the family of the victims and restitution to the state for any services provided. Even if he had left the scene in the US, that's still just a traffic citation.

      If the league/driver donate cash to the local government and victim's family, all they are doing is getting to that same end with out dragging the family and government (along with themselves) through months if not years of legal proceedings.

      Haven forbid a group of people come to a conclusion with out the assistance of the government. Won't somebody thing of the citizens?!?!

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    26. Re:How stupid... by compro01 · · Score: 1

      10%? What kind of roads do you drive on that have stop signs and 60 mph speed limits?

      a 2-lane highway (highway #1 transcanada) junction at the edge of town. highway speed limit is 110kph (~68mph) and the intersecting road (speed limit 50kph (~30mph)) is controlled with a stop sign.

      such a setup is not uncommon in smaller towns and cities around here (Saskatchewan).

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    27. Re:How stupid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good for you. Stand up for people who think they are above the laws and better than everyone else. Treat the roads like racetracks and if someone gets hurt? It's "Hey, you got in the way of our fun you idiot!", right?

    28. Re:How stupid... by Sobrique · · Score: 1

      There's a reason seatbelts exist.

    29. Re:How stupid... by EvanED · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that is pretty common where I am too. (The highway limit would almost certainly just be 55; only freeways are 65, and except for farm land, they don't intersect roads directly, but that's still much more than the 25 mph 4-way stops I was thinking of.) See above where I blame my stupidity on sleep deprivation. :-)

    30. Re:How stupid... by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      here's a question I think everybody needs to ask themselves: what would I do if involved in a fatal accident in a 3rd world nation? This didn't happen in the US or England or any other developed 1st world nation where we can count on a properly functioning justice system..

      Before anyone answers that question, maybe they should first ask, "WTF am I doing in a third-world country where I don't have any confidence in the justice system?" If you choose to go there, you choose risk. You have to be an irresponsible asshat to kill people and then try to run away from the consequences, especially when you knew the unpredictability of those consequnces even before you started killing people.

      I actually think these kind of races are a "neat" thing, but this hit-and-run bullshit is totally inexcusable.

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    31. Re:How stupid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's see.....

      Both parties in the accident broke the law. 1 was speeding the other ran a stop sign. The former party fled the scene. How does ANY of those facts make GUMBALL, guilty of ANYTHING with regard to this situation?

      Random series of events lead to death of 2 people. Look at this for what it was people. AN ACCIDENT. The fact that one car was involved in the GUMBALL RALLY is just more fodder for the media outlets, and those who want to spew on about the dangers of personal choice and responsibility.

      This just in, LIFE IS UNCERTAIN. More at 11.

    32. Re:How stupid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shame on slashdot for posting this shit.

      Wow! You must be a real pussy... go find a dildo!

      Come on dude, it's a Wired article that talks about using cool geek toys to drive really fast. OF COURSE it made it to Slashdot! And if you have a problem with driving really fast, well, you need to go clean the sand out of your vagina...

      Oh, and shame on you for swearing... think of the children!!

    33. Re:How stupid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      1) The deceased didn't run a stop sign. They pulled out onto a road with 40mph speed limit, and were blindsided by an idiot doing 120mph.

      2) After car accidents, people often have "heart attacks" when they lose so much blood that their heart muscles start to die. I don't think the guy died because he got too excited looking at the porsche's pretty stickers.

      3) The family of the deceased received tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars as a payoff, on the condition that they make that plea.

    34. Re:How stupid... by hawk · · Score: 1

      I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice.

      >Even if he had left the scene in the US, that's still just a traffic citation.

      No. In most (all?) states, leaving the scene of an accident with serious injury is a felony. Typically, leaving the scene where there was no injury is a misdemeanor, not a citation.

      hawk, esq.

    35. Re:How stupid... by _14k4 · · Score: 1

      The point was that 80mph on a residential road is not safe. The SUV he hit was pushed the distance between two telephone poles.

    36. Re:How stupid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posting anonymously to give the discussion the karma it deserves:

      > using cool geek toys to drive really fast

      I suppose that going to a track is too exotic a thought for geeks? Maybe you oughta stop playing GTA and revert to Pole Position.

      > And if you have a problem with driving really fast

      Suuure. Suffice to say my fave stop is on Chiemsee, A8 München Salzburg. Does
      "Autobahn on a 330d" suggest anything to you?
      And, mind you, never got a ticket for speeding in almost 20 years.

      The point you're completely missing is that it's criminal to give exposure to bored idiots running on normal roads without calling them idiots.

      About the cool geek toys, what's so geeky in intercepting radio communication or the speed trap radar? It could be done 20 years ago. Let's talk about the azimuth of the c64 cassette player instead?

    37. Re:How stupid... by Baz+Quux · · Score: 1

      You mean "who are NOT named", because they aren't in that second story at all, and because they were never part of Team Polizei.

      Team Polizei -- Alex Roy and Michael Ross during the 2007 Gumball -- are not Nicholas Morley and Matthew McConville.

    38. Re:How stupid... by Baz+Quux · · Score: 1

      Sure you don't have to guess -- you can just make stuff up! Team Polizei crapped on my lawn! Alex Roy hates white people! I have a hotel on the moon!

      Team Polizei were not involved in that accident. There was no second Team Polizei car. They may be guilty of untold numbers of moving violations, but that one was not one of theirs. Please keep your team members of the idiots straight.

    39. Re:How stupid... by rs79 · · Score: 1

      "10%? What kind of roads do you drive on that have stop signs and 60 mph speed limits? "

      The road I live on for one. And people speed. Trucks speed. Big 18 wheel tandem trailer trucks carrying full loads of logs speed.

      Around here "watch out for the other guy" isn't just advice and it's taken very very seriously. This is a (very) rural area.

      4 years ago a women backed out of a church pakring lot on xmas eve and was killed by somebody in a van doing the speed limit. The women just doidn't bother looking. Racer or no racer, you're just gonna die if you do that around here. The optinion of the "ever so colorful" locals here was not "poor woman" but "Dumb. You don't do that. She needed killin'"

      I understand you soft city folk may see things different'.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    40. Re:How stupid... by rs79 · · Score: 1

      "So the car definitely hit with more energy than it would have had, had the drivers obeyed the rules. "

      So? If they'd being going half the speed in that Porsche the couple would still have paid with their lives for their error. Uncle Chuck strikes again.

      There's a few cars (Mercedes, Volvo) that are quite hard to die in. I've seen a W126 chassis Benz slam into the back of an 18 wheeler then get hit by an 18 wheeler in a nasty fog incident in California's grapevine - a constant source of multi car pileups. The Benz owner simply opened the door, got out of his
      now accordianed car (albeit with a nearly death-proof passenger compartment) and as a paramedic help carry away the bodies of poeple who drive Japanese cars and were killed for their poor automotive choice. over a dozen bodies that day.

      I own/run mbz.org (see the video there "why we drive these cars") and know thousands of people. Very very few are wealthy and I'd hazard to say 99% of these people drive the cars not beause they're "Engineered like no other car in the world" or because they're comfortable or reliable or a status symbol, they drive them because it's really really hard to die in them. In running this site for over a decade now and with about 3000 subscribers there have been a handful of people who have been hit. In EVERY case the car sacrified itself like it's supposed to and the owner opened the door (Mercedes doors are different and almsot always open after even the worst accident) and walked away. The only person I've heard die in a Mercedes was Diana. She didn't have her seatbelt on. Stupid.

      One of my good friends was t-boned at 60 in a W126 chassis MB. He walked away. Any other car (except maybe a volvo) and he'd have been killed outright. Things like a Lotus or Vette with a thin fibreglas skin between you and the red-light-runner (as in this example) simply mean there's even less of you after the fact. They just hose you off the road.

      My ex liked SUVs and every time she took the kids out in it I worried. When she took the Benz I knew they had a very veru small chance of dying no matter what kind of stupidity occured. I'm not wealthy by any stretch - these cars last nearly forever and a (dcently maintained) 10 or 5 year old MB is barely broken in, cheap and cheap to run. I don't get the Volvo thing, parts for those Swedish meatballs are 3X what Benz parts are.

      You fuck up in a little vw, you're gonna die. Sorry. Any collision over 30mph that hits the door is gonna kill you. The speed in this case was simply not relevant if it was over 30. And this was a highway.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    41. Re:How stupid... by RedWizzard · · Score: 1

      Stand up for people who think they are above the laws and better than everyone else. I'll stand up for people who are incorrectly accused of a crime regardless of their other actions, sure. That doesn't mean I condone what they do, it just means I like to condemn people on the facts rather than calling them guilty by association.
    42. Re:How stupid... by RedWizzard · · Score: 1

      The first story names the accident drivers as Nick Morley and Matthew McConville. The second story names the Team Polizei drivers as (Alex) Roy and (Micahel) Ross. Did you even read the stories you linked to?

    43. Re:How stupid... by tgv · · Score: 1

      Go and tell that. "Hey, it's your own fault, you know! You should have driven another car."

      You sir, are an idiot and I feel sorry for the thousands of people you claim to have acquainted. Your arguments consist of anecdotes and your argument goes along the lines of "well, I shot him, but if he would have worn a bullet-proof vest, he wouldn't have been dead." It's no excuse and you know it.

    44. Re:How stupid... by radish · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you're right. I did actually read both stories but I guess I forgot to engage my brain. As did whoever made the link on the original story!

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    45. Re:How stupid... by RedWizzard · · Score: 1

      And whoever modded you up (though they probably didn't bother following the links). To be fair having the picture of the Porsche against the Team Polizei story is misleading.

  5. Alternate headline by Solder+Fumes · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How about: "Geek sets record by breaking the law and endangering innocent men, women, and children in selfish quest to do something pointless"

    Seriously, this doesn't push any boundaries of technology or vehicle science. It tests two things: being able to stay awake, and being able to break laws and get away with it. Here they are tearing across the country in a car filled with distracting devices, sleep deprivation, fatigue, driving at unsafe speeds near vehicles filled with normal people trying to get to work or school.

    1. Re:Alternate headline by Kamineko · · Score: 1

      Sounds like your average Joe's daily journey to work to me

    2. Re:Alternate headline by mcrbids · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Here they are tearing across the country in a car filled with distracting devices, sleep deprivation, fatigue, driving at unsafe speeds near vehicles filled with normal people trying to get to work or school.

      I'm with you, on this one. Risk your neck? What the heck. Risk mine? Get lost!

      Besides, if you just want to cross the country quickly with a stock gasoline engine, there are seriously faster, safer, and more fun ways to do it!!!

      What fun is a speed limit?

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    3. Re:Alternate headline by Jerry+Smith · · Score: 2, Insightful
      How about: "Geek sets record by breaking the law and endangering innocent men, women, and children in selfish quest to do something pointless" Seriously, this doesn't push any boundaries of technology or vehicle science. It tests two things: being able to stay awake, and being able to break laws and get away with it. Here they are tearing across the country in a car filled with distracting devices, sleep deprivation, fatigue, driving at unsafe speeds near vehicles filled with normal people trying to get to work or school.

      Firstly may I thank you for the correct use of the word "geek", instead of the inapproprate "nerd". Secondly may I add that this whole "quest" is about plain abuse of technology and as immature as reckless and selfish. May his gadgets explode in his face and earn him the Darwin-award he deserves, as soon as possible.

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
    4. Re:Alternate headline by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      As opposed to your regular drunk idiot speeding.

      I'd rather be on the road with the guy who knows *exactly* what he's doing personally.

    5. Re:Alternate headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot.

    6. Re:Alternate headline by DeathElk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You'll grow a sense of humour right out your ass when this fuckwit kills someone you love. It doesn't matter how "safe" or experienced a driver is, it's the other road users that are the unknown. I don't accept any risk that some DICKHEAD doing 200KPH will hit me. The law states that no-one should drive that fast on public roads as a matter of COMMON SENSE.

    7. Re:Alternate headline by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 1

      or "Massive over-employment of highway patrol officers" because if the summary is right then 31,000 officers along a path across the US would mean on the order of 1 every 1,000 FEET or 5 per mile...

      --
      The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
    8. Re:Alternate headline by edittard · · Score: 1

      Cue a hundred posts along the lines of "speed limits are designed with the average driver in mind - this guy is an exceptionally good driver". Just like we all are.

      --
      At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
    9. Re:Alternate headline by arivanov · · Score: 0, Troll

      Well... He did it in the US.

      The current "cool of the day" amidst this form of sociopaths is to do "rallies" in Eastern Europe where your speed limit is expressed in Euros per hour. So unless you kill someone (which happens on casual basis) all you need is to answer correctly the question "how many euros per hour have you been driving mate" and place those folded in your driving license.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    10. Re:Alternate headline by Tenareth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What about when some soccer mom in an SUV kills someone you love?

      That's who kills more people than people like this... he's generally safer because he's actually aware he's fighting the odds, the daily commuters and soccer moms are the real danger because they have completely forgotten they are driving a killing machine.

      What happened that we are so afraid to test our boundaries? Guess what, no matter how safe you try to be, people will die.

      And yes, I've lost very close loved ones to traffic accidents. Raging against everyone that drives a little fast is not how you remember them. Life is dangerous.

      --
      This sig is the express property of someone.
    11. Re:Alternate headline by happywillo · · Score: 1

      What a complete A***hole. Having nearly been written off by some speed maniac on a number of occasions and being the car behind a head on collision recently, I have no sympathy for him and only wish he were arrested sooner than later (I do a lot of cross country driving). What I cant understand is why responsible media are giving this idiot so much ego fueling coverage.

    12. Re:Alternate headline by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      It is speed difference, inexperience, lack of attention etc which causes more accidents...
      If your driving along a highway doing 70mph (thats the legal limit here) in the outside lane, and some idiot doing 50mph pulls out right infront of you you wont be expecting it...
      If someone is driving within the speed limit, but is concentrating on their mobile phone or some other non-driving activity they could fail to slow down/stop, swerve into oncoming traffic etc...
      If someone is driving while intoxicated, they could do all kinds of erratic things causing harm to other road users...
      If someone is driving a poorly maintained car it could stop/stall, or as has happened recently something could go wrong causing the car to accelerate to its top speed against the will of the driver, not to mention that bits could drop off, the car could generate large distracting clouds of smoke or even catch fire.

      While speeding can be wreckless, i would feel much safer sharing the roads with michael schumacher doing 150mph in a high end well maintained sports car, then some drunk guy driving along at 50mph in a rusty wreck of a car with a beer in one hand and a phone in the other.

      Of all the accidents i have been involved in or witnessed...

      I was rear-ended once at a set of traffic lights, the other driver was too busy with his phone to notice that the cars infront of him had stopped at the red lights. I had left a sensible amount of distance between myself and the car in front, so the impact didn't shunt my car into the one in front.

      I saw a car driving along the highway with a water leak causing the cabin to steam up really badly, i gave him a wide berth and he managed to crash off the road a couple of miles later.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    13. Re:Alternate headline by emj · · Score: 1

      There are some pretty sucky "scientific" papers on the street racing thing, the two Swedish [(pdf)]I have read are arguing for it, but they do give estimates on how many accidents happen in street racing, and it could be worse..

      But they are still gits.

    14. Re:Alternate headline by ebolaZaireRules · · Score: 0

      Hear Hear!

      back in Australia, for most states the speed limit is 110kph. People die of fatigue on the highways, having been on them for so long. Hell, they have cops on the Nullabor, no trees, no cars, flat plain, and cops... yes, and to the Americans, Australia is just as wide as the USA.

      here in the UK, when the motorways are full, its slow anyway, and when they are empty, people race past at 90+ mph... because you can see, because you have time. I just wish that it was more 'appropriate' cars, not shopping trolleys.

      then into the streets of a town, and how many people have pulled out in front of you and then thought to check? sure, you can speed, but you will have an accident - pray its at an intersection with a car, not at a crossing with a person.

      then there is drunk/drug drivers...

      and the comment about 'soccer mums' - yeah, they can be scary. I don't get it - is the 4x4 for the kerbs?

      The law address visible (and revenue raising) aspects. cameras in school zones? yes, but why not make the camera visible and prevent speeding rather than hiding it and collecting revenue?

      well, yes, I could go on for ever. I'll wrap up the rant.

      because its ok to 'skirt' the law when it suits us. don't kid with me - have you never sped (not even the tiniest bit to get through an intersection on an orange safely)?
      if its law - have you never downloaded an episode, never commited any copyright violations? never crossed the road anywhere but on a zebra crossing if there is one within 20m (or whatever the law is), never been in a car park a few minutes too long.
      it its consequences - don't speed, be safe in town, and next time you have been on the highway for 2+ hours with minimal traffic and perfect visibility, just think - a few hundred rpm more will kill someones family, but blind obedience will save lives.

      --
      The Bible: Historically verifiable fact from an observers point of view
    15. Re:Alternate headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up. Flying without TSA molestation is a *good* thing. That and economy of scale would help my wallet.

    16. Re:Alternate headline by CmdrGravy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't think this guy does know what he's doing. He's had no professional training as a driver, girlfriends and co-drivers have left him because they felt he was endangering their lives and he's driving a fast car very dangerously on public roads.

      The article is full of incidents that are just outright dangerous stupidity, using the hard shoulder as an overtaking lane, undertaking 18 wheelers and so and so on. The bloke comes across as being a complete wanker, he's inherited a load of money from his folks so he never has to work and decides to be a great novelist. That doesn't work so he decides to become an irresponsible maniac driver without even having any sort of proper instruction and simply uses his inherited wealth to pay off any fines he gets along the way. He's not some kind of hero he's an overpriviledged muppet and if he carries on like this he will one day kill someone.

    17. Re:Alternate headline by Pseudonym · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's who kills more people than people like this...

      ...and smoking kills more people annually than people pointing a gun at their own temples and pulling the trigger. Your point is?

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    18. Re:Alternate headline by DeathElk · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Statistically there are a lot more soccer mums on the road. Should they be driving 2 ton hulks? I personally don't think so. I diverge.

      This guy might be aware that he's doing something dangerous, and he might try to prepare for any outcome. He even accepts that there are unknown elements and resigned once the goal became unrealistic. Okay. Good. But these factors do not make it any safer or less selfish - you said it yourself - what about the soccer mum? The roads and freeways are totally unpredictable. Soccer mum has as much right to use the freeways as does any licensed driver. This guy's experience and preparation DOES NOT GIVE HIM THE RIGHT to put innocent lives at risk.

      Life can be dangerous. As a surfer, former bicycle courier, skater and road racing cyclist, believe me, I know (check my id). But I would never purposefully risk anyone else's life. I believe this guy's antics are selfish and stupid.

    19. Re:Alternate headline by ultranova · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh, come on, for God's sake, grow a sense of humour.

      I did, but some asshole ran over it with a car.

      This is an astounding driving achievement.

      No. What this is is some asshole endangering everyone using public roads and then being proud of it.

      And as the article points out, this guy has become known as a fast but SAFE driver. I would have no doubt that he poses far less of a risk to other drivers than all those 'normal people', as you put it.

      Of course. He's a SAFE driver, rather than an ordinary guy. How foolish of us not to realize that.

      There is a difference between driving fast and driving dangerously.

      Since the amount of mayhem caused in the case of an accident, the braking distance, and the reaction distance all go up as the speed of the car goes up, and the former two squared at that, I'd say that you are very wrong. Driving faster is more dangerous than driving slower, both to yourself and to everyone else on the road.

      And besides, as a road user, doesn't it just go with the territory that you accept the risk that another driver may hit you?

      No, anymore than it goes with the territory of owning a house that someone might decide to bar the doors and set it on fire because they happen to like watching the flames while you're sleeping on your bed.

      I know I do. I know there are a few drivers out there who will sometimes drive well above safe speeds (which are not necessarily the same as the speed limits), and if one of them takes me out, well, it's just all part of the game of driving.

      Driving isn't a game. Driving is using a public utility - roads - to get from point A to point B. Drivers who can't get it through their heads that endangering others isn't okay should had their licenses and cars taken away.

      Which, I hope, will happen to these particular morons now that they've made their little trip public.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    20. Re:Alternate headline by ultranova · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's who kills more people than people like this... he's generally safer because he's actually aware he's fighting the odds, the daily commuters and soccer moms are the real danger because they have completely forgotten they are driving a killing machine.

      There are million times more daily commuters and soccer moms than assholes like this guy, and they drive their commutes daily. That's why they have more accidents, not because they're more dangerous.

      What happened that we are so afraid to test our boundaries? Guess what, no matter how safe you try to be, people will die.

      Don't test your boundaries where failing will get other people hurt. Test them where the only possible victim will be you. And if you do insist on risking other people's lives, don't be surprised when they defend themselves by locking you up.

      And yes, I've lost very close loved ones to traffic accidents. Raging against everyone that drives a little fast is not how you remember them.

      Why not ? It seems to me that if sociopathic behavior gets someone killed, the best possible way to remember them is to get the guilty punished as cruelly as possible and then crushing said sociopathic behavior.

      Life is dangerous.

      Life would be a lot less dangerous if cretins like this didn't insist on doing stupid shit in public.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    21. Re:Alternate headline by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      You what? What sort of training are you talking about?


      Any sort of training at all that would be a start but the most useful would be the courses that police pursuit drivers have to undertake which teach you how to drive safely at speed in heavy traffic. Failing that any sort of rally practice would be useful. The fact that he has apparently not bothered with any of that and just bought the biggest, fastest car he can and assumed that he has the skills required to drive it correctly. Thats just irresponsible and moronic, especially when people dump him or refuse to drive with him because he is driving dangerously.
    22. Re:Alternate headline by hey! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Even reasonable people can do stupid things under the influence of temptation.

      A friend of mine once took me up to 120mph on a relatively deserted highway. It was one of those things where somebody says "watch this" and proceeds to do something which is extremely stupid and embarrassing. I was not impressed. If he were given to this kind of inconsiderate behavior, he would be no friend of mine. But he'd saved up until he could buy this car that cost over a year's salary; I suppose he was itching to show somebody. He just should have shown it to somebody who would be impressed in a situation where it would be appreciated.

      I suppose anybody who buys a superfast car can't resist driving it at the speeds it was built to achieve, so they should find a closed track where they can get it out of their system. It's more satisfying anyway because you can really go up to the limit of your ability or your car's ability, not the point where you can't overcome the increasing sense that what you are doing is dangerous and irresponsible. Anybody who sells a car designed to be driven over 100mph should as a matter of course point their customers to the nearest track. It'd probably be good for business. At least it would keep their customers alive and out of jail.

      My friend started going to the track, and that was the end of his playing stupid games on the road. When you've gone as fast as you can go for as long as you want, it isn't exciting to sneak bursts of limited speeds on open roads. Going to the track probably made him a an extremely safe driver, because he was driving a high performance car at moderate speeds with enhanced skill and trained reflexes.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    23. Re:Alternate headline by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Actually speed limits on the highway only became that low after the Suez Canal crisis. Then a lot of European countries and American states implemented anal speed limits to conserve oil.

      I used to drive in a professional setting and 55-65mph WILL put you to sleep after a few hours (why do you think so many truckers cause crashes). Going faster (~90mph) on the highway (where no pedestrians are) will cause you to be more alert to what's happening and will not cause any major crashes. The major crashes are people that are drugged up (either medical or otherwise including alcohol), fall asleep at the wheel, don't pay attention to the road or get distracted (cell phones, kids fighting in the back seat) or shouldn't be on the road in the first place (old people that had their drivers license handed to them in the '70s or that have other medical conditions that impair their vision, hearing or cognition).

      Heck, Europe has ~80mph speed limits and they don't cause any more crashes than their American counterparts, lowering speed limits to the point where everybody says "screw that, too slow for me" will cause more problems since 'speed traps' will cause people to brake hard (while it might already be too late if they don't have a radar detector) or there are some people that just 'have to' obey the speed limit slowing down all traffic to a crawl (go on 390 & 490 in and around Rochester, NY to see the results of arbitrarily putting down 40mph zones in the middle of a 3-lane highway). The cause of most traffic jams (now they're doing construction, but otherwise) on that is just because SOME people slow down in the 40mph zone and then as soon as you get through that 40mph zone back to the 55mph zone (where everybody goes 65-70 anyway) traffic clears out.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    24. Re:Alternate headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would totally agree with you but I really don't get the sense this guy is some youth who thinks he's the nuts without the experience to back it up.

      As for the training, no doubt for a lot of people such things are very useful, but if he can do what he did it's clear he could probably give most pursuit drivers some instruction.

      And I don't believe training can make up for natural ability and intuition with things like driving - for example, defensive driving techniques and even the basic highway code - to some people these things need intensive coaching, to others they are common sense. Some people pass their driving theory tests with no preparation or revision, others fail repeatedly with hours of hard revision and cramming. The same with driving practical tests.

      With my previous analogy of cycle couriers, could you train your average person to ride a pushbike fast across a city, running lights, overtaking cars etc without killing themselves? I don't know if it would be possible - but most people who work as couriers can do so naturally with no specific training.

    25. Re:Alternate headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The law in your country may say so. I agree with you that it is dangerous to drive that fast on a road if the road is not build to handle high speed traffic, other drivers are not expecting people driving that fast (which rules out most of the US) or traffic or weather situation does not allow fast driving. But in general, it may be no problem at all to drive 200 km/h or faster. In Germany on most parts of the Autobahn, you can drive as fast as you want, and it's pretty safe to do so (we have about half the traffic fatality rate here compared to the US).

    26. Re:Alternate headline by RobBebop · · Score: 1

      I like it. "Daily journey to work" sounds a lot better than "commute".

      --
      Support the 30 Hour Work Week!!!
    27. Re:Alternate headline by srussia · · Score: 1


      Risk your neck? What the heck. Risk mine? Get lost!

      Besides, if you just want to cross the country quickly with a stock gasoline engine, there are seriously faster, safer, and more fun ways to do it!!!
      The risk to my neck by you flying an airplane is still greater than 0. So, should I tell you to get lost?
      --
      Set your phasers on "funky"!
    28. Re:Alternate headline by hey! · · Score: 1

      I have two problems with this post. The first is mathematical: you are asking us to compare the potential fatalities caused by millions of people going about their daily business with the potential fatalities caused by a handful of people trying to set a record. If the fatalities caused by the the latter were within even several orders of magnitude, each trip they took would be manslaughter on an epic scale.

      What really matters is not the gross fatality rate, but the marginal ones. A mom who places herself in the category of people who use their car to get their kids to the game or to haul groceries does not add as much to the fatality rate as the person who decides to drive much faster than the other drivers on the road, although statistically neither will probably add even a single fatality to the total in the course of a single year.

      My second problem is that you talk as if reasonability had nothing to do with morality. Suppose I hunt people down for pleasure. I strictly limit myself to, say, on human bagged per year. Am I more moral than the public works planer who undertakes a major project that will probably result in several fatalities over it course?

      It is true we must accept that life is dangerous. It doesn't mean that individuals should be free to endanger others to any degree for any purpose whatsoever. I agree the question of whether something involves danger to others is not enough, but neither is it of no account. Risk should trigger a consideration of things like reasonability and fairness. For example if one soccer mom accidentally kills another soccer mom on the way to the same game, it is unfortunate, but you cannot say that A put the cost of her risk taking on B unfairly. Of course this is not the only form fairness can take, but it illustrates the point that fairness can make a difference in whether something is just or unjust.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    29. Re:Alternate headline by Zonekeeper · · Score: 0

      Seconded. But more than an idiot. A spectacular idiot. I don't want to have to drive 55 on a road that easily merits 70. But 150 or so? And not due to a dire emergency (and even then odds are you won't make it to the hospital at that speed)? Yeah. Go directly to Pound You In The Ass jail.

    30. Re:Alternate headline by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      Some people may well be more suited for driving quickly than others and I agree that some people with all the training in the world would still be dangerous but I don't believe that anyone has the sort of natural ability that would let them compete against any sort of professional racing driver or highly trained police pursuit specialists.

      Both Lewis Hamilton and Michael Schumacher are highly talented drivers but they're at the top of their profession not because of their natural talent but thanks to years and years of training and practice. Had Lewis Hamilton spent the last 15 years working in a chip shop he would not even be able to qualify for a Grand Prix let alone win any, the fact that he is is down to the fact he's spent the last 15 years practising driving, day after day and year after year.

      There's a chance this maniac is actually an extremely talented driver ( although the fact he doesn't do any real professional racing tends to suggest he's not good enough to compete at that level ) but theres far more of a chance and he isn't and if he hasn't bothered to do any professional training then he is going to be clueless as to how dangerously bad he is.

      The fact that he is doing this on public roads without bothering to take any safety precautions at all on behalf of the thousands of other road users he is sharing the road with indicate to me the bloke is a selfish moron. He's spent an awful lot of money on a fast car and gadgets to prevent him getting caught but seemingly invested nothing in safeguarding the lives of the people he is threatening every time he gets behind the wheel.

      Some of his colleagues in the Gumball rally recently hit an elderly couple and killed both of them. Rather than stopping to help they tried to drive off and flee the country, pure arrogant selfishness. The rumour is that is was this guys Polizei team car which they got a lift in for the escape which tends to suggest he thinks this behaviour is perfectly acceptable.

    31. Re:Alternate headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      game of driving. I'm sorry, this isn't the electronic version of driving. You must be playing GTA or maybe GT.

      No, see this is in the real world, you know, "Meatspace." Here's how it works: Game over = Death
    32. Re:Alternate headline by Scaba · · Score: 1

      How about: "Geek sets record by breaking the law and endangering innocent men, women, and children in selfish quest to do something pointless"

      I think we're all tired of hearing about Iraq.

    33. Re:Alternate headline by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      That risk has been deemed acceptably small by society. The risk from blasting along public roads as fast as you can has been specifically deemed unacceptably high by society.

    34. Re:Alternate headline by jvkjvk · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I agree with the gist of what you are saying, but I take issue with the underlying assumption that is stated here:

      Life can be dangerous. As a surfer, former bicycle courier, skater and road racing cyclist, believe me, I know (check my id). But I would never purposefully risk anyone else's life. If you drive a car, you are purposefully risking other people's lives. You purposefully decided to drive. There is a non-zero probability that if you drive you will kill someone. This is the very definition of risking other people's lives.

      Sure, the risk is probably rather lower than someone driving like a bat out of hell across the country but I don't think anyone who drives should be as sanctimonious as to say i would never purposefully risk anyone else's life because it's just not true - you do every time you drive.
    35. Re:Alternate headline by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      90% (95%?) of drivers consider themselves above average...

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    36. Re:Alternate headline by chrysrobyn · · Score: 1
      Life would be a lot less dangerous if cretins like this didn't insist on doing stupid shit in public.

      No, it wouldn't, and that's central to the argument. One guy per year driving a Beemer cross country at stupid speeds, might get into an accident. Let's say he takes out a minivan of kids. No, two. Three minivans of kids, and a dozen children and their soccer moms die. If people of this caliber of stupidity are as rare as they seem to be (it's rare that I see someone passing me at 100mph on the shoulder), and they only kill a dozen people, then that's a pretty low risk compared to the normal risks of drunk driving plus cell phones, plus every other thing that normally goes wrong in a car driving within 10 mph of the speed limit. In order to have an impact on "life would be a lot less dangerous", you have to be a significant portion of life's danger, and either reduce the odds of it happening (reduce drunk driving, for example) or reduce the consequences (air bags and seat belts).

      If my biggest risk was rich people driving 100mph cross country, I'd sleep easier at night, even if it were 100 times as frequent.

    37. Re:Alternate headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Statistically speaking, if this was as dangerous as everyone is making it out to be, given the number of attempts and the distance, wouldn't he have killed someone already or at least done some kind of damage? I don't think what he did was a good idea. If I would have attempted this, I would have probably killed myself and perhaps others (I regularly run into doorways with my shoulder). But come on, guys. Let's cut the worrywart-grandma-theatrics and get back to a little bit of science to gain some perspective. If the danger level is what you say it is, then he must have some skill. OR He is just a rich dickweed and what he did wasn't that hard. You can't have it both ways. Lucky? Again, let's get back to analytical, shall we?

    38. Re:Alternate headline by nytmare · · Score: 1

      Driving isn't a game. Driving is using a public utility - roads - to get from point A to point B.

      Many citizens think that way. But if everyone did, there would be no sporty vehicles on the road, just white pickups and gray Corollas and 18-wheel haulers, and perhaps everyone would drive under the speed limit for safety as they trudged to and from their predetermined destinations. And if everyone liked driving for fun, the roads would become too crowded and more dangerous.

      I take the risks into account and I'm willing to share the road, too bad about the folks who aren't.

    39. Re:Alternate headline by InlawBiker · · Score: 1

      There's a simple two-word answer for his danger addiction: RACE TRACK. I've spent a considerable amount of time on racing motorcycles, in local clubs, trying to get kids off the streets and onto the track.

      Skills can be sharpened there in a safe environment without danger to anyone else. Surely this spoiled child can afford some track time if he can afford to waste money and time street racing. While he's there he can hire expect instructors. The street-racer types are quickly humbled when they're put on a track and discover how much they don't know.

      The public streets are not a raceway. Lives can be destroyed for the sake of this pointless game.

    40. Re:Alternate headline by k2enemy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Anybody who sells a car designed to be driven over 100mph should as a matter of course point their customers to the nearest track. It'd probably be good for business.


      When I lived in Kansas City, the local Audi dealership included free membership to the Audi Club North America with the purchase of a car. The local chapter of the club organized many high performance driving schools/events at tracks around the midwest and it was a great way for people to learn the limits of their car and their own driving ability. Besides learning how to drive fast on the track you learn some non-trivial accident avoidance techniques.

      The dealership has since changed hands, so I'm not sure if they still do this.
    41. Re:Alternate headline by srussia · · Score: 1

      That risk has been deemed acceptably small by society. The risk from blasting along public roads as fast as you can has been specifically deemed unacceptably high by society. Point taken in good faith (giving you the benefit of the doubt in regard to the susceptibility to weaselly interpretations of words such as "unacceptably" and "society").

      However, "Risk your neck? What the heck. Risk mine beyond a level specifically deemed unnacceptably high by society? Get lost!" doesn't sound quite as snappy.
      --
      Set your phasers on "funky"!
    42. Re:Alternate headline by RESPAWN · · Score: 1

      ...undertaking 18 wheelers and so and so on. Actually, in the US undertaking isn't as big of a deal as it is elsewhere in the world. Due to our poor driver training standards, the majority of the assholes on the road insist on driving in the left hand lane, whether there's any traffic in the right lane or not. I would wager that on my 26 mile commute to work, on average I undertake just as many cars as I overtake. And lest you accuse me of being a speed demon, note that on average I only drive 2 - 4 over the limit.

      That said, while I'll agree that he doesn't appear to have had any professional training as a driver, I do have to say that experience counts for something. Like it or not, Alex Roy has probably clocked over 30,000 miles driving at high rates of speed on public roads due to his annual participation in both the Gumball Rally and the Bullrun Rally over the last 5 years. He's most definitely safer than your average teenager out for a joyride in Mom's Accord. While most people I know have a fear of driving at any speed over 100mph -- the century mark seems to make most people panic -- the more one does it, the more confident one becomes.

      (And I'm sure you'll rail on me for driving >100MPH on public roads. Note that I do live in America where we do have vast expanses of freeway with very good visibility where 100MPH would be a perfectly reasonable speed if it weren't for speed limits. Speeding alone on a long flat road with no other traffic isn't much of a danger.)
      --

      If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will.

    43. Re:Alternate headline by cliffski · · Score: 1

      "Life is dangerous"

      it is when assholes like you have fuck all respect for safe driving speeds.

      If you want to 'test your boundaries' fuck off to a race track, don't do it on a public road.

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    44. Re:Alternate headline by srussell · · Score: 1

      There are million times more daily commuters and soccer moms than assholes like this guy, and they drive their commutes daily. That's why they have more accidents, not because they're more dangerous.
      Bullshit.

      They (soccer moms/dads) are more dangerous because they're dialing and talking on their fucking cellphones. They're more dangerous because they're reaching into the back seat to manipulate their rug-rats. They're more dangerous because they're adjusting their cosmetics in the rear-view mirror.

      There is a difference between reckless driving and speeding, and the one does not imply the other. I can drive safely at 200MPH on the same freeway that you're driving unsafely at 60MPH; it all depends on the traffic. IME, the dangerous drivers aren't the speeders; they're the weavers, the cell-phone users (who don't have headsets), the parents with ankle-biters in the back seat, and the geriatrics. And I see an amazing number of motorcyclists taking tremendous risk weaving through traffic, but they'll weed themselves out of the gene pool.

      But the biggest traffic risk? Traffic cops. They cause snarls when they pull people over, people reflexively stomp on their brakes when they see a cop (even when they aren't speeding); they're an all-around menace. Traffic cops should all be re-assigned to do real police work.

      Life would be a lot less dangerous if cretins like this didn't insist on doing stupid shit in public.
      Life would be a lot less dangerous if we illegalized all forms of motorized non-public transportation.

      --- SER

    45. Re:Alternate headline by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      if the summary is right then 31,000 officers along a path across the US would mean on the order of 1 every 1,000 FEET or 5 per mile...
      To paraphrase Spock: "You're intelligent, but inexperienced. Your pattern indicates one-dimensional thinking." Sure, you're passing cops about every 1000 feet, but one is 550 miles to your right, and the next is 48 miles to your left. ;-)
      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    46. Re:Alternate headline by gsslay · · Score: 3, Insightful

      his guy has become known as a fast but SAFE driver. No. If he was a SAFE driver then the roads would be SAFER if everyone followed his example. Do you think the roads would be safer if we all drove like that?

      What he is is a SELFISH driver because he is relying on everyone else following the rules, so that he can ignore them. His safety is entirely reliant on being able to predict everyone around him following the rules of the road, a courtesy he's not prepared return.

      All we can hope for is that one day he'll meet as "fast but SAFE" a driver as himself on an otherwise empty road. Then he'll see what happens when the guy he's overtaking in the wrong lane has as little regard for the regulations as he has.
    47. Re:Alternate headline by Jonboy+X · · Score: 1

      I think that Subaru did/still does give away a year's membership to the SCCA (Sports Car Club of America) with new WRX's.

      --

      "In a 32-bit world, you're a 2-bit user. You've got your own newsgroup, alt.total.loser." -Weird Al
    48. Re:Alternate headline by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      A goes fast, B goes fast. A is an asshole, therefore, B is an asshole. Do you see the flaw in your logic? Just because you were nearly written off by someone speeding doesn't mean he came anywhere close to doing so to anyone. I know I drive as fast as I can when I get the chance, but when there's traffic around, I'm a hell of a lot safer to be around than 90% of the fucktards out there. I give you warning as to what I'm doing, slow down early, avoid accidents, etc. Fast != unsafe, it's just... fast. That said, there are a lot of douchebags who don't mind being douchebags. But going fast by itself isn't being a douchebag... going fast and cutting people off, slamming on the brakes, not signaling turns, riding on the shoulder, etc. IS being a douche.

    49. Re:Alternate headline by NiteShaed · · Score: 1

      Many citizens think that way. But if everyone did, there would be no sporty vehicles on the road, just white pickups and gray Corollas and 18-wheel haulers, and perhaps everyone would drive under the speed limit for safety as they trudged to and from their predetermined destinations.

      Many irresponsible idiots think that way, but I've owned cars where I could spin the tires off the rims and leave almost anything on wheels that I encountered as a dwindling image in my rearview mirror, but I didn't do it on public roads. For the most part, people I knew who had similar cars didn't do it on public roads. If you want speed, find a track. People driving on a highway should not have to be subjected to race-car driver wannabe's with delusions of grandeur.

      I take the risks into account and I'm willing to share the road, too bad about the folks who aren't.

      Driving on a public road while following the rules is a risk everyone accepts when they get behind the wheel of a car. Insisting that you can ignore those rules, therefore increasing those risks to others is not an example of "sharing the road", it's an example of irresponsibility.

      I stopped being surprised long ago that people who claim that they're "really great drivers" who can ignore stupid traffic regulations are among the worst drivers I've ever met.

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    50. Re:Alternate headline by Endo13 · · Score: 1

      Of course. He's a SAFE driver, rather than an ordinary guy. How foolish of us not to realize that.

      Sorry, your attempt at making a point with sarcasm fails miserably. He's a trained race car driver. Of course he's a much safer driver at high speeds than the average ordinary guy. Like anything else, the more practice and experience you have, the better you are.

      Since the amount of mayhem caused in the case of an accident, the braking distance, and the reaction distance all go up as the speed of the car goes up, and the former two squared at that, I'd say that you are very wrong. Driving faster is more dangerous than driving slower, both to yourself and to everyone else on the road.

      I guess that all depends on how you define "dangerous". But by the definition you're taking, airplanes should be outlawed for being much too dangerous.

      No, anymore than it goes with the territory of owning a house that someone might decide to bar the doors and set it on fire because they happen to like watching the flames while you're sleeping on your bed.

      Terrible analogies FTL? Fatal traffic collisions happen every day, all across the US. Psychopaths trapping and burning you in your own house are a lot more rare. And not only that, the former happens as the result of "good, safe, well-meaning" drivers who accidentally do the wrong thing. If you spend a typical amount of time on the road for a typical portion of your adult life, the odds of you never being personally involved in a traffic collision are almost zero. On the other end of the spectrum, you being intentionally trapped and burned in your own house are also almost zero. So yes, the knowledge of an imminent collision every time you find yourself in a moving automobile is a risk that goes with the territory.

      Driving isn't a game. Driving is using a public utility - roads - to get from point A to point B. Drivers who can't get it through their heads that endangering others isn't okay should had their licenses and cars taken away.

      So who decides what entails "endangering others" on the road? One thing is sure, it's a pretty safe bet that driving over 50MPH anytime anywhere - no matter how good a driver you are - can be considered at least some small endangerment of others. You can be driving 50MPH down a highway with a 55MPH speed limit in a car that just passed your state's rigorous safety inspection and still have a tire blowout or some mechanical failure that causes you to lose control and collide with oncoming traffic.

      So please, spare us the "righteous indignation" speech. It doesn't fit you.

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    51. Re:Alternate headline by legirons · · Score: 1

      Don't quite understand the "insightful" here - you seem to be saying:

      "Tobacco kills more people than firearm-suicides, therefore: one person driving fast is worse than thousands of people driving stupidly"

      As I say, don't quite understand your train of thought.

      Anyway, as regards these high speeds, we see police driving this fast all the time and they kill loads of people. So a non-policeman does it for once and suddenly its reckless?

      (so the BMW doesn't have lights and sirens. but then the police cars don't have a passenger with gyrostabilised night vision binoculars scanning the road ahead. it all evens-out)

    52. Re:Alternate headline by JudgeFurious · · Score: 1

      You are out of your mind if you think he's safer because "people like this" don't kill as many as soccer moms in SUV's. There are millions of soccer moms in SUV's and very few relatively wealthy reckless assholes trying to break the cross country speed record.

      He's not driving "a little fast". He's trying to average 90+ miles per hour from one side of the country to the other. He's not testing any boundaries. He's breaking laws and in most cases laws that are there out of necessity. If you had really lost a close loved one in a traffic accident then you would understand that. Sure you'll say you did lose someone but I don't buy it for a moment. If you did then you didn't learn a fucking thing from it. That's the kind of effect one sees in the either the reckless young or the hopeless stupid.

      Life is dangerous by it's very nature. The danger is higher than it could be because of assholes like this clown. Frankly I hope he loses control of that car in his sleep on a deserted stretch of road and turns himself and his idiot-fuck-moron "co-pilot" into a stain on an embankment.

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
    53. Re:Alternate headline by Burning1 · · Score: 1

      It's worth noting that a SUV driving down the road carrying significantly more energy than a person in a smaller car. For comparison:

      The 3/4 ton 4x4 Chevy suburban SUV has a curb weight of 6385lbs (not counting mom and her 2.4 kids.)
      At 40MPH it carries 463,030 joules of energy.
      At 75MPH it carries 1,627,800 joules of energy.

      My old Porsche 944 weighs 2,932 lbs without having me in it.
      At approximately 460,000 joules, I be going 59 MPh in that 40 zone.
      At approximately 1,600,000 joules, I would be going 111MPh.

      Remember also that on the freeway I'm just as concerned about the guy weaving through traffic, the lady who forgot to signal, and the truck with the blind spot as I am about the guy passing me at 100MPh in the left lane.

      I'd rather deal with an alert driver doing 110 than a person who is distracted by kids, pets, a cell phone or traffic.

    54. Re:Alternate headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where the f*** do you get your logic from. I am trying to point out that road rules are there precisely to combat idiots like yourselves that seem to have an over inflated opinion of their driving skills. Seriously, is the 10 minutes saved in a journey realy worth your life and those of others. Even the best drivers in the world get into situations that they cant control. Just look at Ayrton Senna, Nicci Lauda etc. Now add to their situation the fact that you could possibly be facing a driver that is one hundredth as skilled as their oponents in a race track and include the fact that this person is coming from the opposite direction. What you are left with is the rate of carnage that we have on our roads. The only way we can reduce the thousands of unecessary deaths on our roads is to get idiots like this person off the roads before they end up killing people. I can garuntee that neither him nor yourself is one tenth as talented/ skilled as Ayrton Senna, but he is DEAD.

    55. Re:Alternate headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But which is more dangerous? Some smacktard blazing dangerously fast down a fairly empty highway at 2AM, or your typical fuckwit bleach blond soccer mom in a 2 ton SUV being completely oblivious towards rush hour traffic because she can't put down her damn cell phone?

    56. Re:Alternate headline by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      "Guess what, no matter how safe you try to be, people will die."

      I just love it when people use this argument. It shows how incredibly stupid they are. Do you also never wash your hands after taking a dump because "there's always a chance you can get sick from something else". I mean, I just fail to see how someone with even half a brain can believe such stupid, illogical reasoning.

      Life is dangerous, which is exactly why you should be more careful, not use that as some illogical, self-fulfilling, delusional excuse to act irresponsibly.

      I'm really sorry that you have lost people close to you, but if you want to test your boundaries, take it to the track. It seems that you of all people should know better.

    57. Re:Alternate headline by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The article is full of incidents that are just outright dangerous stupidity, using the hard shoulder as an overtaking lane, undertaking 18 wheelers and so and so on.

      You must not be in the US. For one, I've never heard an American say the word "undertaking" except in the context of taking on a new project (i.e., "John's new hobby of building ships in bottles is quite the undertaking."). For another, if you didn't undertake, you would never go anywhere. There is no lane discipline in the US. Grannys enter the freeway, cross traffic (not yielding to anyone) and sit in the fast lane at 20 mph under the speed limit. In fact, I personally know two grandmothers that do this, and my father does it as well. Others sit at 5 mph under the limit in the fast lane, complaining if anyone ever passes them that they are going too fast. Everyone believes that there is one and only one safe speed, and that's the speed they are traveling at. If you don't undertake, you will sit in the slow lane or behind someone in the fast lane going well below the speed limit.

    58. Re:Alternate headline by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      First of all, I didn't rate myself "insightful".

      I agree that that the absolute probability of you, personally, being hurt as the result of a driver "cannonballing" is miniscule, especially compared to the absolute probability of being hurt by a typical adult driving a suburban SUV.

      However, the conditional probability of you being hurt as the result of a cannonballing driver, given that you are already in the vicinity of one or, even worse, actually are one is higher than the conditional probability of you being hurt by the suburban SUV given that you are in the vicinity of, or are, one.

      Overwhelmingly more people are killed by smoking than by playing Russian Roulette. However, when you consider conditional probabilities, a typical smoker is overwhelmingly more likely to outlive a typical Russian Roulette player.

      Got it now? There is a world of difference between playing the odds and tempting fate.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    59. Re:Alternate headline by rs79 · · Score: 1

      " You'll grow a sense of humour right out your ass when this fuckwit kills someone you love. "

      Well, maybe. But they may take out an ex, too.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    60. Re:Alternate headline by rs79 · · Score: 1

      The Porsche is much less of a threat.

      The SUV will usually start.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    61. Re:Alternate headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh. My. God. Was that a serious post?

      You think it's fine to let people break the road laws and drive *way* over the limit (while sleep-deprived) simply because they apparently know that they're doing something risky, and are therefore going to be more careful about it? That's dumb. You're dumb.

      "Soccer Moms" may be responsible for a lot of accidents, but we can't really do anything about that. Cars are now at the point where it feels like you're entirely detached from the inherent danger that comes with moving at a fast rate of speed in a thin metal box. People are going to lose concentration and drive into things. It happens. We can't really avoid it. What we can avoid, though, is the increased risk of allowing a bunch of other people to drive at 150 km/h with illegal devices constantly distracting them as they try to decide if they're still awake or not.

      I hope this guy is arrested, and is never allowed to drive again. He's not proving anything, and nothing will be gained from the adventure (except a personal experience for him, at the risk of my girlfriend's life--fuck you, buddy).

      And you, parent. You need to readjust your common sense, 'cause it's clearly broken. Or you're 17, in which case, I wouldn't have even bothered to write this.

    62. Re:Alternate headline by DeathElk · · Score: 1

      That's a valid point, and I wish you had logged in so more people would see it. In this case, I firmly believe that luck has been the main factor. Our time-trialling fast car dude here has no say in what other road users are going to do.

    63. Re:Alternate headline by DeathElk · · Score: 1

      But this smacktard needed to constantly maintain an outrageously high average speed to break the record. That puts him amongst the bleach blond soccer mums whilst still exceeding the limit by 30 - 40 mph.

    64. Re:Alternate headline by DeathElk · · Score: 1
      Valid point. I've driven in U.S.A and Germany, and I live in Australia. I also happen to commute 75 klm of one of the most deadly road in Australia every day. Every few weeks I drive past the aftermath of an accident. You can usually tell the fatal ones...

      I guess I'm trying to say that whilst I agree that there are some conditions where high speed can be less risky, the expoits of this Roy guy are plain stupid - mixing extreme speed with commuter traffic is selfish and unfair to all road users.

    65. Re:Alternate headline by atamido · · Score: 1

      Which do you think is safer, an experienced high speed driver doing 150MPH in a high performance sports car, or a ninety year old driving a beat up pickup truck down the highway? Personally, I think this guy is an idiot, but chances are that he's safer driving at those speeds than half the people on the road right now.

    66. Re:Alternate headline by RESPAWN · · Score: 1

      Which do you think is safer, an experienced high speed driver doing 150MPH in a high performance sports car, or a ninety year old driving a beat up pickup truck down the highway? Assuming the ninety year old in the beat up truck is your average ninety year old and not, say, Jackie Stewart, then definitely the experienced high speed driver. The experienced high speed driver is likely to take his driving more seriously and therefore is more likely to be driving a well maintained car as well as being more likely to be paying attention to what the fuck he is doing. That's more than can be said for most drivers on the road these days. Despite what many people like to think, it is possible to safely drive at speeds greater than 100MPH. After all, it's not the speed that kills you, but the sudden stop at the end. :)
      --

      If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will.

    67. Re:Alternate headline by Burning1 · · Score: 1

      The 944 is a front engined, water cooled, modern 4 cylinder design. I did much of my own maintenance on it, and can attest to it's reliability and build quality.

      With that said, you just made coffee come out of my nose. : )

  6. Irresponsible by tsa · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Here in Europe each year we have a bunch of super rich arrogant bastards who also make the roads even more dangerous than they already are in their attempts to cross the continent as fast as they can in their supercars. They are rich enough to pay the bills, so they don't really care about those. Speed limits are there for a reason, so stick to them! Traffic tickets should be depending on income/wealth instead of being fixed like they are now.

    --

    -- Cheers!

    1. Re:Irresponsible by dido · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well some speed limit fines are based on income, at least in some parts of Europe. I remember a few years back when a top Nokia executive was fined the equivalent of US$103,000 for speeding on a Harley-Davidson motorcycle, because in Finland, traffic tickets are based on violator's income.

      --
      Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
    2. Re:Irresponsible by tsa · · Score: 1

      That is so cool :) But you know what would even be better? A portable car cruncher! You can bring it to the scene of the crime on a truck, and the car is crunched right there with the owner watching.

      "Hi Sir, that's a nice Ferrari F40 you have there. How fast were you going again? What, only 220 kmph? What a pity, you could have gotten more out of your car." (Crunching and screaming metal noises in the backgound) "Do you want your car powder in a plastic bag, or shall we dispose of it? Have a nice walk home!"

      --

      -- Cheers!

    3. Re:Irresponsible by techno-vampire · · Score: 1
      They are rich enough to pay the bills, so they don't really care about those.


      If I were a judge and one of those arrogant gits came before me, they'd be given jail time, not a fine, and that's something they would care about! Not only that, I'd pull their license if possible and that would really rain on their parade. Alas, I don't know how much leeway the judges have.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    4. Re:Irresponsible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alex has also participated and won the Gumball rally a few times.

      I'm not really trying to defend him, but from what I've seen and read he's very concerned and practical about security given (despite?) the situation in such rallies. Also he's an extremely good driver, just search YouTube for his name or his 'Polizei 144' team.

    5. Re:Irresponsible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and that's why a person like you won't ever get to be a judge!

    6. Re:Irresponsible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BMW drivers?

    7. Re:Irresponsible by radja · · Score: 2, Insightful

      what a waste. give that F40 a new paint-job, and you have a pretty fast police pursuit vehicle to catch the next lamborghini. thank you, have a nice day.

      --

      No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
      --Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
    8. Re:Irresponsible by Izeickl · · Score: 1

      They do fine according to income in some countries...

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1759791.stm

      "A director of the Finnish telecommunications giant, Nokia, has received what is believed to be the most expensive speeding ticket ever. Anssi Vanjoki, 44, has been ordered to pay a fine of 116,000 euros ($103,600) after being caught breaking the speed limit on his Harley Davidson motorbike in the capital, Helsinki, in October last year. "

    9. Re:Irresponsible by Lost+Engineer · · Score: 1

      If you've ever sped in your life you're just as guilty as them. Kudos if you haven't killed anybody. Whether they are rich or poor, arrogant or meek makes no difference here.

      My point is: almost everyone does this. Glass houses, stones, etc.

      The outrage here is just that some people are having fun with their speeding whereas others are just trying to get to work. Somehow that makes it ok.

    10. Re:Irresponsible by Kyokushi · · Score: 1

      You sure you want a traffic cop to be able to access info about your finances?

    11. Re:Irresponsible by steevc · · Score: 1

      My point is: almost everyone does this. Glass houses, stones, etc. No they don't. I think most people drive at around the speed limit, but you don't notice them as much. If people want to speed on an empty road then they can take their chances, but their insurance should be void if they crash. On busy roads they should show consideration and help to cut down on the number of accidents. Most people seem to think that they are better than average drivers, but that can't be true.

      The idiot in the story should be locked up for endangering others. I'm sure he scared plenty of people in pursuit of his stupid 'record'.

      There's not much point in speeding on my way to work as I rarely average even 40mph with 70% motorway/30% urban. I aim for minimal stress and reasonable economy.
    12. Re:Irresponsible by syylk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Speed limits are there for a reason, so stick to them! Traffic tickets should be depending on income/wealth instead of being fixed like they are now.

      Karma to burn, so I bite the bullet.

      You suggest that speed limits are there for a reason, then provide the reason: quick cash for the municipalities.

      Some limits are ridiculous low in some cases: I have a 30 km/h sign right in front of my window - and my condo is in front of a freeway! Often they are just a trick to further tax car owners, without resorting to the politically unpopular word "tax".

      Here (Italy) there's a huge scandal about similar behavior by the police enforcers, and one that is quickly making some heads roll.

      At some specific, usually not dangerous crossroads, the traffic lights have been reprogrammed to have a very short "yellow" time - around two seconds. It has been documented in a broadcast inquire on TV, with actual videos and SMPTE'd times. With two seconds from green to red, it's materially impossible to slow down and stop at the crossroad, even sticking to the very low speed limit.

      So you WILL cross the crossroad with a red. And of course, that crossroad has this new CCTV system to recognize plates and automatically issue tickets in case of crossing with red. There was an outburst of enraged citizens against this practice: in a two weeks period, they received in excess of 13'000 tickets, all at the same crossroad. In a town with around 50'000 people, not a major city either...

      Speed limits and absurd, often intentional, road laws are demonstrably used to sanate local administrations' budgets and balances. Disguised as "think of the children" policies, they are just another way to transfer resources from citizens to public administrators.

    13. Re:Irresponsible by Ours · · Score: 1

      I've heard of an European country where they do that. They impound your car, if proven guilty of extreme speeding, your car gets crunched.

      --
      "You superiour intellect is no match for our puny weapons" - The Simpsons
    14. Re:Irresponsible by Andrew+Kismet · · Score: 1

      Hopefully they only do that after requisitioning the engine, and all other removable components, for use in police vehicles. :D

    15. Re:Irresponsible by Aereus · · Score: 1

      This is a sad reality in most places in the US as well. A county highway with 45mph limit has a 2 mile stretch of 25mph at one point for the assumed reason that there is a school in that section. Except the school is a good 200 yards off the road, with a fence, and the sidewalks along that stretch of road are all 30 yards from the road as well. Yet the state highway going past another school is still 55mph. Guess how many tickets are in that stretch?

    16. Re:Irresponsible by Night+Goat · · Score: 1

      This guy's going to be traveling mainly on interstate roads, which means that nothing you're complaining about is applicable. The interstate speed limits tend to range from 50-70 mph and I believe they are set by the states. There are no speed traps on interstates. The purpose of speed limits on interstates is for safety and fuel efficiency.

    17. Re:Irresponsible by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Speed limits are there for a reason, so stick to them!

      Indeed, and that reason typically has nothing to do with safety.

      Traffic tickets should be depending on income/wealth instead of being fixed like they are now.

      Exceeding the speed limit, in and of itself, should not be an offense (although it should certainly be taken into account in the case of other charges, like dangerous driving).

    18. Re:Irresponsible by howlingmadhowie · · Score: 1

      i seem to remember reading about police in australia negotating a 10% pay increase by agreeing to install sudden speed limits at the foot of long hills.

    19. Re:Irresponsible by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Funny

      Could work well for parking violations too! Remember?

      You have 10 minutes to move your car.

      Your car has been impounded.

      Your car has been crushed into a cube.

      You have 10 minutes to move your cube.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    20. Re:Irresponsible by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Here (Italy)
      Says it all, really. With an Italian behind the wheel walking speed is lethally fast. P.J. O'Rourke puts it best.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    21. Re:Irresponsible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Levels of compliance with speed limits depend greatly on the area, and it seems you have the good fortune to live in a more civilized country. In many parts of Southern California, driving 15 to 20 mph over the 65 mph speed limit on highways is the norm, to the extent that driving at the speed limit can be dangerous (strangely enough, this appears to create a situation where technically, one cannot drive and not break a law, as, in addition to the speed limits, there is a also law here requiring that all drivers drive at a speed safe for the circumstances).

    22. Re:Irresponsible by Lost+Engineer · · Score: 1

      I can't defend the gentleman in the story, although I was quite amused by the tale. My point was/is that you should consider what you are (or aren't) doing when you speed out of course. The speed limit down a couple of streets I live near is 25 mph. It's clearly unacceptable to most of the drivers on them, but the fact is that there's no visibility. The next guy pulling onto the street could be me. Or it could be a bicyclist/skateboarder/pedestrian. Yet I can't claim I've never sped down my own street.

    23. Re:Irresponsible by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are those and there are those. Yes, those "speed limits" you describe exist, and they get more and more by the day. Most of the time you have some suspiciously well hidden or badly lit little sign , most of the time on top of a hill, just before it starts the dip, that tells you that instead of 70, you only may drive 30 here and, well, guess where your friendly and helpful law enforcement guys are sitting? Actually, these things make traffic less safe, not more, because, well, have you ever tried hitting the breaks on the top of a hill?

      Neither do I understand an arbitrary speed limit of 55 mph which exists pretty much across the whole USA. Yes, it might have made sense in the 50s when cars could often go not much more than 55, and more often than not 55 was already a rather unsafe speed in said cars. We're now half a century further down the road and cars got heaps safer. At much higher speeds. Even my old and quite quirky Mazda 626 could easily handle the 130 (kph, around 80mph) speed limit without falling apart.

      Still, there are speed limits that make sense. I wouldn't want to be a road worker trying to repair damages when right behind me cars zip by at 100 kph. Observing a speed limit of 70 would have saved me a car, right behind that limit was a rater narrow corner.

      But one thing is true (and that last example illustrates it perfectly), when speed limits are imposed arbitrarily, as they are today more often than not, people start ignoring them. It's like with any laws, when you learn that a law makes no sense in 90% of the time, you start ignoring it in 100% of the time.

      The roads would be much safer if speed limits existed only where they make sense. People would observe them because they would understand their need to exist.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    24. Re:Irresponsible by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Then lobby to get the speed limit increased. Violating a law is not the best way to protest it. It's not time for that yet.

    25. Re:Irresponsible by dwater · · Score: 1

      My point is: almost everyone does this. No they don't. I think most people drive at around the speed limit, The normal definition of 'around' includes both sides - ie above as well as below. I think you'll find that almost everyone indeed has exceeded the speed limit at some point.

      Most people seem to think that they are better than average drivers, but that can't be true. I can be true, of course.
      --
      Max.
    26. Re:Irresponsible by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      I remember when I was driving from Sydney to Queensland most of the speed cameras seemed to be half way down hills and pretty much hidden behind trees and whatever as often as not too.

    27. Re: Irresponsible by Manic+Miner · · Score: 2, Informative

      "I have a 30 km/h sign right in front of my window - and my condo is in front of a freeway! "

      Have you considered that the sign is there directly for your benfit? Or would you rather have the traffic noise from a freeway full of cars doing 120km/h???

      The biggest problem with the speed debates is that most people only consider them from the selfish point of view of the driver (being as most people who get upset are speed obsessed drivers), speed limits take a number of factors into account a large number of which you might not know about if you are not familiar with the area.

      The classic is the stupid "the autobahn doesn't have speed limits so why do we have limits on Road X" argument. Nicely forgetting that the unlimited sections of the autobahn have been designed for high speed travel, and only roads with very specific and strict design criteria are allowed to have no limit.

      Limits exist for saftey and the consideration of everyone on and around the roads in question, in most cases they are correct, even if "I'm in a rush and these stupid limits are slowing me down" driver cannot see it.

      --
      If you ever drop your keys into a river of molten lava, let'em go, because, man, they're gone.
    28. Re:Irresponsible by fotoguzzi · · Score: 1

      There are no speed traps on interstates.
      Have you never been to Washington?
      --
      Their they're doing there hair.
    29. Re:Irresponsible by The+Grassy+Knoll · · Score: 1

      Here in Europe each year we have a bunch of super rich arrogant bastards who also make the roads even more dangerous than they already are..

      No shit, however sometimes they get their come-uppance - The Times

      --
      They will never know the simple pleasure of a monkey knife fight
    30. Re:Irresponsible by denzacar · · Score: 0

      I have a 30 km/h sign right in front of my window - and my condo is in front of a freeway! And THAT is why there is a 30 km/h speed limit there.
      Condos are a known habitat of hu-mons.

      And while these hu-mons (sturdy creatures that they are) may come out of a head on collision with 1-2 tons of steel moving at 30 km/h with only a broken limb - above that speed hu-mon's chance of survival rapidly decrease.

      Not to mention the possible damage that hitting a hu-mon can do to a car and its paint job.
      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    31. Re:Irresponsible by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      I'd actually pay to help implement that policy in Paris.

      It would make for some great pictures too.

      (Disclaimer, I use a bicycle or the metro, sold my last car ages ago, never used it anyway)

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    32. Re:Irresponsible by xaxa · · Score: 1

      My point is: almost everyone does this. No they don't. I think most people drive at around the speed limit, The normal definition of 'around' includes both sides - ie above as well as below. I think you'll find that almost everyone indeed has exceeded the speed limit at some point. I haven't. I don't drive. But I'm still at risk of being hit by a speeding driver when I'm walking.

      Most people seem to think that they are better than average drivers, but that can't be true. I can be true, of course. 50% of people are better than average, 50% worse. That's not "most".
    33. Re:Irresponsible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      What speed limits?

      Greetings from Germany :o)

    34. Re: Irresponsible by syylk · · Score: 1

      Have you considered that the sign is there directly for your benfit? Or would you rather have the traffic noise from a freeway full of cars doing 120km/h???

      Never thought about it even for a split second, for two reasons:

      1) When the traffic is jammed, I don't care that the cars are going there at 2 km/h. The limit is absurd.

      2) When the traffic is free flowing, cars are ALREADY going pretty fast. 120 km/h is not the case here, because I'm next to a ramp to a bridge, but this stretch of road can be negotiated EASILY, and more importantly SAFELY, at 100 km/h. The limit is absurd.

      And I don't mind traffic noise - or else I wouldn't have bought an apartment in front of this freeway. NIMBYes tick me off in the wrong way. I like the freeway here, besides pollution and noise, it's an useful resource to reach places in the city. It's a tradeoff, and I purchased this home fully aware of the drawbacks.

      There are far more car crashes in the back of my building, where two "harmless" streets meet and people park near the crossroad, limiting visibility for drivers coming from two of the four ways, than in the freeway, where everyone is speeding in the same direction, at the same speed.

    35. Re:Irresponsible by steevc · · Score: 1

      I agree that most of us have exceeded the speed limit at some point, including me, but it's a question of degree. It also depends on the conditions. Doing 90mph on a 70mph road is probably fairly safe if there is no other traffic, the road is dry and visibility good, but that's a rare state.

      There is a proposal for 20mph limits in British towns. I think this should apply at least on non-through roads where you are more likely to get kids running around. If you are almost at your destination then it's not going to make much difference if you have to go a bit slower. Germany introduced 30km/h zones ages ago, but I don't know how much difference they made.

      Some group called Association of British Drivers seem to be against any sort of limits, but it seems you cannot rely on 'common sense' for people to adjust their speed to the conditions. I do agree with them that limits should be enforced to improve safety rather than to generate money from fines.

    36. Re:Irresponsible by RedWizzard · · Score: 1

      If you've ever sped in your life you're just as guilty as them. Legally, perhaps, though usually you are committing a more serious crime if you exceed the limit by a large amount than if you only just exceed the limit. You may be just as guilty, but you are guilty of a lesser offense. Morally, only if you believe that the posted limits are in fact the safest ones and any deviation is criminally dangerous, i.e. that 65 is perfectly safe, but 66 is recklessly dangerous. Most people would believe that there is a difference between someone exceeding the limit by 60mph, compared to someone exceeding the limit by 6, in terms the recklessness.
    37. Re:Irresponsible by dwater · · Score: 1

      You're at risk of being hit by any driver, speeding or not. ...and, no, average does not mean a 50/50 split.

      --
      Max.
    38. Re:Irresponsible by spauldo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Neither do I understand an arbitrary speed limit of 55 mph which exists pretty much across the whole USA. Yes, it might have made sense in the 50s when cars could often go not much more than 55, and more often than not 55 was already a rather unsafe speed in said cars.

      Actually, the 55 mph national speed limit was put in place in 1974, and for fuel efficiency reasons, not safety.

      The speed limits in the 50s (in many places) were still determined by the old 80% average method, IIRC. Let a bunch of people drive on the road with no speed limit, cut out the top 10% and bottom 10%, and average the speed of the remaining, and there's your speed limit. It makes sense, because that's the speed most people feel comfortable at.

      Nowadays, most of the states I've seen just make a state version of the old national speed limit. Here in Oklahoma it's 65 on two lane highways, 70 on some four lane highways, and 75 on turnpikes. The speed limit on some of the county roads have gone up in response, which helps matters (some small towns are only accessible via county roads), but I still feel the old 80% system made more sense.

      Bear in mind though, many cars manufactured between 1974 and 1995 were made for 55 and 65 mph speed limits. Going faster than that is exceeding the design limits of the vehicle. Sure, they'll do it, but engineers didn't have to take into account states like Montana where you could go as fast as you like and still be legal. So while those cars may have had better safety features, in theory they weren't designed for today's speed limits. There's still a lot of those cars on the road today.

      --
      Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
    39. Re:Irresponsible by v1 · · Score: 1

      I wonder how many people more or less ignore the speed limit signs and drive at whatever speed is appropriate for the road? In most cases here the speed limits are sensible. Slower for areas where cars or people could come into view with much less warning etc. Faster for main drags where anyone there is going to be driving next to you not trying to walk a stroller across the road.

      I'd say that's how I play it, short of the more "high risk" areas where they're out ticketing for the "revenue enhancement". Most of the time I end up driving at, or slightly above (or below) the limit based on road conditions.

      What I find intersting is you can be ticketed even if driving below the posted limit here - we get a lot of snow and I know how to drive in it so I won't slow down much unless conditions require, but I have heard of people getting tickets for (was it reckless driving? I don't recall the exact charge) when doing 40 in a 45 that was unplowed and covered with that thick, chunky "popcorn" snow you can hydroplane on really easy.

      THAT being said, there will always be the retards that are just out to get hit. I "ran into" one of those 2 wks ago. Girl pulls out of a cross street stop sign and stops right in front of me, waiting to take a left turn onto the divided 4way I'm on, on the other side. (guessing she pulled out before looking and realizing the other way was full of cars, and didn't stop until she was sideways in my lane) I just lay on the horn as I slow down, and she does this bizarre bouncing up and down in her seat like a complete freak, looking at me and looking at the traffic she's waiting for, paralyzed. I had come to a complete stop (from 35) 10 ft from her driver door before she got out of my way. THOSE are the real danger on the roads.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    40. Re:Irresponsible by ultranova · · Score: 1

      You sure you want a traffic cop to be able to access info about your finances?

      Why would a traffick cop need to be able to access that info ? All he'll has to decide is how many days worth of income the fine should be; how much this is in dollars can be determined later by the IRS or something.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    41. Re:Irresponsible by dwater · · Score: 1

      Most people seem to think that they are better than average drivers, but that can't be true. I can be true, of course. 50% of people are better than average, 50% worse. That's not "most". In any case, he wasn't claiming that most people are better than average. He claimed that most people think they are better than average, and, of course, some of them have to be right.

      What he probably meant to say was, "they can't all be right.", or something like that.

      BTW, what's the 'average' of 9, 9, and 0? How many are above the 'average' and how many are below?
      --
      Max.
    42. Re:Irresponsible by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

      In Ontario, speeding less than 50kph is what's known as a summary conviction [e.g. a fine] it does not go on your criminal record only your driving record. Speeding over 50kph is a criminal offense.

      That said, technically speeding [e.g. doing 5kph over the limit] is a completely different story than doing 15, 20, 30, etc over. I usually aim for 2-3 over just to say "I'm at least doing the limit" since I mostly use cruise control. Sure I suppose I am "speeding" but it's well within a reasonable tolerance (usually +/- 5kph is considered the norm). Whereas the pricks who race up behind me, tail gate, then pass while doing 20kph over are in fact speeding. You can't argue that your gauge is so broken that 20 over read as the limit.

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    43. Re:Irresponsible by w9wi · · Score: 1

      I don't think that would fly here in the U.S.. Chronic speeders here already believe speed limits are artificially low and enforced for the sole reason of increasing revenue without having to raise taxes. Tying fines to income will serve mostly to reinforce this belief.

      I think it's time to give up on fines as a means of deterring the most serious violators. I think we should send people to jail if they're caught driving more than 30km/h (20mph) over the limit. Or if they're caught tailgating in an attempt to intimidate other motorists into speeding. Lock them up (in some kind of inexpensive, low-security "traffic camp") for a randomly chosen day or two.

      http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/crime/street-racing.html

    44. Re:Irresponsible by xaxa · · Score: 1

      Yes. But I'm more at risk of being injured if the vehicle is travelling faster. I'm also less likely to see it in time to move out of the way.

      For a large number of drivers (more than your "9 9 0" three) it's near enough 50/50.

    45. Re:Irresponsible by backbyter · · Score: 1

      In the 50's and 60's most cars had no problem maintaining 55mph since the general speed limit was 70mph (at least in the mid-west). You also got to drive your 70mph on a two lane with rather narrow lanes and no shoulders and usually a much larger car. Were the cars designed as well as today? Heck no.

      As the interstates came to be, you got wider lanes, straightened and banked curves, flattened mountain driving, etc.

      For fun, take your vehicle on a drive down old Rt66 through Missouri and envision doing so back in the days of manual steering, manual brakes, a column shifter, poor headlights, no airbags (and a steel dash), not likely to have seatbelts, no air conditioning, bias ply tires, etc. Have fun.

    46. Re:Irresponsible by xaxa · · Score: 1

      I'd support a 20mph limit in towns. I don't remember where it was, but I was in a car with my parents a while ago and after driving on the motorway for several hours, it was amusing to see how angry my dad became when the last mile of his journey had a 20mph limit.

    47. Re:Irresponsible by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      That goes against economy too, instead of letting the car mostly coast down the hill, you end up having to apply the brakes to keep within the limit. Wearing out your pads, and spreading very fine brake dust everywhere.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    48. Re:Irresponsible by dwater · · Score: 1

      > For a large number of drivers (more than your "9 9 0" three) it's near enough 50/50.

      Not near enough for you to be correct, unfortunately.

      --
      Max.
    49. Re:Irresponsible by xaxa · · Score: 1

      Driving ability is likely to be distributed equally about the average ability. Half above, half below.

    50. Re:Irresponsible by rainer_d · · Score: 1

      > The purpose of speed limits on interstates is for safety and fuel efficiency.

      LOL. With a SUV? Or any other of the 90% gas-guzzler cars currently on your streets?

      --
      Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
    51. Re:Irresponsible by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      They are rich enough to pay the bills, so they don't really care about those.

      Surely after two or three times they would lose their licences.

      In Hong Kong a few years ago there was a scandal when a pop singer was busted for speeding. He got an asssitant to say he was driving and bribed the cop who caught him to go along with it; but it came out and they were all prosecuted, the cop lost his job.

    52. Re:Irresponsible by Hemogoblin · · Score: 1

      You may want to prove your assertion that "the majority of speed limits are imposed arbitrarily". It is my understanding that most speed limits are established using the rule that 85% of people will believe that the limit is acceptable in that area. There may be some money grabs and arbitrary limits, but I wouldn't generalize to all limits. Civil engineers don't usually resort to making arbitrary estimates.

    53. Re:Irresponsible by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      In the UK, speeding tickets are accompanied with points on your licence (typically 3, unless you were driving more than 30mph over the limit in which case your licence usually gets revoked)... Once you get 12 points you lose your licence, but the points expire after a few years.
      However if you drive in another country, they can only fine you and not impose points. If you can afford a supercar, you can probably afford a few speeding fines.
      As for income based fines, if your in a foreign country the police cannot really find out your income so you'd get a standard fine.
      Also the cops need to catch you, some countries have slow police cars and very few bikes or helicopters.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    54. Re:Irresponsible by SilverAlicorn · · Score: 1

      Welcome to the 21st century. Speed limits are now set by the state. For instance, it's 70mph here in California. Also, the old 55mph limit first appeared in the seventies. America was in the middle of a gas shortage, and the goal was to conserve fuel. Cars of that time started to seriously lose efficiency around the 60mph mark.

    55. Re:Irresponsible by bkr1_2k · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Doing 90mph on a 70mph road is probably fairly safe if there is no other traffic, the road is dry and visibility good, but that's a rare state.

      Have you ever driven across country in the USA? Seriously, this is anything but "a rare state".

      Most of this country, despite what many believe, is wide open space with low population and even less traffic. It's not difficult to do 120 mph for several hours without ever seeing another car. (I've done it though closer to 105 mph--I've only gone 120 once and it scared the crap out of me.) Populous areas are actually quite spread out until you get to the coastal states. If you avoid those and shoot straight across the middle of the country, it's very easy to "hit the open road" and avoid most traffic issues.

      I'm not saying what this guy did is smart, but it's far from automatically being as reckless as most of the comments suggest. Yes, generally speaking it was a stupid thing to do for a "record" that really isn't all that hard (it certainly didn't require all the ridiculous gadgets he added to his car) to attain. Stupid is a relative term though, and can be easily moderated to be far less stupid or even more stupid. I'd dare say he did make some effort to minimize the stupidity of his actions, if for no other reason than making the task easier by avoiding traffic, though I don't know that for sure.

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    56. Re:Irresponsible by aaronl · · Score: 1

      What do you call five cruisers waiting to harass a line of traffic? How about a cruiser that eschews useful service and parks underneath an overpass for hours every day? I've even seen LEOs on interstates that were so stupid as to sit on the side of the road with two other cruisers, *get out of their vehicle* and point at people to try to pull them over, using the other two to pursue the people who ignored or never noticed those idiots.

      Interstate speeds vary from 50 to no limit, in my experience. I'm in the Northeast, and most of them are 65 in this region, except near cities, where they change to 50.

      They *should* be 75mph, but then they wouldn't write as many tickets.

      So far, the majority of unsafe or unexpected driving hazards can be directly attributed to police. People get scared, and pay attention to the cruiser instead of the road. You get traffic slamming on their brakes and slowing to (speed limit)-5 to avoid harassment. People divert their attention to watch for cruisers and unmarked cars. Radar detectors get purchased and serve to add another distraction to drivers. Hell, the only real close call to a collision that I've had on an interstate was a cop just blindly pulling into 65mph left-lane traffic from a stop behind an overpass just because he wanted to turn around.

      The *original* purpose of speed limits was safety. During the 1970s it was for fuel economy, though that really isn't an issue for most modern cars. I get within 0.5mpg of the same gas economy at 75mph as I get at 65mph in my car; at 75mph I am more efficient than at 55mph, just because of gearing. The limits are what they are because of bad policy.

    57. Re:Irresponsible by Greyfox · · Score: 1

      It's 70-75 on most of the Interstate I drive on lately. I think it goes up to 80 or 85 in a couple of places. A lot of people will just run 70 along them. It's pretty rare to see a cop or the occasional maniac who wants to peg his car out at the factory limiter, but you can't go any distance at that speed without getting pulled over by that rare cop, and so when you see someone blow by you like that, you usually pass him pulled over a bit further down the road.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    58. Re:Irresponsible by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "You suggest that speed limits are there for a reason, then provide the reason: quick cash for the municipalities."

      Do you vote in municipal elections?

      "I have a 30 km/h sign right in front of my window - and my condo is in front of a freeway!"

      But your condo is a residence.

      "Speed limits and absurd, often intentional, road laws are demonstrably used to sanate local administrations' budgets and balances."

      Do the race participants know enough (let alone care) to determine if each and every speed limit zone they cross is just or unjust before they decide to violate it?

    59. Re:Irresponsible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are no speed limits in Montana? Been there in the last decade? Trust me, there are speed limits. High ones, which I haven't seen enforced much, but they have them. It was either institute speed limits on the freeways or lose federal highway funding, so they opted to set speed limits.

    60. Re:Irresponsible by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Some friends and I used to drive up the Alaska highway each year to a particular set of hotsprings. There are a lot of corners on that highway, and they all have a recommended maximum speed. Some of them are preceded by (usually) hand made signs to the effect of "my child died on this corner, please slow down."

      We call those "we mean it" signs.

    61. Re:Irresponsible by servognome · · Score: 1

      Neither do I understand an arbitrary speed limit of 55 mph which exists pretty much across the whole USA.
      What roads do you drive. Most interstates out west are 75, unless you are inside a large city where it drops to 65 or 55.
      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    62. Re:Irresponsible by dwater · · Score: 1

      "Likely"? So it *could* not be? Gotta love this statistics crap, eh?

      In any case, like I said, he wasn't commenting on the distribution, but what drivers thought. Some of them have to be better than average...unless everyone is average, I suppose, which, I'd guess, is, frankly, unlikely.

      --
      Max.
    63. Re:Irresponsible by xaxa · · Score: 1

      Get a life.

    64. Re:Irresponsible by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 1

      Hopefully they only do that after requisitioning the engine, and all other removable components, for use in police vehicles. :D
      Riiiiiiight, google for the youtube vid of the kid taking an e30 m3(2.0L 4 cyclinder engine) and making the cops look like fools w/ their pursuit vehicles (5+ L, V8s). Do you really want cops having the ability to go even faster and harm civilians?

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    65. Re:Irresponsible by Bluesman · · Score: 1

      You can downshift going downhill to slow you down without using the brakes.

      Most cars with an automatic transmission even have a special button to disable the overdrive gear specifically for this purpose.

      --
      If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
    66. Re:Irresponsible by RESPAWN · · Score: 1

      Neither do I understand an arbitrary speed limit of 55 mph which exists pretty much across the whole USA. Yes, it might have made sense in the 50s when cars could often go not much more than 55, and more often than not 55 was already a rather unsafe speed in said cars. We're now half a century further down the road and cars got heaps safer. I've seen North of 120MPH in a 1955 Chevy Coupe. Yes, it was unsafe and I wasn't driving, but that's not the point -- the point is that a 40 year old (at that time) 1955 Chevy, albeit with some minor engine work and an automatic transmission, was able to do 120MPH. Also, 55MPH hasn't been the national speed limit in the US for a loooong time. In most states, rural Interstate quality freeways, comparable to M roads in GB, have speed limits of 70MPH. Some states have higher limits than that. (I think Texas has 75 in some areas and at least one state didn't have a daytime speed limit at all for a few years.) 55 is only seen on most freeways around major metropolitan areas, but a lot of areas still have 60 - 65 limits in cities. 55MPH is the accepted standard for most US Highways (two to four lane, non-controlled access roads, probably comparable to A roads), but many states have greater speed limits in rural areas on US Highways as well, usually dependent on the road quality and local population density.
      --

      If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will.

    67. Re: Irresponsible by jnieuwen · · Score: 1

      > The classic is the stupid "the autobahn doesn't have speed limits so why do we have limits on
      > Road X" argument. Nicely forgetting that the unlimited sections of the autobahn have been designed
      > for high speed travel, and only roads with very specific and strict design criteria are allowed to
      > have no limit.

      Besides that you are at least half responsible for any accident when your speed is above 130kph on the autobahn unless you can prove your speed was not a factor in the accident. And of course on the german autobahn you can expect to be passed by cars that are travelling much faster than you do.

    68. Re:Irresponsible by hawk · · Score: 1

      Pennsylvania had plenty of "My daddy works here. Please drive safely" signs in "construction zones." Well under a third of these actually had work in any given week.

      I kept daydreaming about driving through with my kids and planting "My daddy drives here. Please work." signs in the empty zones . . .

      hawk

    69. Re:Irresponsible by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Construction companies who leave up their signs when they're finished working really should be held accountable. It's dangerous. Driving (slowly) past a "construction site" where construction has been wrapped up for a week just teaches drivers that the signs are meaningless.

      I would definitely support legislation that makes it illegal to leave speed limit signs up when the reason for them is no longer present.

    70. Re:Irresponsible by syylk · · Score: 1

      Reality check: the freeway here is forbidden to pedestrians, and actually protected with tall metal and plastic fences - it'd be VERY hard to cross them and go onto the asphalt to be hit by the 1-2 tons of steel, even if you wanted.

    71. Re: Irresponsible by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      A fast moving freeway is not too noisy. I stayed in a hotel right next to I-5 in San Diego.

      Many hotel reviews complained about the noise.

      It didn't bother me, it was a non-offensive whoosh outside, and inaudible inside over the air conditioning.

      People screeching to slow down or speed up due to a speed limit change would likely be noisier.

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    72. Re:Irresponsible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just use a steamroller. Pour fresh asphalt over the place when done. No need to pick up and carry vehicles around.

    73. Re:Irresponsible by suggsjc · · Score: 1

      It would never work. If there is too much incentive (or disincentive) for "income" then it will be worth people's time and effort to get around it. For instance in your hypothetical scenario, would Steve Jobs and his $1 salary only have to pay $0.05?

      Concerning that exec, there are several things that probably happened. First, he could just pay the fine and not care since he is probably filthy rich anyway. Second, he could adjust how his "income" is calculated and then not worry about speeding fines at all. Third, he could wake up one day and realize that speeding is bad and vow never to exceed posted limits again. Fourth, hire a chauffeur to drive him really fast everywhere he went (and then just pay his cheap speeding tickets).

      Out of those possibilities, I think the third is the least likely.

      --
      When I have a kid, I want to put him in one of those strollers for twins and then run around the mall looking frantic.
    74. Re:Irresponsible by hawk · · Score: 1

      Finished? They'd rarely started. It appeared that that they would put up signs for all the projects at the beginning of the season. They would also shut down lanes prematurely--by months.

      I'm partial to tying every construction zone to the supervisor's own driver's license, and making it a moving violation (with points) to not have work in the zone . . .

      hawk

    75. Re: Irresponsible by ultranova · · Score: 1

      There are far more car crashes in the back of my building, where two "harmless" streets meet and people park near the crossroad, limiting visibility for drivers coming from two of the four ways, than in the freeway, where everyone is speeding in the same direction, at the same speed.

      The cars in a freeway don't always all go in the same direction. I speak from experience.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    76. Re:Irresponsible by dido · · Score: 1

      Well, from what I remember, he paid the fine, although he did try to lower it a bit by trying to convince the courts to fine him based on his income for the year before that, which was a lot lower (can't remember whether he succeeded though). By the way, I believe that the way it's done is not based on salary per se, but more strictly in terms of net income. Steve Jobs may pay himself a US$1 salary, but he gets dividends and such from owning stock in Apple and other companies, and has other non-salary sources of income as well. The very rich like Steve Jobs and Anssa Vanjoki tend not to get their money from salaries the way ordinary people do... Their governments know this, because presumably people like them pay their taxes (if they didn't, they'd have a whole world of hurt more to pay besides speeding tickets!).

      --
      Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
    77. Re:Irresponsible by rs79 · · Score: 1

      Anyone that crushes an F40 should be dragged behind an M5 coast to coat at 90 mph.

      There's no good reason to do this, ever. It's just pinheadedly spiteful.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    78. Re:Irresponsible by rs79 · · Score: 1

      "I've even seen LEOs on interstates that were so stupid as to sit on the side of the road with two other cruisers, *get out of their vehicle* and point at people to try to pull them over, using the other two to pursue the people who ignored or never noticed those idiots. "

      Once in Tradfic School in California we had a cop tell us flat out to ignore them. "if they want you, they'll come get you. Otherwise just ignore them".

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    79. Re:Irresponsible by denzacar · · Score: 0

      Oh.. I am quite sure that kids could get around that.

      But I guess that something like that is not the real reason for 30 km/h limit. Nobody would go that far in "thinking about children" department.
      Its the noise.

      You should consider yourself lucky. Someone actually took time and effort to acknowledge the fact that the said road goes through a populated area.
      And did something about it.
      That is why the fences are tall and plastic - to block the sound and exhaust fumes. A wire fense would stop hu-mons just fine.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    80. Re:Irresponsible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's some website with a Geof or Geoph somebody or another from LA who talks about tickets and getting out of them. It specifically depends on WHICH law they write you up under.

      In regards to Cali and the fscked up 'must speed to drive' thing, at least for me there's more to it than that. I don't want some idiot crashing into me from behind, even in the slow lanes you'll get people trying to pass on right, or wait until they're within a half foot of your bumper to change lanes (without signalling!) etc. And on a number of occasions this has been the cops (And no, not on calls!) The level of disregard for personal COURTESY, much less safety within our lovely little state is sad, embarrassing and dangerous.

  7. This doesn't make sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    32h07m divided by 31,000 highway cops means driving past one patrol officer on average every 3.7 seconds. How can the gadgets help under such circumstances?

    1. Re:This doesn't make sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I suspect it means there are 31000 highway cops in the US. Not 31,000 average along the route he took at any given time.

    2. Re:This doesn't make sense by mrjb · · Score: 5, Funny

      32h07m divided by 31,000 highway cops means driving past one patrol officer on average every 3.7 seconds. How can the gadgets help under such circumstances? Go-go gadget donut-thrower!

      --
      Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
    3. Re:This doesn't make sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly there are too many cops.

    4. Re:This doesn't make sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I recently drove 2000 miles from Corpus Christi to Boston, more or less at the speed limit.

      (Four days, driving about 10 hours per day, including stops for meals and gas.)

      I think I saw a grand total of four {state police,highway patrol,etc} during that time.

    5. Re:This doesn't make sense by Tuoqui · · Score: 1

      You are forgetting one thing. Their path is effectively one dimensional, forwards and backwards. Highway cops have to be distributed in two dimensions (north-south and east-west) which is why they probably didnt pass 1 patrol officer every 3.7 seconds.

      --
      09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
      +2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
    6. Re:This doesn't make sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I also take issue with the 31,000 figure. Even if there was a patrol car every 30 miles--a very liberal estimate--that would mean he only came into contact with roughly 100 officers. The methodology of his calculations are flawed, thus the record is invalid. It is valid, however, that this person is a jack ass.

    7. Re:This doesn't make sense by Soporific · · Score: 1

      Got me laughing!

      ~S

  8. What an ass by Bryan+Ischo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There must be a safer way to compensate for your small penis than endangering people on the highway across the entire USA.

    I have done my share of speeding on U.S. highways and have gotten my share of tickets too. But I don't claim to be anything other than an ass myself when it comes to driving. At least I did it mostly on a motorcycle and likely would only take myself out, which somehow to me seems a little more considerate.

    If he really wants to break the record he should do it on a motorcycle. You can bypass any traffic situation entirely with ease. You can even split through traffic going 75+ at 90 if you want to, which I did on a long straight hot boring trip down highway 5 in northern CA on the way back from Oregon. Of course I got a speeding ticket too, from a rather irate cop who couldn't catch me for miles because I kept splitting through traffic (even though I wasn't trying to outrun him, I didn't even know he was there). Like I said, I am an ass too. And I know when when I see one. And that dude is an ass.

    1. Re:What an ass by xtal · · Score: 1

      Bikes gotta refuel especially when you are driving agressively. Kills your time badly.

      --
      ..don't panic
    2. Re:What an ass by pwizard2 · · Score: 1

      Of course I got a speeding ticket too, from a rather irate cop who couldn't catch me for miles because I kept splitting through traffic (even though I wasn't trying to outrun him, I didn't even know he was there).
      You're really lucky that he didn't arrest you for failing to stop. (even though you didn't know he was there)
      --
      "It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
    3. Re:What an ass by Bryan+Ischo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Three points:

      1. In my experience you get about twice the mileage in a bike as a car (obviously depends alot on the type of car and type of bike, but considering the guy is driving an M5, it wouldn't be hard to get twice the mileage on even a very powerful bike), but have 1/4 the tank size, so you end up with about half the range with the bike.

      2. You can add an extra tank to both vehicles, but the bike gets twice the mileage out of each additional pound of fuel added. I think in the end the bike will end up getting a bit more advantage out of the extra tank, but still the range of the bike will only end up being a bit better than half the range of the car.

      3. You can refuel a bike much faster than a car. You don't even have to get off. This buys you maybe 30 seconds per refuel. Probably still not enough to make back the difference given the extra stops you have to make, but it will help.

    4. Re:What an ass by Provocateur · · Score: 1

      But an ass with a low UID, now that's something...

      --
      WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
    5. Re:What an ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't help think someone could come up with a "in drive" refueling system so you don't have to stop.

      Just like the planes.

    6. Re:What an ass by SageMusings · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If he really wants to break the record he should do it on a motorcycle.

      3000 miles on a motorcycle would add a whole new dimension to the word "torture". I'm not sure there is a person alive that could sustain those speeds that long. Riding a bike is much more fatiguing and requires loads more concentration.

      --
      -- Posted from my parent's basement
    7. Re:What an ass by Bryan+Ischo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You're probably right. With training I would think you could do it, but it would be difficult. When I go on long trips the first day I have trouble sitting 6 hours in the saddle. By the third or fourth day I can do 10 hours. But 32 hours would be really, really difficult.

      They have 24 hour endurance races on motorcycles and they split it between three riders so each only has to do 8 hours. One hour on, two hours rest. Then again, those guys are driving 120 - 150 mph on twisty race tracks and pushing it to the edge for the entire hour they are out there. This cross-country dude just has to go 100 - 110 on the highway, after less than an hour I am sure you would acclimate to it and it wouldn't feel any faster than 65 does normally.

    8. Re:What an ass by Propaganda13 · · Score: 1

      4. While the actual refueling takes time, getting off the highway and into the gas station would kill any "saved" fueling time. Whipping full speed into a gas station might also cause the police to get a few calls.

      5. 31 hours riding a bike in all types of weather vs. 31 hours of sitting in a car with a copilot that you can switch with when you get tired.

      While dangerous, 31 hours is amazing. Each minute he spent getting fuel was another minute, he had to do 180. OK, he didn't do 180, but you know what I mean.

    9. Re:What an ass by lukas84 · · Score: 1

      Not a problem. All i need now is a few oil tankers (distributed along the route), and a few well trained monkeys (to jump towards the car with a petrol hose).

    10. Re:What an ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Compensating for small penis?

      Me and a friend were once running late for a nine-ball tournament that was more then 70 miles from us. He keeps the car over 100mph pretty much the whole trip and we never saw a cop, seemingly a lucky day. We get to the city where the tournament was going to be held and he doesn't slow down a bit, he is running red lights, wheeling in and out of traffic and once this lil gal in a convertible passes us like we are standing still, she is steering with her knees and has a compact occupying her two hands while staring in its mirror. Only got a brief look at her but she sure was a nice looker, great legs too. Anyway we finally get to the pool hall and step inside just in time to hear "all entries are closed". So he sets up a side match and a few games later we sense a conversation change in the place. People are crowding up around the windows and when we look out a window we see that ice is falling with mixed in freezing rain, so much for the clear skies and dry roads we had for the trip up. We drop the match and head back because he will need to be at the bar he owns for closing. Wouldn't suprise me if we averaged less then 20mph on the way back.

      Now about those small penises, mine definately shriveled some on that trip, did recover a might when that gal passed us with the steering wheel between those lovely legs, but I reckon she was probably headed out to find a rich one.

    11. Re:What an ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mythbusters covered this with the driving into the back of a semi-truck maneuver. A series of semis could serve as refuelling stations and easily have sufficient fuel stored to refuel the car and have room to fit the car in too.

      I suspect if the record is to be broken, that will be an essential step to getting the job done.

      If freeway speed limits were raised to the 75 or 80 that everyone on the west coast is already driving that would help too.

      I'm sure the "think of the children" crowd will have lots of reasons why that will cause the immediate downfall of civilization just like repealing the national 55 limit did...

    12. Re:What an ass by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

      If he really wants to break the record he should do it on a motorcycle. Nope. I ride quite a lot. Doing that sort of speed on a bike will give you a tank range of something like 80-90 miles. That's a lot of stops, which fucks with your average speed very badly.

      --
      Deleted
    13. Re:What an ass by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      I've gone San-Diego to Montreal in 40 hours, back in the 1980's. Slept for 3 days afterwards.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    14. Re:What an ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While it's true that doing 3000 miles on a motorcycle NON STOP would be next to impossible, doing it with a couple of hours of rest each night, while grueling, is certainly possible.

      Witness the IronButt Association: http://www.ironbutt.com/about/about.cfm

      And how about doing it on scooter: http://cannonball2006.blogspot.com/

      And yes, the guy from the story is a complete ass and deserves to rot in jail.

    15. Re:What an ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "In 1933, motorcycle racer "Cannonball" Baker crossed the United States from coast-to-coast in approximately 54 hours."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_George_Baker

    16. Re:What an ass by syzler · · Score: 1

      3000 miles on a motorcycle would add a whole new dimension to the word "torture". I'm not sure there is a person alive that could sustain those speeds that long. Riding a bike is much more fatiguing and requires loads more concentration.

      I whole heartedly agree. This summer I drove a Harley from Anchorage, Alaska to Pensicola, Florida in about nine days, very exhausting days. Assuming no adverse weather, even an 800 mile day at ~70mph can leave one in no condition to continue riding without a rest. Attempting to drive a motorcycle 3000 continuous miles on public highways would be tantamount to attempted suicide.

    17. Re:What an ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There must be a safer way to compensate for your small penis than endangering people on the highway across the entire USA.

      As the owner of an above average sized schlong (or rather, as one who is owned by said schlong), I fail to see what you Hummer and Escalade drivers are jealous of.

      A big dick will not get you laid. By the time she knows how big it is, you've already reached home plate. If you're bragging about it, that lessens your chances of getting laid, as most women hate braggarts.

      You wind up sitting on the damned thing. If it's a wooden chair, OUCH!

      If you are unlucky enough to get a woodie in public, people will think you are an asstunnel/asshat who has stuck a bananna in their jeans in a pathetic attempt to get laid.

      Imagine taking a shit and having your pecker hit the water. Not fun! At least, if you're heterosexual; I imagine gays don't mind a little fecal matter on their member.

      Many (more experienced) women don't WANT guys with big dicks. Professional women tell me that most men with big tallywhackers think the dick is enough and don't need technique (although my take is that if she's getting money, she doesn't need to be satisfied). Some (obviously non-professional) women with tight pussies (non-mothers) are afraid you'll (ok Mr. SUV, I'll) stretch it out.

      Anything that reaches past the clitoris is wasted.

      So stop being jealous. A big dick is a detriment, not a plus. I wouldn't mind if mine were tiny if I could use it more.

      Wait, this is slashdot, none of you have a clue what I'm talking about

      -mcgrew

    18. Re:What an ass by Hemogoblin · · Score: 1

      Check out Long way Round and Race to Dakar [flash]. Awesome documentaries involving travel with motorcycles. You can also buy and download the episodes from their website, sans DRM.

    19. Re:What an ass by thewiz · · Score: 1

      Wow! Empirical proof of the observation "It takes one to know one"!

      --
      If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
    20. Re:What an ass by P3NIS_CLEAVER · · Score: 1

      People have finished the Baja 1000 on their own, and riding offroad is a bit more tiring.

      --
      Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!

      http://financialpetition.org/
    21. Re:What an ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I give you, the Iron Butt Association. Coast to coast, as well as back again and many more.

      http://www.ironbutt.com/ridecerts/getdocument.cfm?DocID=4

    22. Re:What an ass by Trogre · · Score: 1

      I don't know. Just ask Ewan McGregor.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    23. Re:What an ass by Bryan+Ischo · · Score: 1

      I actually saw some episodes of Long Way Round when the were on TV. To be honest, I was not impressed. Some of what they did was interesting, but they a) had at least one support vehicle, which I think is pretty lame; real men do it without support vehicles, and b) were pretty whiny and wimpy. Those two factors kind of ruined my enjoyment of the series.

      I haven't seen the Race to Dakar one though. I'll bet those guys are much tougher and more respectable.

    24. Re:What an ass by Hemogoblin · · Score: 1

      Race to Dakar is all about one of the guys from Long Way Round. So, if you didn't like long way round, you might not like Race to Dakar either.

    25. Re:What an ass by larytet · · Score: 1

      it is pain, but i think it is possible. i tried 500 miles with only gas stops once. pain is all you feel, but it is possible.

  9. Sheriff Rosco Purvis Coltrane says ... by weighn · · Score: 1

    One of the biggest roadblocks to breaking the record ... ... please choose your puns more carefully. Yeeeeeeeeah-harrr
    --
    Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
  10. Team Polizei is Alex Roy's racing team... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...so how is this offtopic? can someone clue me in?

    1. Re:Team Polizei is Alex Roy's racing team... by Markspark · · Score: 1

      yeah.. if you RTFA, you'll see that he isn't stopped by cops, but that he aborts, because he realizes that he cannot make the required average speed of 90mph.

      --
      i find your lack of faith in science disturbing!
    2. Re:Team Polizei is Alex Roy's racing team... by Markspark · · Score: 2, Informative

      and then he makes another try, again without being stopped by the cops.. :D

      --
      i find your lack of faith in science disturbing!
    3. Re:Team Polizei is Alex Roy's racing team... by More_Cowbell · · Score: 1
      UM, sorry, no. TFA is mostly about the cross USA trip. Team Polizei is NOT (but still about him).

      PLEASE RTFA before trying to school people for not reading TFA.

      --
      Experience teaches only the teachable. -AH
    4. Re:Team Polizei is Alex Roy's racing team... by Markspark · · Score: 1

      read it again my dear friend.. he made the same trip twice.. with some team polizei babble in the middle.. :D

      --
      i find your lack of faith in science disturbing!
  11. Re:Wow, so many people bitching by glittalogik · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't mistake haemorrhoids for testicles. He might be a dick, but he's definitely an asshole.

    If you want to do something gutsy, go skyjumping, base jumping, downhill mountain-biking. Something that doesn't run the risk of injuring or killing innocent bystanders who want nothing to do with you.

  12. Re:And yet will all those gadgets... by rhavenn · · Score: 1

    Wow. Troll +1. BMW is one of the top 10 best made cars in the world. Replace BMW with any American made vehicle and I might believe you.

  13. Traveling Cross Country by Nazmun · · Score: 1

    Although I've only gone as far as NYC -> Kentucky, there are a shitload of highway roads where you will be alone. That and the fact that some cars on the road are more stable at 100 MPH as some not so well maintained cars at 50 MPH. I'm sure he could have gone down a few notches when he met with actual traffic in the road.

    --
    Hmmm... Pie...
    1. Re:Traveling Cross Country by belmolis · · Score: 2

      He can't go down very much if he has to average 90mph.

    2. Re:Traveling Cross Country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As the other answer mentioned, he had to average over 90mph so that's way unsafe but I agree that there are roads where pushing to 120 for a "relatively" short time is possible (for instance an empty Utah highway on a Sunday at 6AM on a half country trip in a race track prepared M3 for me :) but you have to slow down even if your car is in top shape as other "not so well" maintained cars doing 50 mph and their drivers are not expecting traffic coming that fast from behind, this isn't the autobahn... and even there the unrestricted areas are scarce now and always congested anyway from what I've heard and you still have to adapt to traffic flow.

      In my case the numerous stickers still left on the car gave it away pretty easily so excessive speeding all the time wasn't possible anyway and it's way better and safer for everybody to do that type of stuff on the race track where other drivers are expecting fast traffic and know how to handle it.

    3. Re:Traveling Cross Country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After 3 hours of driving 100-120 without much traffic / on 6-lane highways in the fastest lane, you can afford quite a bit of time at ~65 mph and still average 90.

      I used to be able to pull of those average speeds on 4-lane mountain Interstate highways in a 95 Jetta with custom, lowered shocks and struts, sport tires and sport brakes. No radar. That thing stuck to the road better at 110 than most cars at 70. He would be even safer in his crazy souped up BMW.

      I'm not quite sure why geeks have gotten so wussy, hence the comments in this thread. I always thought the reckless and quirky geeks from Office Space fit my style. I guess that went out of style sometime around 2001.

    4. Re:Traveling Cross Country by fellip_nectar · · Score: 1

      100 mph is 100 mph.

      Your chances of hitting something or someone before you can even react to it are much higher, regardless of how 'stable' your vehicle is.

      --
      Worst. Signature. Ever.
    5. Re:Traveling Cross Country by Khazunga · · Score: 1

      I regularly do 120km/h (75mph) average on trips on highway. All it takes is for my 'normal' speed to be 150km/h (93mph). Stops and traffic bring it down a bit.

      On an M5, keeping above 90mph (144km/h) shouldn't be that difficult. It's a car that accelerates to the 250km/h (155mph) electronic limit without breaking a sweat.

      --
      If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you
    6. Re:Traveling Cross Country by Random+Destruction · · Score: 1

      and 60 mph is 60 mph.

      Your chances of hitting something or someone before you can even react to it are much higher, regardless of how 'stable' your vehicle is.

      Insert any other number you wish in there. I don't see your point. Are you claiming that road safety is a purely a function of speed, and independent of vehicle?

      --
      :x
    7. Re:Traveling Cross Country by Ihlosi · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Insert any other number you wish in there. I don't see your point.

      That's because you're bad at physics and biology. Here's a few hints:

      1. Braking distance is a function of velocity squared. Same goes for kinetic energy.
      2. Human reaction time is about one second, give or take a few hundred milliseconds. There's no way to get it significantly lower than that.

    8. Re:Traveling Cross Country by Hrothgar+The+Great · · Score: 1

      A friend and I did some driving on the Autobahn a couple summers ago. We were in the South part of Germany, near Stuttgart, and outside the city, there pretty much weren't any speed limits, except in one or two spots, or where there was construction. Contrary to what you've heard, it's not always congested in those spots, either. Like in the states, it all depends on where you are and what time of day it is. We had this stupid little rental Volkswagen, and managed to push it up to 160 km/h (about 100 mph) the whole time we were on the highway, and traffic was flying past us in the left lane.

      While my buddy was passing someone, we saw headlights way the hell back in the distance. What seemed like a couple of seconds later, after he had moved back over into the right lane, a ferrari blew the fuck by us like we weren't even moving, and we were still going 160. Fun times.

    9. Re:Traveling Cross Country by pandaman9000 · · Score: 1

      Would this be your great grandfather's human reaction time? I am curious, as any time that I have done 120 plus MPH, my reaction time was affected by adrenaline, and my only focus was potential targets, and avoidance of them. Using your logic, All those first-person shooters I play should be totally similar in play, whether the latency is 10 ms or 100 ms. Even a butter smooth 100ms can be distractingly painful after playing in a 10 ms environ. With near 1 second reaction times, 90ms would be an intangible seeming amount of slop time. I have seldom played a shooter that gave you a full half second to cogitate on targets. You have less than 1/2 second to begin defensive maneuvers, identify the target as friend or foe, and fire, assist, or flee. On the highway, you are in one mode: Avoid everything. Assuming dry pavement, That M5 likely would stop from 100 MPH in in under 200 feet. Less, if the vehicle is fully optimized for dry-only pavement. Speed doesn't kill. Bad decisions do.

    10. Re:Traveling Cross Country by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but your adrenaline doesn't last for 32 hours. Adrenaline might last maybe five minutes, then you are left depleted and your reaction time will be less than normal, and after 7 or 8 hours, fatigue will start setting in, and your reaction time will be even lower. It doesn't matter how you try to justify driving fast, science proves it wrong every time.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    11. Re:Traveling Cross Country by radish · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I am curious, as any time that I have done 120 plus MPH, my reaction time was affected by adrenaline
      Or was it your perception of your reaction times that was affected? "Look at me, I'm going so fast, I'm so cool". Please.

      On the highway, you are in one mode: Avoid everything.
      Actually, this guy was probably in many modes. Look at GPS, look at radar detector, drink more coffee, try to stay awake. Oh, and maybe glance ahead every so often.

      Assuming dry pavement
      So it never rained on this whole trip? There were guaranteed to be no oil patches on the highway? No loose gravel? No glass that could cause a blowout? The highway is not a racetrack and is not maintained to the safety level of a racetrack.

      That M5 likely would stop from 100 MPH in in under 200 feet
      Awesome. So now he just has to make sure to stay 200ft behind any other vehicle at all times. Think he actually did that? Nah, me neither.

      Speed doesn't kill. Bad decisions do.
      People make bad decisions every day. Everyone does. When it comes to driving, speed invariably makes the results of those bad decisions much worse. He wants to throw his ass around a racetrack at high speed he's got my blessing, but stay the hell off the roads my kids are on.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    12. Re:Traveling Cross Country by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      I am curious, as any time that I have done 120 plus MPH, my reaction time was affected by adrenaline, and my only focus was potential targets, and avoidance of them. Using your logic, All those first-person shooters I play should be totally similar in play, whether the latency is 10 ms or 100 ms.

      Now let's see, what are the differences between playing an FPS and driving a car ? I'll name a few:
      * When driving, you have to pay attention to a much larger part of your field of vision than when just staring at a monitor.
      * When driving, some of the areas you have to pay attention to may actually be out of focus, since you're actually perceiving a 3D image and not staring at a 2D screen. And don't forget that even if you think you're the fastest thing for miles around, you occasionally have to check your mirrors.
      * When driving, some of the important controls are actually moved by your feet _and_ all of them need much larger motions and force than pushing a mouse around, hitting a key on the keyboard, or clicking a mouse button.
      * The number of situations you may have to react to is much larger in real life (tm).

      There are more. And pretty much all of them will lead to your reaction time when playing an FPS being somewhat shorter than when driving a car.

      Latency in an FPS is _added_ to your reaction time. If you're playing against people who have a reaction time similar to yours, then the person with less latency will shoot first and win. That's why there's a big difference between the guy with 10ms and the guy with 100ms. It doesn't have anything to do with the human.

      Assuming dry pavement, That M5 likely would stop from 100 MPH in in under 200 feet. Less, if the vehicle is fully optimized for dry-only pavement.

      Erm, no. Even assuming a pretty much perfect reaction time of 0.5s (from recognizing the need to stop until foot stomps down on the brake pedal), the car will already have travelled about 22 meters. Then, he'd need a deceleration of about 2.5g to stop in less than 38 meters. Even a souped-up street sedan doesn't do that - they top out at about 2g. Maybe if he war driving a _real_ race car (much lighter), he'd have a chance.

    13. Re:Traveling Cross Country by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

      Speed doesn't kill. Bad decisions do.

      I'll say his first bad decision was to make this trip in the first place. I've driven 750 miles at an average speed of 85 miles per hour, and done it fairly regularly over the last ten years, at least once a year. I generally start at about 2 am and I'm finished about 9.5-10 hours later give or take restroom breaks. It's stupid, but it's the best way for me to get where I'm going in the time I need to be there. It's a bad decision, and I've been lucky, but I've hedged my bets by traveling when roads are least crowded, and traveling on (mostly) well maintained roads. For a couple years there was a 150 mile stretch that had construction on it where traffic generally slowed to about 65-70, but for at least half the trip the average speed of traffic (it's a major East-West trucking route) is around 80 mph.

      This guy may have done something similar, minimizing his time with heavy traffic by starting late at night and ending early morning or something like that, but I somehow doubt it. My decision to travel the way I have is stupid, and his is just as bad.

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    14. Re:Traveling Cross Country by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      Braking distance is a function of velocity squared. Same goes for kinetic energy.


      That doesn't excuse you from being bad at math.

      The function of velocity squared that you mention is velocity squared divided by two times the rate of deceleration. If you want to stop in less time, you can go slower, sure... Or you can increase the performance of your brakes and tires sufficiently to take the velocity squared part of the equation into account.

      Just like somebody with an agenda (wanting people to drive slower) to tout an equation while neglecting to consider one of the variables.
    15. Re:Traveling Cross Country by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      Or you can increase the performance of your brakes and tires sufficiently to take the velocity squared part of the equation into account.

      There are technical limits as to how large your deceleration can be. You won't be able to quadruple it on most cars, sorry.

      So you're bad at math and at engineering, too.

      Also, I didn't mention that stopping distance also includes a term that depends on the drivers reaction time (pretty much a constant) and the velocity.

      Just like somebody with an agenda (wanting people to drive slower) to tout an equation while neglecting to consider one of the variables.

      You're also bad at guessing agendas. Today's just not your day, I guess.

    16. Re:Traveling Cross Country by pandaman9000 · · Score: 1

      I responded to reaction time. I do not need adrenaline to respond in under 1/4 second. Also, adrenaline rush is only kicking in at heightened speeds, so if you are not DOING 120 MPH (or whatever speed induces a rush for you), the rush itself isn't there. I routinely drive 70 to 80 MPH, so around 120, heightening occurs. I never defended an idiot running on no sleep. I am not going to RTFA, as i've already done a trip of over 800 miles in less than 10 hours. We had 3 people. the rotation was sleep/drive/lookout. We took care to ensure that we were not going to be sluggish in response. The next time you are doing 65 MPH in your holier than thou state of mind, in your under-maintained car, or worse, SUV, and you answer that cell call, eat that food, or drink that drink (non alcoholic assumed), realize how hypocritical you are being, as you are posing JUST as much threat as someone in less traffic, doing 40 over your speed. If I have to argue that, then I will wait for YOU to gain some experience. And yes, once the brakes are applied, that M5 will likely stop in under 200 feet. I never assumed there was no delay in reacting to a need for stop. Seeing as the vast majority of accidents occur at below insane speeds, I am standing by my statement: Speed doesn't kill. Bad decisions do. Bad decisions like 120 in traffic. Bad decisions like drinking your mocha in traffic. Bad decisions like working 14 hours straight, then driving home tired, on wet pavement. While speed may enhance damage done, removing the driver-side elements from the equation greatly reduces the likelihood of an accident. I have never had an accident at speed. Nor has anyone i've known that does drive fast on occasion. Perhaps it is best that idiots (apparently like the guy in the article) that drive impaired, or tools ( like any of us that smoke/drink/eat/do makeup while driving) that can't focus on the task at hand, NOT drive fast. Bad decisions.

    17. Re:Traveling Cross Country by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      You forgot the most important difference: Event frequency. When you frequently react to an event you will have a much lower reaction time to it than when it's a rare event. In an FPS you will rarely go a minute without combat but when driving you can go for hours without an obstacle, greatly increasing your reaction time when you do encounter one.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    18. Re:Traveling Cross Country by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      There's a physical limit to the amount of friction your car can have with the road. You can increase the braking performance but that has a limit. I doubt that stock equipment is so bad that you can increase its performance by any significant amount (50% or so) before hitting the physical limit.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    19. Re:Traveling Cross Country by pandaman9000 · · Score: 1

      I'd say he was spot- on. If YOU personally lack the reaction time visual acuity, and depth perception to drive at speed, in little to no traffic, then, by all means, don't. If YOUR vehicle lacks proper tires and brakes, don't. If your vehicle isn't up on a rack every 2000 miles, or if your alignment is of the slightest bit, DON'T. If you are driving a vehicle not suited for post 100 MPH speeds, or if weather is inclement, or you can't focus 100% of your attention, then for GOD'S SAKES, DON'T speed. If there is moderate to heavy traffic, or if you are not on a limited access roadway..... you guessed it.... don't speed. Or should we all call in those police officers that routinely weave through traffic at 80 to 100, not signalling, with no lights, or sirens, too? I'm not judging anyone here. I think it is ridiculous to place someone with bald tires, a cigarette in their hand, driving a 98 honda with worn brakes in the same category as someone driving a modern, well maintained vehicle, with new aftermarket tires, and brakes. The second person having the presence of mind to NOT smoke while driving. Speed doesn't kill. Bad decisions do. Sometimes speed, due to weather, or traffic, etc is a bad decision. The fact remains that driver error, not speed, is the root cause of nearly ALL accidents.

    20. Re:Traveling Cross Country by pandaman9000 · · Score: 1

      Since Indy cars can and do haul down from 200MPH, I am thinking your limit -might- be related to pavement type, tire material, weather conditions, tire width, and brake system design. Not many people I know will go over 100 MPH on anything not equipped to do it. If you don't KNOW what your safety margin is, or fail to abide by it, then you've made a bad decision. Bad decisions kill, not speed.

    21. Re:Traveling Cross Country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really. If you maintain a 120MPH average for 3 hours, that gives you a whopping 3.6 hours at 65MPH to average 90MPH. Speed averages are a lot harder to maintain than you'd think.

    22. Re:Traveling Cross Country by pandaman9000 · · Score: 1

      Except there is an "event" when you push the needle to make up time. Below that, you have an exceptionally valid point. That point is related, I am sure to many accidents involving "white line fever", or general road fatigue. Much like any decision involving risks, you make an informed decision, and shore up any deficiencies, or it can be a bad decision.

    23. Re:Traveling Cross Country by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      The events aren't combined, every type of event is counted separately. Detecting a stimulus takes some of your attention resources and as the frequency of a stimulus reduces you pay less attention to it.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    24. Re:Traveling Cross Country by Surt · · Score: 1

      I'd say he was spot- on. If YOU personally lack the reaction time visual acuity, and depth perception to drive at speed, in little to no traffic, then, by all means, don't. If YOUR vehicle lacks proper tires and brakes, don't. If your vehicle isn't up on a rack every 2000 miles, or if your alignment is of the slightest bit, DON'T. If you are driving a vehicle not suited for post 100 MPH speeds, or if weather is inclement, or you can't focus 100% of your attention, then for GOD'S SAKES, DON'T speed. If there is moderate to heavy traffic, or if you are not on a limited access roadway..... you guessed it.... don't speed.

      Or should we all call in those police officers that routinely weave through traffic at 80 to 100, not signalling, with no lights, or sirens, too? I'm not judging anyone here. I think it is ridiculous to place someone with bald tires, a cigarette in their hand, driving a 98 honda with worn brakes in the same category as someone driving a modern, well maintained vehicle, with new aftermarket tires, and brakes. The second person having the presence of mind to NOT smoke while driving.

      Speed doesn't kill. Bad decisions do. Sometimes speed, due to weather, or traffic, etc is a bad decision. The fact remains that driver error, not speed, is the root cause of nearly ALL accidents. The problem, of course, is that speed increases the likelyhood of fatality in an accident by a worse than linear function. Does the driver next to you who makes an error deserve to die because of your choice to speed in violation of the laws?
      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    25. Re:Traveling Cross Country by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      The fact remains that driver error,

      Driver errors include "Driver was too full of himself, thought he knew better than Mr. Newton, and drove too fast.".

      And people bragging about their 250 ms reaction time are definitely full of themselves. Yes, you might react that fast to an event you expect and move your finger in time to stop that stopwatch, but no you're not going to react that fast to a rare, unexpected event and stomp down on the brake in 250 ms. Stop kidding yourself, period.

    26. Re:Traveling Cross Country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Braking distance is a function of velocity squared. Same goes for kinetic energy.

      For vehicles of the same weight, with the same tires and brakes, yes. I wouldn't be at all surprised if a BMW M3 could stop from 100MPH in the same distance as an average minivan could stop from 65.

      Then there's the ugly litte secret of highway travel: it's not safe at the legal speed limit either. If your car is stopped on the freeway and gets rear-ended, the expected outcome is the same whether the other car is going 65 or 150MPH; everybody in both vehicles dies. Exceptions may be made for high-tech airbags, one of the vehicles being a school bus and the other a Toyota tercel, etc. but in general, collision at 65 MPH difference in speeds = fatality.

    27. Re:Traveling Cross Country by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Ok. So, you only react when you're driving? Seems rather stupid to me. I tend to plan when I'm driving, look as far ahead of me as I can, and plan for what's happening. Buncha brake lights a mile ahead? Guess I better slow down, start getting to an exit so I can get around the traffic. The problem is that you're only stating the biological limits we have similar to dumb animals, and not giving much credence to the biological advantages we have over dumb animals.

    28. Re:Traveling Cross Country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Insightful? Nah, not really.

      Or was it your perception of your reaction times that was affected? "Look at me, I'm going so fast, I'm so cool". Please.

      Yes, adrenalin actually does decrease your reaction times, as well as enhance your awareness of what's going on around you.

      Actually, this guy was probably in many modes. Look at GPS, look at radar detector, drink more coffee, try to stay awake. Oh, and maybe glance ahead every so often.

      Did you RTFA at all? Even the first paragraph on the first page? He had a partner. That was the partner's job. The driver's job was (Surprise!) driving.

      So it never rained on this whole trip? There were guaranteed to be no oil patches on the highway? No loose gravel? No glass that could cause a blowout? The highway is not a racetrack and is not maintained to the safety level of a racetrack.

      If you had RTFA at all you wouldn't be asking these stupid questions. Yes it rained. If you had RTFA, you would know that, and you would also know that they slowed down to 22MPH in the worst of it, which cost them a lot of time. Loose gravel? Please. Yeah you find that all over the interstate these days. Did you seriously think they were taking local roads for a speed record?

      Awesome. So now he just has to make sure to stay 200ft behind any other vehicle at all times. Think he actually did that? Nah, me neither.

      Most of his driving was on the interstate. Coming to a full stop on an interstate is generally unsafe even if you're doing 5 under the speed limit. RTFA much?

      People make bad decisions every day. Everyone does. When it comes to driving, speed invariably makes the results of those bad decisions much worse. He wants to throw his ass around a racetrack at high speed he's got my blessing, but stay the hell off the roads my kids are on.

      I understand your concern for your kids. And I agree, what he did was stupid and irresponsible to say the least. But speed isn't nearly the cause for concern that you make it out to be. Again, if you had RTFA you would know that all of his truly high-speed driving happened on the interstate, on roads that can handle that kind of speed. State patrolmen find themselves in high-speed chases over 100MPH on these roads every day. Surely if they can handle it, a trained race-car driver can as well. And please note that in those 3000 miles at an average of over 90MPH he had no collisions. Yes, excessive speed can make an accident worse, but it very rarely actually causes an accident, particularly in a case such as this, where it's a trained individual driving.

      So while your concern for your kids has at least a small amount of legitimacy, your questions do not.

    29. Re:Traveling Cross Country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've driven 750 miles at an average speed of 85 miles per hour, .... and I'm finished about 9.5-10 hours later 750 miles in 9.5 hours is only an average of ~79mph.
    30. Re:Traveling Cross Country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know. Sounds to me like there are plenty of dumb animals participating in this discussion. Hopefully they'll take themselves out when something unexpected happens without killing any of the rest of us.

    31. Re:Traveling Cross Country by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      And I didn't mention that just because you *can* make your vehicle better at stopping from high speeds, doesn't mean you should drive fast.

      If you're on a wide straight road with little traffic, you're not going to be testing your reflexes if you are driving smart.

    32. Re:Traveling Cross Country by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      I doubt that stock equipment is so bad that you can increase its performance by any significant amount (50% or so) before hitting the physical limit.


      Oh, but you can. You can do *much* better than a 50% improvement.

      The stock equipment was designed to be low-cost and long-life. If you are willing to spend more for more complex components, and spend more often to replace components that wear out quickly, you can quadruple - or more - your grip on the road, and your brake performance on most stock cars.

      Certainly, if you are purchasing a performance car, some of the easy improvements will already be done, and it's not really practical for the average driver to do things like change their tires and brake pads every five thousand miles... But people *do* do these things for recreation on street legal vehicles... Just because they want to drive fast doesn't mean they have a death wish, and they certainly don't want to hit anything with their precious car.
    33. Re:Traveling Cross Country by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      Oh, but you can. You can do *much* better than a 50% improvement.

      Only if the car comes with abso-friggin'-lutely lousy brakes to begin with (hint: BMWs don't).

      you can quadruple - or more - your grip on the road, and your brake performance on most stock cars.

      The "stock" M5 brakes from 100 km/h to 0 in 33 meters, that's a deceleration of about 12 m/(s^2) or about 1.3g. That's pretty much as good as you get on a "stock" car. If you were to quadruple that, you would get into regions that are usually left for _real_ racing cars (Formula 1 and such) which are much lighter and use completely different tires.

      Sorry, I call BS here. If you can quadruple the deceleration of a car by "replacing components", then it's time to drop that car off at the junkyard and get one that's roadworthy to begin with.

    34. Re:Traveling Cross Country by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      You may not realize it, but you are now officially a troll.

      I don't see how taking what I said and repeating it with more words, and a call of "BS" in any way refutes what I said.

      I explicitly left performance cars out of my generalization. Did you even read the whole comment before you responded, or did you take that quote out of context on purpose? Did you miss the part where I talked about tires?

      I will now be directing my attention to other threads, populated by more rational people.

    35. Re:Traveling Cross Country by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      You may not realize it, but you are now officially a troll.

      You may not realize, but your fantasies of improved braking performance are delusional.

      I explicitly left performance cars out of my generalization.

      Well, then let's take a non-performance car. How about a plain vanilla, 77 kW VW Golf TDI ? Hardly a "performance car", I hope you'll agree with that. Well, it brakes from 100 km/h to zero in about 38 meters. That's still a deceleration of slightly above 1g. And if you still think you can quadruple that by "replacing components", well, sorry, that's still complete and utter BS.

      As I said, if you find a car where you can do that trick, please, please drop it off at the nearest junkyard. It's not roadworthy to begin with. Or are the "stock" brakes on US cars really _that_ lousy ?

      Did you miss the part where I talked about tires?

      No, I didn't miss it at all. And even if you somehow miraculously manage to fit Formula 1 slicks on your sedan, that still doesn't reduce its weight to that of a F1 race car.

    36. Re:Traveling Cross Country by macduffman · · Score: 1

      2. Human reaction time is about one second, give or take a few hundred milliseconds. There's no way to get it significantly lower than that. It's actually closer to about a quarter of a second. Look it up.
      Note to self: be doubly sure to double-check facts when trying to sound intelligent.
      --
      Don't cry "Oust Bush," cry "Restore Freedom!" Don't support a candidate who isn't doing anything to unravel Bush's web.
    37. Re:Traveling Cross Country by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      It's actually closer to about a quarter of a second. Look it up.

      Yes, for hitting a button at a simple, expected event without any distractions. No, not for realizing that you need to brake, moving your foot from the accelerator to the brake, and stomping down on it, in an actual, real-life traffic emergency. Sorry.

    38. Re:Traveling Cross Country by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      How about a plain vanilla, 77 kW VW Golf TDI ? Hardly a "performance car", I hope you'll agree with that. Well, it brakes from 100 km/h to zero in about 38 meters. That's still a deceleration of slightly above 1g.


      Interesting that you'd pick the TDI instead of the base...

      1g of deceleration capability is much higher than the average stock sedan is capable of. (Really. Look it up.)

      When they design speed limits for roads, the number they typically use to approximate the average vehicle to determine the maximum safe speed limit is 11.2ft/sec/sec. Or just over .3g.

      I think you could get a 33% improvement over that TDI's stock braking ability for less than $2000 with performance pads, stock rotors, and wider, Z-rated tires. That would put you a quadruple the braking ability they assume your vehicle is capable of when they picked the speed limit.
    39. Re:Traveling Cross Country by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      Interesting that you'd pick the TDI instead of the base...

      I had the review at hand.

      1g of deceleration capability is much higher than the average stock sedan is capable of. (Really. Look it up.)

      Ford Focus 2008. 70-0 mph, 190 ft. That comes out to about 8.4 m/(s^2). Still pretty close to 1g.
      Sorry. If a late-model sedan can't decelerate at close to 1g, then it's seriously overloaded or needs maintenance - badly.

      When they design speed limits for roads, the number they typically use to approximate the average vehicle to determine the maximum safe speed limit is 11.2ft/sec/sec. Or just over .3g.

      Yes. Because roads also need to accomodate the 20 year-old junker in bad maintenance, veteran cars, SUVs, vans, pickup trucks, and of course all the people who are too afraid to stomp down on that brake pedal with all their might even if that's the only action that that'll save their sorry butt from crashing into the pile-up up ahead.

      That would put you a quadruple the braking ability they assume your vehicle is capable of when they picked the speed limit.

      As I said - if you can do it to a car, then there's something seriously wrong with it in the first place. In that case, do the regular maintenance on the braking system first and _then_ try quadrupling the braking power.

    40. Re:Traveling Cross Country by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Or was it your perception of your reaction times that was affected? "Look at me, I'm going so fast, I'm so cool". Please.

      I don't think it was adrenaline exactly, but real race car drivers also have a heightened awareness of what they are doing at speed. Mostly it's about paying attention instead of being bored that keeps you safe - something people should do anyway but mostly do not.

      Actually, this guy was probably in many modes. Look at GPS, look at radar detector, drink more coffee, try to stay awake. Oh, and maybe glance ahead every so often.

      I don't know if you've ever used a radar detector before but you don't look at them, they alert you. Modern ones even talk to you about exactly what and where it has detected something (I don't have one myself but have friends that have gone pretty far down that road).

      And staying awake for 24 or 48 hours even is not that hard.

      So it never rained on this whole trip?

      That's very possible, during some parts of the year you could cross the whole country and never run into weather. I've been on many multi-state road trips where it never rained at all. Look at a weather map over time and there are many times you can see wide swaths of the country where nothing much is going on.

      There were guaranteed to be no oil patches on the highway? No loose gravel? No glass that could cause a blowout?

      With good tires none of those things are really concern on the interstate.

      The highway is not a racetrack and is not maintained to the safety level of a racetrack.

      The highway is also mostly straight - unlike a racetrack (except a dragstrip). And he didn't have delicate slicks.

      Awesome. So now he just has to make sure to stay 200ft behind any other vehicle at all times. Think he actually did that? Nah, me neither.

      But he could also see farther than 200 feet to avoid the mythical problems you espoused above, and he wasn't lingering behind people - he was passing them.

      People make bad decisions every day. Everyone does.

      Yeah, like your post.

      When it comes to driving, speed invariably makes the results of those bad decisions much worse.

      I object to the use of the word invariably since there are many other factors that have far more of an impact than speed on the likleyhood of an accident. That is more fundamental than problems that may result from an accident.

      He wants to throw his ass around a racetrack at high speed he's got my blessing, but stay the hell off the roads my kids are on.

      Should I call the police and let them know you have your children play on the interstate?

      Get out of the left lane and stop playing the passive aggressive card, I've seen your type before.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    41. Re:Traveling Cross Country by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      And staying awake for 24 or 48 hours even is not that hard.

      Staying awake is _quite_ different from being able to safely drive a vehicle. Have you ever tried to drive after having been awake for 24 hours ? I have. It scared me shitless. Especially the part where it seemed like a good idea to just close my eyes for a second while going 80 mph.

    42. Re:Traveling Cross Country by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Staying awake is _quite_ different from being able to safely drive a vehicle. Have you ever tried to drive after having been awake for 24 hours ?

      Yes, I used to do it off and on in college. And I don't drink coffee. It's a matter of concentration. I wouldn't say it's a great idea to make a habit of it but you can do it if you have been well-rested beforehand.

      Sleep deprivation over the course of weeks or months is really what degrades you ability to think and react.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    43. Re:Traveling Cross Country by rs79 · · Score: 1

      "That M5 likely would stop from 100 MPH in in under 200 feet
      Awesome. So now he just has to make sure to stay 200ft behind any other vehicle at all times. Think he actually did that? Nah, me neither.
      "

      He's following a CAR not a brick well. That is, what he's following is moving. And unelss it's another M5 it won't be able to stop as quickly as the M5 can.

      That changes the dynamics somewhat.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
  14. Re:And yet will all those gadgets... by Warshadow · · Score: 1

    And you're either being sarcastic or the real newb. If you bothered googling this guy you'd know he's done this sort of thing across the US and Europe multiple times in that M5.

  15. What a bastard. by zig007 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What a fucking bastard.
    To call him a geek is an insult to me and all other geeks i know of.

    To endanger other people's lives like this is utterly despicable.
    Obviously, he doesn't care if he kills someone along the way. If he did, he wouldn't do this.
    Or what, is he a superhumanly safe driver is some non-imaginative way? Not fucking likely.

    Put that asshole in jail(it would be OK to lose the key) right now, for showing that he has the obvious intent to go out try to kill people.

    And why Slashdot sinks to the depths of publishing such a positively toned article about this psycho is far beyond me.

    --
    Baboons are cute.
    1. Re:What a bastard. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When he got into that M5 it wasn't with the goal of "going out and trying to kill people." I understand where you're coming from, as the trip was incredibly dangerous to everyone on the road, but it wasn't attempted murder.

    2. Re:What a bastard. by justinlee37 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      To call him a geek is an insult to me and all other geeks i know of ... To endanger other people's lives like this is utterly despicable.

      Don't apply your arbitrary moral standards to the rest of us. Being a "geek" has nothing to do with submitting to a particular moral philosophy.

    3. Re:What a bastard. by zig007 · · Score: 1

      Eeh.. What?

      It doesn't matter at all what his stated goal was. He knowingly took totally unacceptable risks with other peoples lives.
      If I knowingly do anything that involves unacceptable risks of killing anyone else, it sure as hell is attempted murder.
      I'd say, off the top of my head, that the risk of him killing or seriously injure someone is about 50-80 percent, especially since he will be barely awake for a major part of the journey while at high speeds meeting and taking over thousands of cars.
      I'd say he's taking same risks with others lives as one would get from pointing a big gun at someone and pulling the trigger.

      Maybe, in some of the more backward states, there is a legal loophole somewhere that says: "If you do this while trying to break a record, it's OK.", but I don't think/hope so.

      --
      Baboons are cute.
    4. Re:What a bastard. by zig007 · · Score: 1

      Don't apply your arbitrary moral standards to the rest of us. Being a "geek" has nothing to do with submitting to a particular moral philosophy. Ok.. I won't. Sorry 'bout that.
      I suppose I just thought that geeks in general weren't psychopaths and would get pissed of if compared to one.

      I was obviously wrong.

      --
      Baboons are cute.
    5. Re:What a bastard. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But he watches Battlestar Galactica!!!!

    6. Re:What a bastard. by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      If I knowingly do anything that involves unacceptable risks of killing anyone else, it sure as hell is attempted murder.

      Actually that'd be reckless endangerment ... and, if you did kill anyone, it could either be murder or manslaughter. You need "malice aforethought" for the killing to constitute homicide; according to the wikipedia, malice can be implied through extreme recklessness (but I haven't heard that before and I didn't see a citation).

      Legal definition of murder

      IANAL. If a lawyer would shed some light on this for us, that would be rad.

    7. Re:What a bastard. by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      Oops! From the wiki: "Malice can be expressed (intent to kill) or implied. Implied malice is proven by acts that involve reckless indifference to human life or in a death that occurs during the commission of certain felonies (the felony murder rule). The exact terms of the felony murder vary tremendously from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Sentencing for murder in the United States has a mean of 349 months and a median of 480 months.[32]"

      I spoke too soon, I hadn't gotten to the part that was specifically about the United States.

      P.S. I didn't verify the accuracy of the statements as they relate to the citation ... anyone up to it? I'm tired. =P

    8. Re:What a bastard. by satoshi1 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      There you go again.

      Someone can be a geek and can be a psychopath. This one dude is NOT setting a stereotype for geeks. He's setting a stereotype for idiots, and the average person will see that. They won't say "wow, geeks are reckless assholes," they'll just say "that dude's a fucking idiot."

    9. Re:What a bastard. by zig007 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There you go again. Yeah, I did, didn't I ? :-)

      Someone can be a geek and can be a psychopath. Yeah, sure.

      But the headline was: "Geek and Gadgets Set Cross-US Speed Record", not "Idiot and Gadgets Set Cross-US Speed Record".

      That's what pissed me off.
      --
      Baboons are cute.
    10. Re:What a bastard. by zig007 · · Score: 1

      I don't know for sure, so I can't really say.
      I was rather into the logical consequence than the law when I talked about attempted murder.

      But I'd say that it sure looks like implied malice to me:
        "Implied malice is proven by acts that involve reckless indifference to human life or in a death that occurs during the commission of certain felonies (the felony murder rule)."

      --
      Baboons are cute.
    11. Re:What a bastard. by zig007 · · Score: 1

      But he watches Battlestar Galactica!!!! Yes. That is an attenuating circumstance, you are right.
      But that only entitles him to drive a little bit faster than others.

      Now, if he also was into Star Trek and Star Trek TNG, Doctor Who, Firefly and Babylon 5, he would probably have a fair chance of breaking the record. And that would be OK.
      --
      Baboons are cute.
    12. Re:What a bastard. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And why Slashdot sinks to the depths of publishing such a positively toned article about this psycho is far beyond me.

      i) Because there weren't any negatively toned (or neutral) articles to submit?
      ii) So that Slashdot The Community can formulate and express an opinion about this psycho and said sickly article?

      Really, Slashdot doesn't sink anywhere doing this -- because it's us members who matter here and the site keepers know (and trust) it :-)

      The alternative would have been not to have a submission, and the ensuing discussion, and the inevitable reprisal -- so this particular story would have lived on without at least one overwhelmingly negative (and rather heavyweight -- this is Slashdot) public response.

      Actually, it would be a very nice (all new!) feature for Slashdot to add a "summary of forum discussion" below the article summary, after Reply has expired, every time. Sorta leveraging the main strength of Slashdot: the community.

      Alas, this would have to be done by hand, by highly skilled editors, so I'm not holding my breath waiting... Maybe when the moderation system evolves into a full AI? Or maybe members could submit Discussion Summaries into some Backfirehose up for moderation? (Now I'm getting carried away with this, and work awaits...)

    13. Re:What a bastard. by Atario · · Score: 4, Insightful

      he has the obvious intent to go out try to kill people
      Well then I guess he failed spectacularly, since he encountered thousands of other vehicles and didn't even get into any fender-benders.

      Calm down and get some perspective for a minute there, Captain Moral Outrage.
      --
      "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
    14. Re:What a bastard. by dave420 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I just brained 3 nuns with a notebook that's running Ubuntu. Lowest power usage I've seen in a nun-beater yet.

    15. Re:What a bastard. by zig007 · · Score: 1

      i) Because there weren't any negatively toned (or neutral) articles to submit?
      ii) So that Slashdot The Community can formulate and express an opinion about this psycho and said sickly article? i) I hope that's wasn't the reason... But it probably was.
      ii) OK, I give you that the community can handle the article.

      But what I don't like the publicity Slashdot is giving him, in a completely biased article, that never in any serious way questions whether it really is to do what he is doing.

      That's not journalism, it's propaganda, and it influences people, also the slashdot community, whether you like it or not.

      Just look at the comments, most are actually buying in on this, thinking it is "kinda cool".
      Slashdot is a really powerful medium, and should be treated responsibly.

      I just don't think it is responsible to glorify horrible crap like this.
      Respecting others right to live and breathe is serious stuff.

      --
      Baboons are cute.
    16. Re:What a bastard. by dintech · · Score: 1

      Didn't Isaac Asimov write some rules about geeks or something? Oh wait..

    17. Re:What a bastard. by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Oh but this is the "New World Order" remember, where everyone has permanent PMS and is offended at the drop of a hat.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    18. Re:What a bastard. by zig007 · · Score: 1

      Well then I guess he failed spectacularly, since he encountered thousands of other vehicles and didn't even get into any fender-benders. Isn't it funny that I sort of knew that someone would make the comment you just did?

      Whether he actually killed someone or not is obviously completely irrelevant.

      He and his copilot drove for 31 hours straight, which means that they were at the wheel for more that 15 hours each.
      This is extremely dangerous(and probably illegal) even at normal speeds. One don't even know that one has fallen asleep, not to speak of the long reaction time that evolves, hallucinations and physical stress.
      He did this a high speed which is so stupid that I don't know where to begin to describe it.

      And it is not like you only double your breaking distance(hence allowed reaction time) by doubling you speed.
      And then it's tunnel vision. And many other things.

      And you probably know that. Still you make this comment.

      Calm down and get some perspective for a minute there, Captain Moral Outrage. If I shoot a entire clip of bullets in your general direction and miss all of them, that's OK with you, right?
      I mean, from your perspective?

      --
      Baboons are cute.
    19. Re:What a bastard. by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      P.S. I didn't verify the accuracy of the statements as they relate to the citation

      P.S. I didn't verify the accuracy of the statements as they relate to the citation

      P.S. I didn't verify the accuracy of the statements as they relate to the citation

      Etc.

    20. Re:What a bastard. by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      I lol'd

    21. Re:What a bastard. by miasmic · · Score: 1
      This sort of post I think of as an attack on free speech and free discussion.

      I'm used to seeing the likes in the letter pages of Newspapers, but on Slashdot? I'm not talking about anything to do with this topic of driving, but as we call them in the UK, "Outraged of Tunbridge Wells" letters, or in this case, posts (Tunbridge Wells being a famously conservative town in Kent).

      As far as I'm concerned, if anyone is posting something like that here, then what the hell are they looking at Slashdot for? Go and read a traditional news media website with professional journalistic standards where you aren't likely to read anything that offends you. It's the frequent departures from these standards and articles like these that make Slashdot worth reading for me.

      It's just the same with TV - A US example it would be like watching HBO and being offended by seeing naked breasts - if you are that easily offended, why the fuck are you watching r-rated cable channels?

      And yet this sort of thing happens all the time, and these idiots are getting more and more of a voice, through increased public-media interaction and increased use of litigation - it's listening to moral absolutists like this guy that leads to the crazy political correctness, censorship and health and safety laws we have to suffer in most western countries.

    22. Re:What a bastard. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funniest comment in the discussion. Well done.

    23. Re:What a bastard. by gunnarstahl · · Score: 1

      To call him a geek is an insult to me and all other geeks i know of ... To endanger other people's lives like this is utterly despicable.

      Don't apply your arbitrary moral standards to the rest of us. Being a "geek" has nothing to do with submitting to a particular moral philosophy.

      Condemning "endanger other people's lives like this" is an "arbitrary moral standard"? You're kiddin'. I'd rather call it common sense.

      Yt,

      Gunnar
    24. Re:What a bastard. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not endangering others lives is not part of any particular moral philosophy, it's a part of any philosophy that deserves to be called moral.

      It's true that being a geek requires nothing other than a fascination with technology, but if you want to be any sort of respected geek (like an Engineer for example), you'd better acquire a suitable moral philosophy.

    25. Re:What a bastard. by langelgjm · · Score: 1

      Don't apply your arbitrary moral standards to the rest of us. Being a "geek" has nothing to do with submitting to a particular moral philosophy.

      That's right. Some of us are sociopaths and proud of it!

      Don't push your standards on me, man! I'm a non-conformist!!1

      --
      "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
    26. Re:What a bastard. by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      When did "don't kill people" become arbitrary?

    27. Re:What a bastard. by stdarg · · Score: 1

      Well then I guess he failed spectacularly, since he encountered thousands of other vehicles and didn't even get into any fender-benders. Isn't it funny that I sort of knew that someone would make the comment you just did? No, not really. I think pretty much everybody expected that comment.

      Whether he actually killed someone or not is obviously completely irrelevant. I don't think so. To me, it's an invitation to consider whether he was just lucky or if perhaps we shouldn't apply the same standards to him as we would the "average driver". It's like Bayes' theorem. Since we know the outcome, we have more information about what went into it. The fact that he didn't have any accidents means there is a good chance that he is a highly skilled driver.

      He and his copilot drove for 31 hours straight, which means that they were at the wheel for more that 15 hours each.
      This is extremely dangerous(and probably illegal) even at normal speeds. Jeeze I hope that's not illegal. This is a free(ish) country still isn't it? I've gone on road trips where I drove about 12 hours straight, by myself. To call that "extremely dangerous" is to make yourself sound like an old granny.

      Calm down and get some perspective for a minute there, Captain Moral Outrage. If I shoot a entire clip of bullets in your general direction and miss all of them, that's OK with you, right?
      I mean, from your perspective? Now you've really revealed that you think the positive outcome of this event was pure coincidence. Okay let me give you another example. Let's say I shoot in your general direction, at say an apple near your head. I hit the apple 20,000 times in a row. Do you think that was pure blind luck or that I am a pretty good marksman? At the first shot, you wouldn't have known that I'm that good so you would have been really worried. But after the 20,000th successful shot, you would (hopefully) think "Gee, I guess he's really good, therefore the first shot wasn't as dangerous as I thought." Get it?
    28. Re:What a bastard. by zig007 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Free speech?
      Do you believe the crap you write? I am about as non-conservative as they get, moron. And I am an atheist to.
      I am not easily offended, I can assure you that, but when someone writes crap like this i tend to get pissed off.

      This has nothing to do with naked tits or cursing or anything like that.
      It is about not glorifying fucking awful behavior. I don't tolerate that. And you shouldn't either.

      You are actually making free speech harder.
      Your are using it as a means to try to suppress my views and to try and turn this into what you think it is:
      Kind of cool.

      --
      Baboons are cute.
    29. Re:What a bastard. by zig007 · · Score: 1

      But I did. It is a really old law, BTW.

      --
      Baboons are cute.
    30. Re:What a bastard. by zig007 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Jeeze I hope that's not illegal. This is a free(ish) country still isn't it? I've gone on road trips where I drove about 12 hours straight, by myself. To call that "extremely dangerous" is to make yourself sound like an old granny. No, but it makes you sound REALLY stupid. No one drives for twelve hours straight unless that person is totally ignorant of the risks of doing so. Also, it is a quite masochistic exercise. We ARE talking no stops or pauses WHATSOEVER. Not to eat, rest, nothing.
      Actually, it is illegal for truck drivers, for example. I think they have a 10 hour limit. Remember that they are professionals with a comfortable working environment and that they have experience of doing these things regularly. Also, they stop for short intervals. They have to keep itineraries.

      Whether he actually killed someone or not is obviously completely irrelevant.

      Since we know the outcome, we have more information about what went into it. Yeah, if you look at it solely as a mathematic problem with a known complexity.
      If you don't know anything, the amount of information you get from the first outcome i so unimportant that it doesn't matter, hence it's low relevance.

      Now you've really revealed that you think the positive outcome of this event was pure coincidence Have I? Interesting, since i never did so.
      No, I don't think it was pure coincidence. He probably tried to avoid collisions to not have to go to jail for reckless endangerment or even murder(implied malice, the felony murder rule).

      --
      Baboons are cute.
    31. Re:What a bastard. by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      I'm not kidding. All moral standards are arbitrary.

    32. Re:What a bastard. by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      Rather, some of us are agnostic, amoral, and proud of it.

    33. Re:What a bastard. by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      Not endangering others lives is not part of any particular moral philosophy, it's a part of any philosophy that deserves to be called moral.

      You've excluded the possibility of amorality as a philosophy, like all of the other drones.

    34. Re:What a bastard. by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      The minute you decided to place intrinsic value in human life.

    35. Re:What a bastard. by Stradivarius · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't think so. To me, it's an invitation to consider whether he was just lucky or if perhaps we shouldn't apply the same standards to him as we would the "average driver". It's like Bayes' theorem. Since we know the outcome, we have more information about what went into it. The fact that he didn't have any accidents means there is a good chance that he is a highly skilled driver. One event does not constitute a statistically useful sample, and knowing the outcome of one event does not tell you anything about *why* it occurred. Nonetheless, the drivers are almost certainly very skilled, based on the article. It said that the main driver established a reputation as a fast but safe driver while doing legal races, and both have participated in several such races.

      The article also noted the meticulousness of the racers in planning their course and having an airplane spotter for potential construction or other pitfalls. So these folks aren't careless, and they're driving a far more agile vehicle than most on the roads.

      So IMO the questions are:

      1: How does the undeniably increased risk from high speeds (reaction times, braking times, force in the event of a crash) compare with the decreased risks from the drivers' above-average skill, precautions, and vehicle?

      2: If the overall risk increased, by how much? Is it comparable to everyday distractions (cell phones, misbehaving kids in the backseat, etc) we generally deem acceptable, or is it worse?

      3: If worse, is it ethically acceptable for these drivers to impose that risk upon others on the roads?

      To be honest, I don't see how any of us are in a position to answer these. Questions #1 and #2 are purely factual and statistical problems which require data we don't have from the article. Question #3 requires us to know the answer to #2, unless we want to go down the dubious road of claiming risks from one activity are somehow ethically worse than risks from another activity regardless of relative magnitude.

      So basically at this point we're all just reacting emotionally to the event with no actual knowledge of the risks involved.
    36. Re:What a bastard. by langelgjm · · Score: 1

      Being agnostic or atheist has no necessary connection to being amoral. Perhaps you're connecting morality with religion? I don't think it's necessary to do so. And as another poster pointed out, being a geek, or at least a "hacker", does usually imply some ethical constraints; otherwise the oft-promoted hacker/cracker distinction becomes superfluous.

      Secondly, utter disregard for human life is typically considered sociopathic.

      --
      "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
    37. Re:What a bastard. by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      Being agnostic or atheist has no necessary connection to being amoral. Perhaps you're connecting morality with religion? I don't think it's necessary to do so.

      No, I'm not. If I was, then I wouldn't have said "agnostic, amoral" I would have simply said "agnostic" and assumed that "amoral" would have been implied. However, while agnosticism or atheism do not have necessary connections to being amoral, being religious does typically have a necessary connection to being moral. I simply wished to further qualify that statement.

      And as another poster pointed out, being a geek, or at least a "hacker", does usually imply some ethical constraints

      And as I pointed out, that was the arbitrary distinction that I was objecting to in the first place -- his "point" added nothing to the debate, it just echoed the opinion of the parent.

      Certainly you wouldn't argue that a blackhat isn't a geek, would you?

      Secondly, utter disregard for human life is typically considered sociopathic.

      It is. However, sociopathic behavior is not typically thought of as being philosophically motivated, and I felt it necessary to make the distinction.

    38. Re:What a bastard. by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      To the modders who insist on abusing the "Flamebait" tag: there isn't a "-1 disagree" tag for a reason.

    39. Re:What a bastard. by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Being agnostic or atheist has no necessary connection to being amoral.

      Obviously most atheists and agnostics are moral, since they have social instincts and end up adopting whatever rules of behavior there exists in the society around them. However, why an atheist or agnostic would consider following said instincts better than following the so-called "lower" instincts is less obvious; after all, material reality doesn't have any inherent morality, so why should being moral from the point of view of one system of morals be any better than not being so ?

      From evolutionary perspective morality is essentially a fabrication to faciliate co-operation between members of a pack. Every pack-forming animal has some kind of rules of behavior. These rules are useful to the species, but only as long as all pack members follow them, so any member not following them tends to get cast out by other pack members. This explains why atheists are so quick to defend themselves against allegations that they might slip from adherence to these rules: it is simple self-protection.

      However, it also seems to me that, given an atheistic viewpoint, a person who can suppress his conscience, sense of guilt, and other social instincts, has no reason not to do so. For example, raping and killing aren't wrong, because there is no right or wrong outside of people's imagination; consequently, for an atheist there is no rational reason not to do them if the chances of getting caught are low. Most atheists won't do such things, of course, but they ultimately have no reason not to, besides being unable to overcome their instincts.

      In other words, atheists may be moral, but atheism is inherently amoral, since denying the existence of anything supernatural - non-material - also denies the existence of morality in any meaningful sense.

      I have often heard atheists claiming to be moral, but I have never heard any showing what this means from atheistic perspective, and why being moral is better than not being moral, again from atheistic perspective; all such attempts I've seen have presupposed the values of the surrounding culture - usually christian values in western cultures - to be universal and then engaged in circular reasoning. So, any care to explain ?

      Hmm. I wonder if religion and atheism should be added to Godwin's law ;).

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    40. Re:What a bastard. by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      From evolutionary perspective morality is essentially a fabrication to faciliate co-operation between members of a pack. Every pack-forming animal has some kind of rules of behavior. These rules are useful to the species, but only as long as all pack members follow them, so any member not following them tends to get cast out by other pack members. This explains why atheists are so quick to defend themselves against allegations that they might slip from adherence to these rules: it is simple self-protection.

      Yes! Someone who gets where I'm coming from.

      I only lie, cheat, or steal if it harms someone that I do not consider to be an immediate "pack member." This is because I understand the value of allies.

      Most atheists won't do such things, of course, but they ultimately have no reason not to

      Senseless slaughter isn't what I'd call "profitable," and that is literally my only reason for not engaging in it.

    41. Re:What a bastard. by stdarg · · Score: 1

      One event does not constitute a statistically useful sample, and knowing the outcome of one event does not tell you anything about *why* it occurred. Nonetheless, the drivers are almost certainly very skilled, based on the article. It said that the main driver established a reputation as a fast but safe driver while doing legal races, and both have participated in several such races. I guess this is a matter of interpretation. The original commenter said "he encountered thousands of other vehicles" and the comment I replied to compared it to shooting a stream of bullets. So if you look at it as a series of events (each encounter with a car, which could result in an accident or not; or perhaps each hour of driving) then we have quite a bit of data.

      The question becomes, what is the mean time between accidents for an average driver who has already driven for X hours at high speed with lots of traffic? I don't know the number, but it's possible that it's low enough that we can make a meaningful comparison (e.g. if the average driver in those conditions will have an accident in only 3 hours, and this guy made it 15 straight...). But you could also be totally right. I don't know of any data about it.
  16. Re:Wow, so many people bitching by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    "people who understood the idea of having a nice heavy pair of cojones"

    Under 25 are we? Older, cooler heads realise there is a fine line between the couragous and the reckless. Had this reckless idiot managed to kill someone he would have found himself locked up for manslaughter and his cojones would be bouncing against the cojones of someone called "Ben Dover" for the next 5-10yrs.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  17. Re:And yet will all those gadgets... by LokiSnake · · Score: 1

    Agreed, but he's also got a point. BMWs (at least the M5) are not built for this kind of stuff. Perhaps a Porsche 911 would've been more appropriate.

  18. Re:Wow, so many people bitching by fractoid · · Score: 1

    If you want to do something gutsy, go skyjumping, base jumping, downhill mountain-biking. Something that doesn't run the risk of injuring or killing innocent bystanders who want nothing to do with you. You're 100x more likely to be killed by some retard running a red light because they're talking on their cellphone than you are to be killed by a trained driver going at high speed on a deserted road in a carefully prepared and well instrumented car.

    Don't let your fear of death stop you from living life.
    Flame on...
    --
    Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
  19. Red shift by donscarletti · · Score: 5, Funny

    The article forgot to mention that he needed to install blue tail lights so they appeared red to those behind him after Doppler shift.

    --
    When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    1. Re:Red shift by psychicsword · · Score: 1

      What he truly forgot was a flux capacitor that would cut years off his time.

  20. It's 106 miles to Chicago... by weak* · · Score: 5, Funny
    ...we've got a full tank of octane, a half-charged PDA, it's dark(wolf the dragonmaster) and we're wearing pocket protectors.

    Commence acceleration.

    --
    The Schwartz space ain't from Spaceballs.
    1. Re:It's 106 miles to Chicago... by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Funny

      Commence acceleration.

      Hand in your geek license. That's "engage".

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:It's 106 miles to Chicago... by Nimey · · Score: 1

      Hand in your own license. I didn't see you emoting the shooting motion.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    3. Re:It's 106 miles to Chicago... by Dr+Reducto · · Score: 1

      Make it so

  21. Re:Wow, so many people bitching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would have to agree.

    Stupidity kills WAY more people than speed.

  22. Re:Wow, so many people bitching by seifried · · Score: 1

    Yeah but he wasn't driving on deserted roads. He's going through traffic at 100mph+.

  23. Hope he's arrested by sarahbau · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I really hope this jerk is arrested for reckless endangerment to others. If he wants to play with own life, fine, but risking the lives of others for your own fun is not cool.

  24. Re:Wow, so many people bitching by Slugbait · · Score: 1

    That entirely due to the fact that there are 100000x more retards running red lights than reckless assholes trying to set speed reckords. Neither of the numbers are precise but, back of an envelope-wise, this means that behavior of the speeding asshole is about 1000x more dangerous.

  25. cry babies.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    "why doesn't my nanny state do more to stop these people?" boo-hoo... you're all a bunch of pussies...

    1. Re:cry babies.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The person would labeled the GP "insightful" should be put to shame!!

      The guy in the article is a dangerous moron who does not value other's people life. I don't want to see innocent killed because of such psychopaths!

      So keep your stupid garbage for you, I hate people who spit overused stupid catch-phrases (nanny-state, pussy, etc.). Freakin' moron.

  26. An obvious point... by Merovign · · Score: 2, Funny

    Roy took extraordinary measures to avoid law enforcement.


    Except for the part where he stickered up his car like a boy-racer with OCD, making him STAND OUT to people looking for things that stand out - like police.

    I mean, even not counting the reckless endangerment charge he'll hopefully be facing in at least a dozen states following his loverly confession.

    Or not, who knows the vagaries of local law enforcement. It sounds like at least one officer picked him up on radar and pursued him, so the confession will be accompanied by at least one officer's sworn testimony.

    Don't get me wrong, I love fast cars and fast driving - but not in traffic. That's just stupid.
    1. Re:An obvious point... by fanboyslayer · · Score: 1

      At the speeds he was making, the physical appearance of his vehicle didn't matter in the slightest. The things he did to avoid law enforcement focused on avoiding being detected in the first place, with the radar detectors and the spotter and the meticulous planning to avoid speed traps and the like. Once he was spotted he'd have to drive like a bat out of hell, stickers or not.

      --
      I will laugh for a week STRAIGHT when I finally kill you.
    2. Re:An obvious point... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note that the stickers were not present on the record run.

    3. Re:An obvious point... by Merovign · · Score: 1

      You may be correct, in which case it is the editor's error and not Roy's.

      It's still nice to see someone burn their inheritance spending vast amounts of money risking the lives of strangers to feed their ego.

      He could at least rent a cape and pretend he was a superhero, he might at least accidentally accomplish some good.

    4. Re:An obvious point... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhm.. No.. The BMW he drove across the U.S. is unmarked with tinted windows. It is not the same car as the Polizei 144.

    5. Re:An obvious point... by legirons · · Score: 1

      "Except for the part where he stickered up his car like a boy-racer with OCD, making him STAND OUT to people looking for things that stand out - like police."

      By the time police are close enough to see the car it's too late to matter - the story mentions detecting police well outside of visual range, using a variety of long-range sensors.

  27. This may not even be the most efficient way by bombastinator · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I vaguely remember something similar. Looking about on Google I think it was either the The Cannonball Baker Sea-To-Shining-Sea Memorial Trophy Dash, or the gumball rally.

    My probably fractured memory is that one particularly decisive win was not by a supercar, but by a Japanese king cab mini pickup. The drivers filled the be with a fuel tank and were able to drive straight through without ever stopping or breaking the speed limit. IIRC the win margin was tremendous.

    The man is trying to be cute and generate publicity by using a method which might be intended to be viewed as "cool", but if he was really going for time this very well might not the right way to do it.

    As a side note, Family legend has it that as a teenager my grandmother once participated in the north south trans U.S. speed record. IRC the average speed was something like 15mph and change. My father was born in 1925, So I'm suspecting this was around 1920 or so. High quality 20's vehicles such as Cords and Auburns could still comfortably do 70 or 80mph so I suspect the pickup method has merit.

    1. Re:This may not even be the most efficient way by JonathanR · · Score: 0

      and were able to drive straight through without ever stopping or breaking the speed limit. Not quite sure how your Japanese king cab mini pickup is capable of averaging 90 mph while not breaking speed limits...
    2. Re:This may not even be the most efficient way by famicommie · · Score: 1

      My probably fractured memory is that one particularly decisive win was not by a supercar, but by a Japanese king cab mini pickup. The drivers filled the be with a fuel tank and were able to drive straight through without ever stopping or breaking the speed limit. IIRC the win margin was tremendous. The man is trying to be cute and generate publicity by using a method which might be intended to be viewed as "cool", but if he was really going for time this very well might not the right way to do it. As a side note, Family legend has it that as a teenager my grandmother once participated in the north south trans U.S. speed record. IRC the average speed was something like 15mph and change. My father was born in 1925, So I'm suspecting this was around 1920 or so. High quality 20's vehicles such as Cords and Auburns could still comfortably do 70 or 80mph so I suspect the pickup method has merit. I RTFA, and apparently this guy was averaging at 90 or so miles an hour. A pickup loaded with fuel traveling at 100 miles per hour is not any safer saner than an M5 at 130 miles per hour. After accounting for traffic, speed traps, and bad weather, the pickup would have to move like lightning on clear road. All things accounted for, the case for the pickup isn't as strong and isn't safer than the case for the M5
    3. Re:This may not even be the most efficient way by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      >My father was born in 1925, So I'm suspecting this was around 1920 or so. High quality 20's vehicles such as Cords and Auburns could still comfortably do 70 or 80mph so I suspect the pickup method has merit.

      The problem, in the '20's, wasn't the cars' top speed, it was the roads. There were *very* few paved or concrete roads, and the dirt ones weren't either straight or flat, especially if there was any moisture at all, when they'd turn into mudpits full of ruts. The road past the house where I grew up was nearly impassable for most of the spring and fall because when it was made, in the 1890's, it was 'paved' with something called corduroy, where they cut down and debranched pine trees and laid the trees side-by-side along the road over the mud, which worked well for about twenty years, maybe, but then turned into a maze of broken logs, so they put down another layer, and the cycle continued. Imagine trying to drive anything other than a high-clearance 4wd with very large tires through something like that. Now imagine doing that across the entire United States.

      The Interstate road system was put in place primarily because Dwight Eisenhower became president and got a chance to fix a problem he'd personally experienced when the US was trying to move soldiers across the nation during WWI -- it took seventy days to transport a platoon of soldiers from the East to the West coast, and that was using high-clearance Army vehicles.

      We take our road systems for granted these days. Moving materials between states was enormously difficult until the US government spent the time and money to make the road systems we don't even think about. *Any* land vehicle would've had trouble averaging 15mph across the US in the 1920's, and many current cars couldn't've done it at all for lack of ground clearance. (And complete inavailability of suitable gasoline, because until fuel research done during WWII for aircraft, American gasoline was crap, as was gasoline everywhere. High-octane, high-compression gasoline was developed for long-range bombers.)

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    4. Re:This may not even be the most efficient way by maxume · · Score: 1

      Her speed was likely limited by the roads that existed at the time. Not all of them, just the frequent bad stretches, or stretches with a lot of slow traffic and no opportunities to go around. No way they spent 3/4 of their time not driving.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    5. Re:This may not even be the most efficient way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're forgetting the little detail that his average speed was over 90mph, which is significantly above the legal speed on any part of the track.

    6. Re:This may not even be the most efficient way by bombastinator · · Score: 1

      IIRC the pickup made it because it is exceptionally hard to sleep in a Ferarri. The other contestants in the race were sleeping at motels for the night. The pickup had a bed in back and a chemical toilet.

    7. Re:This may not even be the most efficient way by bombastinator · · Score: 1

      I do really wish this story had been told to me when I was older or there was someone to better corroborate it with. The woman died when I was a toddler and I have the story from my father, who is also dead. Assuming what I remember is correct, however, the record attempt started at the mouth of the Detroit river, and traveled south along pieces of the the partially completed Dixie Highway, transferring to rail frontage roads in between them where necessary.

    8. Re:This may not even be the most efficient way by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      When people with a story like that die, it's an enormous loss. That sucks, beyond just missing the person. My family spent tens of hours recording some of my grandparents' stories on audio cassette tape (that I probably need to digitize some time soonish) because they had all this great stuff like what you're talking about -- my one grandfather riding his Indian motorcycle from Iowa to NYC in the '20's, both of my grandfathers talking about hitching rides on freight trains to get from the Midwest down to Texas on a rumor that the Army was recruiting at one specific base (imagine that level of desperation for a job: that you'd train-hop four days across half the US on the *rumor* that you could volunteer for infantry...)
      It'd be sure neat to find the rest of your grandmother's story. You could try and see if any of her old papers said anything: maybe she had a journal/diary.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    9. Re:This may not even be the most efficient way by tknd · · Score: 1

      The drivers filled the be with a fuel tank and were able to drive straight through without ever stopping or breaking the speed limit.

      But the real question is, did they wear diapers?
    10. Re:This may not even be the most efficient way by mianne · · Score: 1

      But still, the math doesn't work. 3000 miles in ~32 hours is not going to give you an average speed anywhere near being in compliance with US speed limits.

      Also, none of the racers (at least those hoping to win) have ever stopped to sleep for the night. Sleep was generally replaced with amphetamines, cocaine, coffee, or FTA Red Bull. That last point showing that these idiots' egos are far more important to them than public safety.

      --
      Javascript, cookies, flash, and ActiveX must be enabled in order to view this sig.
  28. Re:Wow, so many people bitching by OverlordQ · · Score: 1

    You're 100x more likely to be killed by some retard running a red light because they're talking on their cellphone than you are to be killed by a trained driver going at high speed on a deserted road in a carefully prepared and well instrumented car.

    Yes because him driving 120+ on a slicked rainy road while weaving in and out of dense traffic to avoid the police is a 'deserted road.'

    Don't let your ignorance of rational thought stop you.

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
  29. There's a reason for the laws.... by thatblackguy · · Score: 1

    ....and this guy might just find out why places have speed limits if he's going to be driving that fast for that long with a near certainty of not running into any cops. Could find the alternative of slamming into stuff or off roads a lot less pleasant than getting a ticket.

  30. Re:And yet will all those gadgets... by NotAgent86 · · Score: 1

    The BMW M5 was previously the fastest production sedan in the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_M5/

  31. Re:Misleading headline. by fanboyslayer · · Score: 1

    Read the end of the article, my friend.

    --
    I will laugh for a week STRAIGHT when I finally kill you.
  32. Re:Misleading headline. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Read the rest of the article. They tried again.

  33. Re:Misleading headline. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you read to the end of the article, you'd realise that what you described was just one aborted attempt. Subsequently they successfully beat the record by over an hour.

  34. Re:Misleading headline. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You obviously did not read the entire article.

  35. Average speed by DNX+Blandy · · Score: 1

    That's an average speed of 87 MPH. Not bad.

  36. Re:Misleading headline. by RuBLed · · Score: 1

    You see if you're going to watch an action movie or read a scary book, you don't stop watching/reading at the point where the characters had almost given up then tell everyone as if you had finished watching/reading it.

    They did indeed had a setback at Arizona but the weather cleared up and they made it at the Santa Monica Pier in 31 hours and 4 minutes, well ahead of the record by more than an hour. They had to do over a hundred from past Arizona though to make up for the time.

    TFA was 6 pages, you stopped at 5 1/2.

  37. Re:And yet will all those gadgets... by SageMusings · · Score: 1

    The M5 is more a (fast) toy than an endurance car. I completely agree with the GP. It was an odd choice.

    --
    -- Posted from my parent's basement
  38. Obligatory by CriminalNerd · · Score: 1

    Obligatory Han Solo parody: "This baby can do the Cannonball Run in under 2800 miles."

  39. Re:Misleading headline. by lendude · · Score: 1

    No - he did break the record, getting it down to 31 hours and 4 minutes. The initial description in the article was of a previous run, rather confusingly outlined in present tense. Page 5 onwards of the article details the record setting drive.

    --
    "Get off the cross - we need the wood" - Tori Amos
  40. Italian Police Stickers... by feranick · · Score: 1

    Funny that the main sponsor is the Italian Highway Patrol (Polizia Stradale). I wonder how official that sponsor is....

    1. Re:Italian Police Stickers... by nife00 · · Score: 1

      No he has many different Police stickers on depending on where he is racing. Hoping for some love from law enforcement who think he is just a brother cop out of jurisdiction. Check out the pictures.
      http://www.gumball144.com/wallpapers/

    2. Re:Italian Police Stickers... by ifchairscouldtalk · · Score: 0

      Italian Police? I'm not surprised at all.
      Look what they drive =)

  41. nice by m2943 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's nice. Now, can we take away his driver's license and impound his car, please?

    1. Re:nice by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      That's nice. Now, can we take away his driver's license and impound his car, please?

            Well first you'd have to prove that he actually did what he claims. Freedom of speech and all that. Oh wait, this is the US.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well first you'd have to prove that he actually did what he claims.

      The fact that he claims it, and the material he himself supplies to back up his claims, should be sufficient.

      Freedom of speech and all that.

      Freedom of speech doesn't protect you from criminal prosecution for the things you talk about, nor does freedom of speech mean that your speech can't be used against you in court.

      Oh wait, this is the US.

      It's the same in Europe.

  42. No Arrest by nife00 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    People need to read the whole article a little more carefully. This is only being publicized a year after it happened(2006), so I would venture a guess that all statutes of limitations have run out. 1 year on traffic violations seems about right. They were smart about it.

    1. Re:No Arrest by MMC+Monster · · Score: 1

      My guess is that crossing state lines with intent of reckless endangerment may be considered a felony. The statute of limitations may be significantly longer than a year.

      --
      Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
  43. Too bad the GPS urban myth is not really true by saikou · · Score: 1

    I remember that story about some GPS units by default finding a cemetery in the destination town. In this case it'd be totally appropriate :)
    Plus, I prefer extra fast cross-country flight to a road trip. I mean if you enjoy the route there's no need for "OMG! We're JUST driving 5 miles above the limit!" and if you do need the speed then don't be an ass and board a place. More fuel efficient too :)

  44. They tried that in holland, impound the car by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    There was a move years ago that cars could be impounded AND scrapped on the spot. Laugh that one off as your 1 million dollar car is crushed.

    Didn't work for long, this targetted the rich and rich people got power. Just accept that there is a law for the normal people and no law for the rich. There is no exception to this.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:They tried that in holland, impound the car by 91degrees · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's terrible.

      How does it benefit anyone to crush a car? You just end up with a pile of mostly unrecyclable car parts, a waste of resources and possibly the destruction of an item of historical interest. Sounds like jealousy of the rich. You'd get a lot more benefit to society if the cars were auctioned.

    2. Re:They tried that in holland, impound the car by Ihlosi · · Score: 4, Insightful
      How does it benefit anyone to crush a car?



      Let's see: It's very spectacular, quite a bit of a deterrent, and it makes it clear that it is an actual punishment and not just an attempt at adding more money to the citys coffers.



      Sounds like jealousy of the rich.



      Well, in theory, the law should be the same for everyone ? So if you speed in your <$1000 rustbucket, it'll get crushed too.



      You'd get a lot more benefit to society if the cars were auctioned.



      Yeah, and you'd have all the sports car drivers whining how speed limits are only put there to transfer their money to the local government.


      No, let's just crush the thing and avoid that discussion altogether.

    3. Re:They tried that in holland, impound the car by fractoid · · Score: 1

      How does it benefit anyone to crush a car? You just end up with a pile of mostly unrecyclable car parts, a waste of resources and possibly the destruction of an item of historical interest. Sounds like jealousy of the rich. You'd get a lot more benefit to society if the cars were auctioned. Because it's so wonderfully emotive and take-that-you-bad-people-esque that the term 'truthiness' comes to mind. In actual fact, as you say, it's a terrible solution.

      He passes a minivan in the carpool lane at 102 mph and merges onto California's I-10 headed into Los Angeles with blocks of lit towers to the right and oncoming halogens kaleidoscoping his bleary corneas. Sounds like perfect karmic revenge.

      She tries vainly to see over the steering wheel, while combing her bottle-blonde hair with one hand and holding a cell phone to her ear with the other. Steering the ponderous Canyonero with her knees, she says "Yes, hang on, Melba. I'll just see if I have his number..." Looking down now at her phone as she tries to navigate the phone's unfamiliar menu system. "Mommy, mommy, I want an icecream!!", yells one of the kids in the back seat. As she turns to explain that no, Mommy doesn't have time to stop for an icecream now, you'll be late for the play, the Canyonero finishes sweeping across the innermost left-bound lane, and veers into oncoming traffic...
      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    4. Re:They tried that in Holland, impound the car by holt · · Score: 1

      Well, in theory, the law should be the same for everyone ? So if you speed in your <$1000 rustbucket, it'll get crushed too.

      It seems to me that under the current system, the law is the same for everyone. Crushing cars as a punishment is meant to add additional deterrent to those that are wealthy enough to disregard your average speeding ticket fine. The problem is that I'm thinking anyone wealthy enough to be able to afford a supercar is going to have a number of slightly less supercars at their disposal, or at the very least enough cash to pay someone else to drive them around in style. Your driver of the $1000 rustbucket probably can't afford to replace it, so he's taking the bus. Once again, the law has disproportionate impact on the less wealthy.

    5. Re:They tried that in Holland, impound the car by iainl · · Score: 1

      Plan B: Don't let the arsehole get out of the car before you crush it.

      Job done.

      --
      "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
    6. Re:They tried that in holland, impound the car by Nazlfrag · · Score: 1

      Apart from being wasteful and pointlessly destructive, I fail to see how it is more of a deterrent than auctioning. When the offender loses their car, it is irrelevant if it is then auctioned or destroyed. Their loss doesn't somehow increase more if it is crushed rather than sold.

    7. Re:They tried that in holland, impound the car by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      If having your car is crushed, people will simply drive wrecks...
      Especially if the punishment is the same for driving an un-roadworthy vehicle. You can pick up cheap trashy cars for less than $50 that will just about drive, most of them are easily capable of speeding and some will physically shake themselves apart if you do. You'd lose more money due to the gas in your tank than the destruction of such a car.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    8. Re:They tried that in Holland, impound the car by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      zomg, life has a disproportionate impact on the less wealthy!!1
      if you are rich, everything is great.
      if you are poor, everything is shit.

      who would have thought??

  45. Turbo Diesel, baby by fgaliegue · · Score: 0

    So, this guy will drive as fast as possible with an M5 all across the US. Which means, he will barely do 250 miles with a full tank.

    Now, this same guy unloads all gizmos, settles for a 330d instead, doesn't break any speed limit: all of a sudden he can do more than 600 miles with a full tank.

    Meh.

    Turbo Diesels are THE way to go if you want to travel "fast". Not because they can do 155 mph (some actually can, the 335d is one of them), but because they can go a looong way before refueling. No wonder Diesels represent more than 70% of luxury care sales in Europe. Not having to refuel twice a week also accounts for comfort - and you'll always be faster at your destination.

    1. Re:Turbo Diesel, baby by fotoguzzi · · Score: 1

      A couple of guys tried to drive unrefueled cross-country in a VW Rabbit (or Jetta?) diesel. I recall that they somehow crammed a 55-gallon drum into the car. The attempt ended when the driver passed out and got the car stuck in the median.

      --
      Their they're doing there hair.
  46. Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    I think this sounds great personally 8-). This really sounds like some good old fashioned fun to me. It sounds like he may have overplanned with all the thick books and manuals, but what the hell. You guys who are complaining are in fact a bunch of big ol' blubbering pussies.

              I ripped across from Pennsylvania to Iowa at a ~80MPH average and it was great fun, and quite safe. Ya just have to use the common sense to not blow through traffic, speed along when there isn't traffic. And, definitely, have a Valentine One. I've got one and it's great.

  47. What a fuckwit Alex Roy is. by mike_diack · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Did he not give a s**t about the risk of killing people on route.
    Fuck him.

    --
    Linux fan and Win32 developer
  48. Gadgets, eh? by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

    And you thought your car had gadgets.

    No, I thought my car *didn't* have gadgets, that's why I bought it. The only electronic thing in the whole car is the clock, and it doesn't work. There are no gadgets at all, and that's how I like it.

    Kids these days...

    1. Re:Gadgets, eh? by bcmm · · Score: 1

      Scared of EMPs?

      Seriously though, how old is this car? Are you sure the engine timing isn't controlled by a microprocessor?

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    2. Re:Gadgets, eh? by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      Seriously though, how old is this car? Are you sure the engine timing isn't controlled by a microprocessor?
      1981 Citroën CX 2400 Reflex, and no, it's definitely not controlled by a microprocessor. In fact, I've got a 1991 car with mechanical ignition timing, although it does have a Hall-effect sensor instead of mechanical contact breakers. You know what they say, it's the ones with no brains that have the most punch.

    3. Re:Gadgets, eh? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Scared of EMPs?

      No, obviously a programmer. Funny enough, I don't know any people whose main occupation is to write computer programs who also enjoy having an overly computerized car.

      I guess they know why.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Gadgets, eh? by jeffstar · · Score: 1

      I'm an electrical engineer and I love cars that don't have any electronics. it seems like they last longer ... and everything still works! windows, locks, you name it. If I am ever rich enough to buy a brand new car I will get all the pure mechanical options I can.

      my last three cars have been 1981 to 1989 diesel toyota land cruisers. 30 mpg for the 4cyl 3.4l and then there is the 4L turbo straight 6 if you want a 4x4 with some balls. think the BJ/HJ 60/61 series is still the ultimate vehicle if you are in to going rough places in rough weather.

      The voltage regulator crapped out on one of them (ironically the only IC in the thing other than the radio) and the battery died but I was still able to crash start it and drive home with a dead battery, albeit without tail/brake lights.

    5. Re:Gadgets, eh? by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      but I was still able to crash start it and drive home with a dead battery

      Handy hint, and you might already know this, but on most diesels with all-mechanical pumps the stop solenoid just pulls back a plunger to block the idle supply, which collapses the regulator. You can unscrew the solenoid, remove the plunger (keep it somewhere safe!), and just bump start the engine, and stall it to stop (or pull the manual stop on the pump). I've driven a couple of diesel cars with no functioning electrics at all (including a Landrover Series 3 that had suffered a dashboard fire) like this.

    6. Re:Gadgets, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      everything still works! windows, locks, you name it

      First of all, my last car's driver window wouldn't roll down by the time I got rid of it; old fashioned crank window with a some piece of it that finally suffered metal fatigue. It was a 1981 Chevy Celebrity.

      If you designed the power windows in my new(er) 2002 Chrysler, WTF WERE YOU SMOKING?? You can only roll the wondows up or down with the key in the running position; won't even work in accessory. The damned windows should work even with the key off!

      I worry about a bridge collapsing while I'm on it. When the battery shorts out, the wiondows aren't going down and the pressure isn't going to let you open the doors. I'd be willing to bet that most if not all the dead in the linked collapse had power windows!

      If you do the elecrics on cars, PLEASE redesign the damned things so they'll work with the key in the "off" position ("hey, it's starting to rain, are your windows up?") and maybe even have a mechanicel something or other to get the windows open (or removed completely) if the car's submerged.

      -mcgrew

    7. Re:Gadgets, eh? by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      I worry about a bridge collapsing while I'm on it. When the battery shorts out, the wiondows aren't going down

      Carry a small hammer where you can reach it quickly (under the seat, wherever). When your car hits the water, you may have to go out the windshield or the rear window, and those don't roll down at all.

      If you do the elecrics on cars, PLEASE redesign the damned things so they'll work with the key in the "off" position

      ... and get sued into oblivion as people's kids and pets strangle themselves accidentially.

    8. Re:Gadgets, eh? by rs79 · · Score: 1

      Sounds a bit over complicated. You just tow it to 30 and put it in gear, even an automayic diesel will start this way.

      This is the preferred way of starting one that just won't start otherwise.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    9. Re:Gadgets, eh? by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      This is the preferred way of starting one that just won't start otherwise

      Only if you've either got only a mechanical engine stop (like old agricultural machinery) or enough juice in the battery to pull in the fuel shutoff solenoid. If you remove the slug from the fuel shutoff, you can start it with no electrics at all, not even a battery.

  49. 31 hours coast to coast by evildogeye · · Score: 1

    Only 30.5 more hours than it took me to read this boring 6 page glorification of this maniac.

  50. I, for one, welcome... by Lost+Engineer · · Score: 1

    our new 90mph cross-country driving overlords.

    1. Re:I, for one, welcome... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But imagine a Beowulf cluster of these......!

      1 - set up illegal road car race
      2 - station cops at every intersection
      3 - .....
      4 - Profit!

      In Russia, Canonball races You!

  51. mine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    central maine to central florida, just under 18 hours in a 71 vette (run was in 76). Only gadgets were CB and binoculars. Most suckitude-virginia. most fun was running through the tolls when the binox showed the dude was dozing.

  52. Re:Wow, so many people bitching by swordsaintzero · · Score: 1

    Bravo, I have a family, my wife and I drive to work every day in the shittiest traffic the u.s.a. can provide. I fear the cell phone and the drunk one hell of a lot more than a professional driver with a spotter.

    --
    Panel F, Relay #70
  53. Reminds me of an old cartoon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Set in Europe, before the Euro was introduced. A guy stands before a judge:
    J: "You drove at 180 km/h all the way from Amsterdam to Rome????"
    G: "Yes, your honor. That way it's only one traffic violation. So, which currency do I pay the fine in?"

    1. Re:Reminds me of an old cartoon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ooh.. that's funny. Almost as funny as:
      "J: "You drove at 100 MPH all the way from Anchorage to Mexico city????"
      G: "Yes, your honor. That way it's only one traffic violation. So, which currency do I pay the fine in?"

      Which wasn't very funny, was it?

  54. Re:Wow, so many people bitching by fotoguzzi · · Score: 0, Troll

    I think slashdot has become slashaol.

    me2, me2!

    --
    Their they're doing there hair.
  55. Re:Wow, so many people bitching by rs79 · · Score: 1

    " If"

    Yes but he didn't. He says he's a fast safe driver, has a top flight street racer car in good shape andhas never hit any body, ever.

    "If he hit somebody". Yeah. If a meteroite hit him. If a Gamma ray burst wiped out all of earth. If a T. Rex crawled up out of the river in my backyard and bit me on the ass. If if if.

    While he was doing this mad dash and not hitting anybody roughly 100 Americans died in car accidents many of who were doing under or around the speed limit. Speed doesn't kill, inattentiveness does.

    And boy was he paying attention.

    As an aside... I watched a DVD tonight ("The Invisible" - mediocre) that had one of those Anti-Piracy blurbs in it (You wouldn't steal a car...) and it went on "Piracy is a crime". Ironically, the trailer right before this? "Pirates of the Carribean".

    We glamorize the outlaw. But only when they're history?

    I think it was cool. But I think the plane was cheating. :-)

    --
    Need Mercedes parts ?
  56. How about non-traffic violations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While traffic violations do cover a number of items, you can apply non-traffic-specific laws as well. How about "reckless endangerment" or any variety of other laws that might still be within the limitations?

    I'm not a huge fan of the "think about the children" type arguements, but would we be cheering this guy on if he'd hit a pedestrian, wrecked some property, or something else that may have occured had he not been lucky?

    This guy's not a geek, he's just rich enough to afford some expensive toys, a fast car, and not enough common sense or respect for others.

    1. Re:How about non-traffic violations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but would we be cheering this guy on if he'd hit a pedestrian, wrecked some property, or something else that may have occured had he not been lucky?
      Depends upon how many of us are GTA fans! I certainly would! :D
    2. Re:How about non-traffic violations? by ddrichardson · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What makes you think he was lucky? The fact that he used these tools suggest that he is quite capable of taking precautions.

      I would suggest that these devices were for the most part utilised to avoid arrest rather than protect innocent passers by.

      --
      A thistle is a fat salad for an ass's mouth...
    3. Re:How about non-traffic violations? by RedWizzard · · Score: 1

      This guy's not a geek, he's just rich enough to afford some expensive toys, a fast car, and not enough common sense or respect for others. Is Will Wright enough of a geek for you?
    4. Re:How about non-traffic violations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      This guy's not a geek, he's just rich enough to afford some expensive toys, a fast car, and not enough common sense or respect for others.


      Just because he has the money to afford the things geeks drool over doesn't mean he isn't one.

      RTFA. The driver, Roy, spent years collecting and tweaking equipment that made his car look more like a spaceship than a BMW, and compiling tables, charts, and maps of his own design to help him navigate the United States with the most mathetmatically-perfect performance possible (barring random errors, like sudden weather and human activity).

      His actions may not be what you--or many of us-- would do, but he is a geek.
    5. Re:How about non-traffic violations? by kilo_foxtrot84 · · Score: 1

      If he's serious about breaking the record, he's probably going to do his best to stick to the highways, isn't he? Not many pedestrians to be found there.

    6. Re:How about non-traffic violations? by tade · · Score: 1

      Well not for hitting the child but yeah, I'd like to think we are the bunch that builds rockets, huge bombs and other crazy and exploding stuff for the sake of it. Sometimes it's not cool to have a nuclear reactor in your basement http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/21/0422206 but I was happy for the kid and sad that the rest of us were wimps relying the Government for our nuclear needs. Just last week we cheered some folk who decided to make their pack of explosives look like an X-wing http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/07/159251. This is not the slashdot - think of the children -edition just yet.

    7. Re:How about non-traffic violations? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      hope they did not have any cigarettes that are not sold in the other states. Transporting tobacco illegally over state lines is a nasty federal crime that has a 7 year statute of limitations that they can nail him with.

      There are enough laws to pick up this rich idiot at any time for whatever they want. That's why all of you voted to have way too many laws to make sure the government has something to charge you with when they need it.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    8. Re:How about non-traffic violations? by Colin+Smith · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would suggest that these devices were for the most part utilised to avoid arrest rather than protect innocent passers by. Yet it shows foresight and a predilection for taking precautions.
      --
      Deleted
    9. Re:How about non-traffic violations? by mi · · Score: 1

      Transporting tobacco illegally over state lines is a nasty federal crime that has a 7 year statute of limitations that they can nail him with.

      A few packs is not only not enough for a common sense prosecution, it would not be enough for a "letter of the law" kind. I'm pretty sure, the amount of transported tobacco has to be fairly large for the law to apply — and the prosecution would have to prove the intent to distribute or something...

      That's why all of you voted to have way too many laws to make sure the government has something to charge you with when they need it.

      Yep...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    10. Re:How about non-traffic violations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      All of you are missing some very salient points:
      1. You're talking about traffic laws here. As long as they don't run from the cops or wreck, they're not facing any jail time.
      2. There's little chance of hitting a pedestrian on an interstate highway.
      3. These guys are filthy rich. They don't give two shits about anyone but themselves (as you pointed out).
      4. These guys are filthy rich. They can afford any fines any judge will hand to them.
      5. these guys are filthy rich. Even if they were to have an accident and kill someone, they can afford the best lawyers around. Three words: O.J Simpson. OK, two letters and one word (for the pedants out there)
      These guys' only danger was dying in a wreck. They faced no legal troubles whatever. They're filthy rich. When you have that much money, the law doesn't apply to you.

      -mcgrew
    11. Re:How about non-traffic violations? by Nimey · · Score: 1

      Could be lots of drivers that aren't expecting some asshole to come at them @ 100+ MPH, though, and pull out in front of him thinking they've got plenty of room.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    12. Re:How about non-traffic violations? by sYkSh0n3 · · Score: 2, Funny

      And in other news Jack Thompson has filed suit against Microsoft Game Studios, creator of Forza Motorsport, and Eurasia Investments, the production company behind Cannonball Run. Mr. Thompson was quoted as saying "These driving games can not be allowed to reach our children. And movies about breaking the law and driving fast are endangering the lives of our loved ones. We can not let this continue. Ole Roy can claim he was inspired by Rendez-vous, but we all know no one ever learns anything from those frogs, except maybe how to surrender."

      French Prime Minister François Fillon is quoted as saying "Mr. Thompson also says you can train to shoot from the game "Doom". You don't even aim up and down. Vous n'avez pas viser haut et le bas!"

    13. Re:How about non-traffic violations? by Afecks · · Score: 1

      Yet it shows foresight and a predilection for taking precautions. Precautions for his safety, sure. What about the rest of us on the planet?
    14. Re:How about non-traffic violations? by IpalindromeI · · Score: 1

      Did you read the part of the article where they tried using the break-down lane to pass while it was raining? Do you want to guess why it's called the break-down lane?

      "Well, it's raining, so I have pretty low visibility, but I might as well use this space for passing that might have someone trying to change their tire, who I won't be able to see until they're dead."

      --

      --
      Promoting critical thinking since 1994.
    15. Re:How about non-traffic violations? by ccmay · · Score: 1
      You're talking about traffic laws here. As long as they don't run from the cops or wreck, they're not facing any jail time.

      Actually, in my state, you can be dinged for "Felony Speeding" if you exceed the speed limit by more than 20 mph. I think the penalty can be up to 2 years behind bars, and a felony criminal record, which is not a trivial thing.

      They don't use it for the soccer moms who get caught going 21 over in their minivans. They use it for 150-mph scofflaws like this guy, or for hard core repeat offenders.

      -ccm

      --
      Too much Law; not enough Order.
    16. Re:How about non-traffic violations? by aaronl · · Score: 1

      Nope, Federal law says you have to pay tobacco excise to the state you *use* the tobacco in. If you buy in KY and use in FL, you owe FL money. Feds even require retailers that ship tobacco to report it to the destination state.

    17. Re:How about non-traffic violations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, in more sensible countries the drivers are perfectly at ease with someone coming past at a measely 100mph. 120mph+ is more rare but we don't fill our pants with it

      Why would you pull out in front of a car that's approaching rapidly? It's really not hard to judge the closing speed of a car in the mirror, is it?!

      'Look in mirror - "oh, that car is coming up fucking fast, kudos to the driver! I'll just hang on 2 seconds, let it pass and go on my merry way".' - not so hard really, is it?

    18. Re:How about non-traffic violations? by prelelat · · Score: 1

      Hello Mr. Anonymous Coward,

      I don't care if "the law" actually saw him breaking the law it's still not right. I won't say I never speed, and I've never been in an accident that was caused by myself. But the rules are their to protect you and other people. You could be the best driver in the world(like you) and you could still get into an accident. It's not your fault but you still get into an accident. Some kid could dart out in front of you while your driving, someone could loose control of their vehicle and hit you. While your going 3 times the speed limit your chances of surviving are allot less now arn't they. If your on the highway it's probably not going to matter too much if you hit someone at 60mph or 150mph but in the city your generally going slow enough so as not to kill someone else.

      The parent never said a damn thing about setting up cameras all over the country to watch for speeders and such, not sure where you get that from. I don't know what guns has to do with anything. Frankly you seem crazy.

      I hope thats why you posted as an Anonymous Coward, because you were kidding. Because you skipped all sorts of logic made weird assumptions about the parent and were generally a dick. Your the problem with society, if they can't see you committing murder does that mean they got nothing.

      Jackass?

    19. Re:How about non-traffic violations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't you read the article? He was watching Battlestar Galactica. If you're rich, and can do whatever you want with your time, and you choose to have BG illuminating the wall from your projector, I think maybe you might be a geek.

    20. Re:How about non-traffic violations? by geoskd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm not a huge fan of the "think about the children" type arguements, but would we be cheering this guy on if he'd hit a pedestrian, wrecked some property, or something else that may have occured had he not been lucky?
      Except that he was driving on the highways pretty much the whole way, so you don't see many pedestrians (its a highway for good reason). The US highway system was designed with high speed trafic in mind, and most parts of it are relatively safe to drive at 100+ MPH. The only reason we don't usually is because of the law. As for the danger of hitting other vehicles, You'll notice the next time you are out on an actual highway that there is almost always high line of sight, meaning that you can see a very long way ahead without any obstructions, so you can see trouble coming way ahead of time. Furthermore, these guys were equiped with all kinds of tools to help them identify trouble beyond the line of sight, and under adverse conditions. They were not recklessly plowing down the road blind dumb and happy, they were prepared for all kinds of eventualities. In fact the only real significant threat to life or property would have been the deer they referenced in the article, and the infrared goggles should have given them plenty of opportunity to avoid that spot of trouble too.

      -=Geoskd
      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    21. Re:How about non-traffic violations? by Nimey · · Score: 1

      We've got at-grade crossings here on many of our highways, and the distance at which you can see from your stop is limited. This is fairly sensible with up to 65 MPH speed limits, 70 if it's a nice flat interstate, provided traffic from the minor road is low.

      At the on-ramp-style crossings, we have this thing called "traffic"; perhaps you've heard of it? Other drivers don't always get over to allow people to merge, and when they do, this speeding asshole might not notice in time and collide.

      And then you've got people like me, who lack depth perception. We guesstimate distance based on size cues and knowing "it'll take this guy about so long to get here, I've got time". That goes out the window if the other guy's traveling twice the speed limit.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    22. Re:How about non-traffic violations? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Yes, but if you're from one of those more sensible countries, you should be aware that k != m.

      ms over here are about 1.6x your ks.

      I'll believe you guys drive fast, but 120mph, regularly? In small cars that are supposedly much more environmentally friendly than American cars? On precarious mountain passes?

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    23. Re:How about non-traffic violations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe if the U.S. went the way of Finland to where your fines are scaled dependent upon your salary/income?

    24. Re:How about non-traffic violations? by spun · · Score: 3, Funny

      I've just lost respect for Will Wright. Thanks.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    25. Re:How about non-traffic violations? by spun · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why do you lack depth perception? I've only got one working eye and my depth perception past six feet is fine. You don't use binocular vision for depth perception past six feet. You use it for things like threading needles or leaping at prey.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    26. Re:How about non-traffic violations? by spun · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What about other drivers, not realizing someone would be breaking the law that egregiously, and making a quick lane change thinking they've got plenty of time? The highways would be safe for 100+ MPH travel if they were either empty, full of drivers also going 100+ MPH, or at the very least full of drivers expecting others to be doing 100+ MPH. None of those things are true.

      Sometimes it is okay to break the law. Sometimes it is even necessary. This is neither. This is just an asshole who thinks the rules don't apply to him. He is not cool, he is not a daring rebel sticking it to the man. He's a sociopath who should be thrown in jail.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    27. Re:How about non-traffic violations? by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      A lot of the gear that helped him avoid cops would help him avoid peds too. And we _should_ be cheering him _because_ he didn't do any damage. He did smething that seems reckless, but he did it extremely safely.

    28. Re:How about non-traffic violations? by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      So? They were also utilized to keep an eye out for deer, and presumably "innocent passers by". I'm pretty sure he's fairly invested in not getting in a wreck, no matter how fast he's going.

    29. Re:How about non-traffic violations? by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Try some literacy, bud. Seriously... misusing "their", "your", unable to distinguish between "loose" and "lose", non-words like "allot" and "arn't". What are you, 12?

      Some kid could dart in front of you, but that's why you pay the hell attention to what's going on MORE than just directly in front of your bumper. I drive fast, but I'm rarely in a position to get in a wreck because I slow down before coming on a traffic jam, and take into account the people behind me, giving them warning and expecting them to have slower reactions, so I haven't gotten in an accident caused by myself, much less caused an accident (yes, I do watch). It's completely possible to drive quickly and still NOT be reckless.

    30. Re:How about non-traffic violations? by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 2

      When I'm on I-15 I expect anything, including people doing over 100. (*)

      At least they're awake. Which is more than can be said about many drivers on that road. So many killed by falling asleep that warning s are put on the highway radio stations in Nevada and California.

      (*) Heck, I saw COPS doing about 120 to get to the scene of yet another SUV rollover.

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    31. Re:How about non-traffic violations? by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      While traffic violations do cover a number of items, you can apply non-traffic-specific laws as well. How about "reckless endangerment" or any variety of other laws that might still be within the limitations?

      Cold case, and no evidence. All he admits to is the speeding; his own testimony doesn't say he did anything reckless. How do you prosecute him for that? "Your honor, we think he may have done something reckless about a year ago, though we have no specific ideas about what reckless acts he may have committed. We have no witnesses, just the defendant's testimony that he drove fast."

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    32. Re:How about non-traffic violations? by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      It's not the same thing, but they're related. Whenever I get a speeding ticket (though it's typically for something like 42MPH in a 30MPH zone), it's because I wasn't paying enough attention to spot the guy-in-black standing at the side of the road, pointing his laser thingie at the traffic. I always think the same thing: "If I had been paying attention (i.e. a safe driver) instead of daydreaming, I would have seen him and slowed down in time."

      These are alert drivers, possibly to the point of mental exhaustion by the end of their trip (and that might be something to think about). When you're looking out to protect yourself, you're less likely to crash into someone else (ruining their day in addition to your own).

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    33. Re:How about non-traffic violations? by mi · · Score: 1

      So the states, where he used the tobacco, might send him a tax bill. The original GGP posting alleged a federal crime has taken place... It has not.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    34. Re:How about non-traffic violations? by Nimey · · Score: 1

      I lack it because my eyes point in somewhat different directions (strabismus) & have since I was born. Can't catch a ball or do hand-to-hand combat to save my life.

      I didn't realize that normals use the same guessing technique past about six feet or so, but it makes sense.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    35. Re:How about non-traffic violations? by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      As I'm sure you're aware, it's quite easy to prove the radar or laser measurement device didn't get the correct speed (any $50-$200/hr lawyer can easily do this). It's great to have a felony "Oh-won't-someone-think-of-the-children!" law, now try to get a device that can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that car X was traveling at X speed.

    36. Re:How about non-traffic violations? by bob_herrick · · Score: 1

      Back when I was just a wee slip of a thing, say 1955 - 1960 or thereabouts, my father, a reasonably bright scientist type (U Rochester PhD in physical chem) described having read a study that said, in essence, that the accident rate caused by a given driver is proportional to the abosolute value of the difference between that driver's speed and the average driving speed of the 'pack.' That is to say, you cause more accidents by driving faster or slower than those around you than by simply driving any given speed. It seems that high speed, by itself, increases the serverity of accidents, while high delta driving speed increases the frequency (usually for others, by the way).

      I conclude from this that the behavior was irresponsible (1) because it increased risk to others than the speeding driver, and (2) had there been an accident involving either the driver and/or others the cost of that unnecessary accident would be taxed through to the rest of us via insurance premiums etc, for no beneft.

      That is not to say no one should drive, but risks taken for no external benefit are at best selfish, and at worst dangerously irresponsible.

      The justification for the lower speed limits in the US was originally fuel economy. It, along with seat belt laws, was later credited with a drop in highway fatalities. Both justificatons still exist. Interestingly, I used to see accident data for a major rental car company that operates both in Europe and North America, and guess what, the accident rate was higher in Europe (France, Italy and Spain much worse, the rest just worse) than in North America.

    37. Re:How about non-traffic violations? by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "Except that he was driving on the highways pretty much the whole way,"

      "Pretty much."

      "The US highway system was designed with high speed trafic in mind,"

      "High speed" at the time the Interstate system was designed meant something different than it does today.

      "and most parts of it are relatively safe to drive at 100+ MPH."

      "Most parts," "relatively."

      "The only reason we don't usually is because of the law.",

      Show me a stretch of Interstate where everybody is abiding by the speed limit, and I'll show you a poorly-hidden state trooper.

      "You'll notice the next time you are out on an actual highway that there is almost always high line of sight, meaning that you can see a very long way ahead"

      "Ahead" is only in one direction. Risks come from many directions and need not be stationary, especially when overtaking another vehicle at high speed.

      "they were prepared for all kinds of eventualities."

      Did they have Miss Cleo in the back seat? Did she tell them about debris flying off a truck or lying on the road ahead but obscured by the traffic in front? Was she able to successfully predict when another car's tire was going to blow out?

      Really, looking only at your post, its hard to imagine that there could ever be any traffic fatalities on the Interstate. But you also seem to have spent so little time driving on the Interstate system to actually see how a real accident occurs on one, since none of the hypotheticals you toss out cover the half-dozen or so I've witnessed (and have damn near been involved in).

    38. Re:How about non-traffic violations? by drseuk · · Score: 1

      This guy's not a geek, he's just rich enough to afford some expensive toys, a fast car, and not enough common sense or respect for others. Haven't we been here before? - http://www.jonhs.com/mugshots/gates.htm
    39. Re:How about non-traffic violations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how can you prove it that I am going to use the 20 boxes of cigarette I have in my car crossing from DE to NJ will be used in NJ ? I can always bring them back to DE just to smoke.

    40. Re:How about non-traffic violations? by LuminaireX · · Score: 1

      Hah, most excellent. Mod parent up!

    41. Re:How about non-traffic violations? by slashhax0r · · Score: 1

      "What about other drivers, not realizing someone would be breaking the law that egregiously, and making a quick lane change thinking they've got plenty of time? The highways would be safe for 100+ MPH travel if they were either empty, full of drivers also going 100+ MPH, or at the very least full of drivers expecting others to be doing 100+ MPH. None of those things are true." True enough, although other drivers should be checking their mirrors before making a "quick lane change". I've had it enough times when roaring along in the fast lane. Also, this guy is driving an M5, not some american muscle car with tiny brakes, not some "sports car" like a sunfire.. an M5. Ever driven one? this thing can detach your retinas if you hit the brakes too hard. it handles, and it's actually designed to go fast. I drive roads all the time where rednecks in f350 diesel's with mud tires on them are going 100mph. lets see, high CG, small brakes, tires rated to only 80mph.. hmmm Disaster...

    42. Re:How about non-traffic violations? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I'll believe you guys drive fast, but 120mph, regularly? In small cars that are supposedly much more environmentally friendly than American cars? On precarious mountain passes?
      Do you really think that all Europeans drive Toyota Micras up and down Swiss mountains, or something?
      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    43. Re:How about non-traffic violations? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      No.

      I'm just calling them out. They're always claiming their cars are so much more efficient than ours. Or that their average speeds are so much higher than ours, despite our roads being much straighter and wider than theirs (they're much better drivers, too, you see).

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  57. Re:And yet will all those gadgets... by rs79 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Agreed, but he's also got a point. BMWs (at least the M5) are not built for this kind of stuff. Perhaps a Porsche 911 would've been more appropriate." "

    Apparantly you own and/or maintain neither.

    Despite all this rhetoric, he did it.

    As somebody who has a stable of oldish German cars, one of them being a BMW (633Csi) and one of them having 700,000 kms on the clock that can still top 120mph (300SD) I'd argue vehemently that they are built for all day high speed runs. Not Italian cars and certainly not British cars. The Autobahn is partly the reason for this. German enginerring is another. They are meant for this sort of flogging, it's desinged in.

    Given the attention to detail in the rest of the trip, my uninformed guess is the car was in as perfect a mechnaical condition as possible, quite possibly better than "factory new".

    And as I said, the proof was in the pudding. He made it.

    --
    Need Mercedes parts ?
  58. Stop modding parent down. by More_Cowbell · · Score: 1
    I was going to mod him underrated but someone already did; right now this comment stands at:
    30% Offtopic
    30% Underrated
    20% Redundant

    Not sure if the poster just has enemies, but I sure fail to see how the post is offtopic... If you RTFA, you see the YouTube video link (and thus the comment) is about him.

    --
    Experience teaches only the teachable. -AH
  59. If you think averaging 90 MPH is "dangerous" by Raineer · · Score: 1

    Seriously, have you never driven on an interstate? I'd trust this guy more than the moron soccer mom weaving around at 45 in a minivan putting on makeup with 3 screaming kids running around the back seat.

    1. Re:If you think averaging 90 MPH is "dangerous" by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      He's averaging 90 mph, including fuel stops, food stops and driving through cities. That means he's going a LOT more than 90 mph quite a bit of the time.

  60. Re:Wow, so many people bitching by osee · · Score: 1

    which of the listed activities (skyjumping, base jumping, downhill mountain-biking) led you to believe the guy is incapacitated by his "fear of death"?

    It's just that he (I, and probably many others) view this kind of speeding as utterly reckless. The guy wasn't alone on the road all the time.
    Someone else could have just changed lanes in front of him, because looking in the mirror he went like "Oh, that car is still several hundred meters away".
    And in the next moment it's these because monkeyman local geekhero is driving 200km/h...

    So while I am not afraid of death too much, I still prefer to die of old age or my own stupidity.

  61. A bit lame, I think by Helle · · Score: 1

    I think this is a bit lame compared to our swedish ghostrider.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bikWRLKX_3w&mode=related&search=
    There is alot more ghostrider movies on youtube.

    1. Re:A bit lame, I think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, the one where he plays a cop... phenomenal.

    2. Re:A bit lame, I think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's see your Ghostrider drive like that for 31+ hours.

  62. Wild-wild east! Not your el cheapo BMW coupe. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Last month a Porsche and a Lamborghini illegally road-raced here in Hungary, Central Europe for a girl and a cash prize of about 105,000 US dollars. Doing about 220km/h (137 mph) on a 2x2 lane road, they continously manouvered to overtake moderate-strong traffic. Eventually the two sportcars collided, crashed into the the centre lane-divisor, then a sound-proofing wall at the roadside and both went on fire. A Hyundai driver stopped and pulled the two seriously injured motorists to safety. It turned out both were convicted criminals who failed to report to prison!

    Image gallery:
    http://www.langlovagok.hu/html/galeria/1131.shtml

    1. Re:Wild-wild east! Not your el cheapo BMW coupe. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last month a Porsche and a Lamborghini illegally road-raced here in Hungary, Central Europe..

      That you felt the need to write that part is quite a sad indictment of /. really.
    2. Re:Wild-wild east! Not your el cheapo BMW coupe. by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

      It shoulda been a Daewoo or a Yugo driver. Hyundai is nice irony there, though.

  63. What about 10,000 in ten days or so? by Shivetya · · Score: 3, Informative

    Iron Butt riders do this during a yearly event. They have a course laid out with many extra stopping points that are worth bonus points. There really isn't anyway to complete the course doing the legal limit let alone getting sufficient rest.

    See http://www.ironbutt.com/about/default.cfm for a big pack of loonies (yes I ride).

    They do coast to coast in 50 hours which still isn't relying on doing the speed limit or getting all that much rest. There are coast to coast times two (going there and coming back)

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  64. idiot. by apodyopsis · · Score: 1

    he broke the law, endangered his own life and countless others in a meaningless stunt, wasted a lot of money and filmed himself for the courts amusement.

    ..and I am meant to be impressed?

    1. Re:idiot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes

    2. Re:idiot. by shinmai · · Score: 1

      What Parent said.

      This guy really doesn't think about anyone but himself. To even attempt this kind of thing pretty much shows that the only weak link he sees in his plan is if he mucks up and crashes. Traffic laws are in place because all people make mistakes, there are many people driving at the same time and there's no way to predict an accident.
      Should someone have a medical seizure at the wheel, for instance, what would've been a rather harmless crash off the road could be escaladed to a fatal accident if this guy just happens to be the one driving behind the car etc. etc.
      There are too many variables in doing this kind of thing for any sensible person to even concider something like this without some heavy planning and support (like closing down roads etc.).

      Sorry if my english is a bit unclear. I find it hard to formulate myself in another language when I'm worked up, and this shit really gets my blood boiling.

    3. Re:idiot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what would've been a rather harmless crash off the road could be escaladed to a fatal accident if this guy just happens to be the one driving behind the car etc. etc.

      The problem with this line of reasoning is that even if the guy was driving 20mph, it just changes the distance when the other driver has a seizure to still make it an unavoidable accident. The driver could seize in the lane alongside the guy, sideswipe the guy and then bounce off into oncoming traffic and get flattened by a cement truck.

      Sometimes accidents are unavoidable, by this logic we're ALL asshats because we drive anyway.

    4. Re:idiot. by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      it just changes the distance when the other driver has a seizure to still make it an unavoidable accident.

      The relationship is not linear, but quadratic, though. Doubling the speed quadruples the distance.

    5. Re:idiot. by shinmai · · Score: 1

      True. As I said I was pretty worked up, and couldn't think up a better example. I didn't mean to imply that in my example if a person following the seizuring guy collided with him, he'd be in anyway responsible, bur rather that breaking traffic laws will usually increase the changes of an accident being more severe.

      My point was, that this guy, and others like him, view their stunts from an extremely egocentric point of view, where they asses the risks involved by saying that they're great drivers, and are unlikely to crash, and even if they should crash, they're ready to take that risk. But when doing something like this, they're not just taking a risk for themselves, but for every other driver driving with them on the same freeways.

      (Dammit, I didn't manage to write anything intelligible this time either :D I guess I should leave the meaningfull discussion to those more fluent in their language skills and stick to posting stupid memes as AC :)

  65. Re:And yet will all those gadgets... by dave420 · · Score: 1

    Nice try :) Let me guess - you or someone in your family worked for a large US car company in Detroit, and you now feel bitter about superior cars from across the pond.

  66. Americans can't drive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wide roads and just over 100Mph? Please!

    Here in the Netherlands we DO drive fast! Check out this guy, who drove 280Km/h (175 Mph) last night.

    http://www.nu.nl/news/1277034/10/Man_raast_over_A4_met_280_kilometer_per_uur.html

    Sorry to see a nice BMW being abused by not unleashing all of its power, 100Mph is childish.

    1. Re:Americans can't drive by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Depends on where you do it.

      Perfect weather, empty road, not a town for at least 10 miles? Pedal to the metal, let the engine be the limit. If, and only if, the only person you could possible kill by going 300 is you, do whatever you please.

      It's different, though, in rush hour traffic.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Americans can't drive by rolfc · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Often, BMW and wreckless driving are linked together. I wonder if they are just as stupid when they choose an overpriced german car.

    3. Re:Americans can't drive by Sandb · · Score: 1

      Yeah right, in the real world this does not hold up.

      Driving with great risks gives a lot of seriously wounded, and a lot of material damages (if only the damage to the road/asphalt)...

      ...which the community in general ultimately pays for in raised ensurance fees.

    4. Re:Americans can't drive by Spellvexit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, I've got no objection to those stupid wreckless drivers; it's the reckless ones I can't stand!

      --
      The moon may be smaller than the earth, but it's much farther away!
  67. I tried to read the article by begbiezen · · Score: 1

    but i just couldn't stomach the WIRED magazine writing style. That shit is for retards.

  68. geeks and travel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure there are evil geeks and good geeks and all the different shades of gray in between.

    Myself I would have never travelled such a perilous journey, but if you do decide to continue on this path you might as well develop the application AzureuidUS(pronounced AS-YOU-RIDE-US) peer-to-peer-passenger-sharing-system(P2PPSS) :)

    This system could be extended to utilize other transportation protocols, why limit yourself? Please extend your system to include BUS, Truck, Plane, Hot Air Balloon, Alien Space Travel technology.

    Thank you for considering my request.
    TravelGeek.com

  69. Re:Wow, so many people bitching by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

    "Yes but he didn't. He says he's a fast safe driver"

    According to studies, most drivers think that they are better than average drivers.

    "and has never hit any body, ever."

    So we should congratulate him for not hitting anyone? Funny, I thought that not hitting anyone is the default. we assume that people don't hit other people with their cars. Congratulating someone for not hitting others, is like congratulating you for managing to put your pants on this morning.

    And is your logic here that since he has not hit anyone yet, he should be allowed to drive like a maniac? Only when you hit someone, then you should start obeying the law? Uh, OK...

    "Speed doesn't kill, inattentiveness does."

    you can be attentive as hell, and still get yourself and/or other killed. That is a FACT.

    --
    Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
  70. Re:Wow, so many people bitching by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    He's going through traffic at 100mph+.

          Freeway much? As if he was the only one. Anyway that's what lane discipline is about, you know, the innermost lane is for passing only - oh wait yeah, in the US you all drive at whatever speed you want ignoring your fellow drivers. I guess you deserve to be rear-ended.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  71. across penna in 4 hrs? by airdrummer · · Score: 0

    my dad's best man was a sportscar nut...i 1st went to watkins glen with him...and i remember him telling me he used to make the trip from his home east of pittsburgh to philly in 4 or 5 hrs.

    of course that's what it takes on the turnpike now, but this was on old rt 30, 2 lanes winding over the mountains & thru every little hamlet...that musta been quite the trip;-)

  72. Think of the Book Deal by stiggle · · Score: 1

    Actually, his memoirs came out this month, coincidence about this articles timing?

  73. Re:And yet will all those gadgets... by drsmithy · · Score: 1

    Agreed, but he's also got a point. BMWs (at least the M5) are not built for this kind of stuff. Perhaps a Porsche 911 would've been more appropriate.

    Huh ? What *else* is an M5 built for if not a high-speed cross-country road trip ? They're designed for cruising on Autobahns where 100mph is "average".

  74. Re:And yet will all those gadgets... by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
    They're designed for cruising on Autobahns where 100mph is "average".



    You misspelled "annoying obstacle".

  75. Re:Wow, so many people bitching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Weird isn't it? Slashdot groupthink seems to run between naughty schoolboy (when, say, giving money to russian criminals for ripped off mp3s) to outraged virgin schoolgirl (don't you realise driving at speed can kill?!).

  76. Hoorah! by Conspire · · Score: 3, Insightful

    First off, for all the negative posts that name-call this gentleman for being "unsafe" and "reckless", I hope you do some homework and inform yourself about the German Autobahns. For those of us who have driven on the autobahns faster than this man did at anytime in his journey, we know that safety is how you are paying attention and driving, not that you are following the laws of the US roads. The man planned with extreme detail, drove a car that was designed to drive this speed for much longer durations, and obviously from the videos it is clear they were "paying attention". Just because the name callers on these posts are not capable of driving the speeds and distances safely does not mean that that team could not do it. And they proved it.

    So please stop whining about the "danger" to society. There are many countries with faster speed limits (or little or no enforcement which equals the same thing). And by the way, in this country if he were to have had an accident, he would have been sued into bankruptcy. But fact of the matter is who cares he did it safely!

    --
    Real men don't need signitures!!!
    1. Re:Hoorah! by Ihlosi · · Score: 2, Informative
      I hope you do some homework and inform yourself about the German Autobahns.

      I hope you know how much German Autobahns do not compare to US interstates. The list starts at "road condition" (applying Autobahn standards, much of the US interstate network would have to be closed down for maintenance completely right now.) and doesn't even end at the minimum requirements as far as the condition of the vehicle goes in order to be allowed on the road (US: "can move at a certain minimum speed under its own power", Germany: "Mandatory technical checkups that are quite thorough every two years").

    2. Re:Hoorah! by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but the other traffic on the road won't be doing 140mph. So you'll have to weave in and out of cars, etc.

      That said, they take things a lot differently in .de, sure you're allowed to drive whatever speed you want, but if you get into an accident you're definitely at fault. Whereas in no-fault states [and provinces of Canada for instance] if you do the limit [for the road conditions] and get into an accident you're not at fault [no criminal charges, etc].

      At anyrate, big deal. I can get into a plane and fly to the west coast in 6 hours. It's not only miles safer than driving 140mph for 32 hours, but it's faster, and with a packed plane probably just as fuel efficient (noting that 140mph is probably out of the efficiency band for a car).

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    3. Re:Hoorah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I were driving on an Autobahn, then I would realize that everyone there would have a different idea of what speed to drive.

      When I'm driving on a freeway, with a posted speed limit of 65, 70, whatever... I expect everyone around me to be driving that speed. Not to have someone overtaking me at 90 or 120 or whatever else they think they can get away with. The problem is not the speed- its the expectation, and the massive difference in our speeds. You can't crash into someone if their velocity matches yours.

      And yes, there are freeways in this country where people routinely disregard the speed limits. Doesn't take long to figure that out when everyone around you is doing the same thing- but mostly to the same degree. But some fucktard zooming through 30 mph or more faster than everyone else isn't exactly doing the same thing that everyone else is doing, are they?

    4. Re:Hoorah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you use the fact that it turns out that no one was hurt to support the argument that sufficient safety precautions for innocent bystanders were taken?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outcome_bias

    5. Re:Hoorah! by janestarz · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Except for the fact that on the German Autobahn, people expect this. There are many stretches of road that you are allowed to drive as fast as you can go, if traffic allows. All the German people driving cars know that there might be cars on those stretches that are doing 200kph. It's not just the fact that you are paying attention as a driver, but that the other cars around you are paying attention as well. I've done the German Autobahn as a passenger at 160-180 kph (my father was driving and I hated every second of it) and as a driver (135 kph is fast enough for me) and your mirrors become your best friend. You keep an eye on traffic in front and behind you, anticipate speeds and you'll do fine.

      There are also stretches of road in Germany that you're not allowed to go too fast, sometimes with speed limits of 80 kph because the difference in speed between the trucks (LKW's) and regular cars would become too great. And most people abide just fine by it, because they know it can get really dangerous. Sure, the BMW's and Mercedeses and Porsches will accelarate very fast once the speed limits are raised again, but they keep their speed mania in check when danger is close.

      I live in the Netherlands and when I crossed back over the border after a trip to Germany, within 5 kilometers of the border you can tell the difference in driving style. I'd drive in Germany any day, despite the speed limits or the lack thereof. Just because Germans can anticipate and think about what they are doing and what impact they might have on other peoples lives.
      Roy does not.

    6. Re:Hoorah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But fact of the matter is who cares he did it safely!

      Safely? I think you mean without hurting anyone... this time. Nailing him isn't just about a penalty for his current actions, it's about preventing future ones as the next time might not be so lucky.

      And as for Germany, how often do you drive there? The driving requirements and penalties are quite substantial. You can drive fast, but there are still rules and the penalties are there for breaking them or doing something stupid. Moreover, people on the autobahn expect others to go fast.

      So comparing the driving conditions of a location where those are the road are both likely to be more experienced themselves, as well as more alert to the possibility of some guy zipping by at a few hundred clips, doesn't make much sense. The roads are designed to allow for this, and the drivers are trained/aware of it. How many people in the US know how to check for and judge the approach speed of a guy doing these speeds? He's not the only one of the road, and others' inexperience and lack of awareness of his "style" of driving is just as dangerous as his own recklessness.

    7. Re:Hoorah! by Thraxen · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. There's a HUGE difference when people are expecting others to be driving fast. For example, you likely don't expect someone to be going 100 MPH down a residential road as you back out of your driveway in the morning. So you might not be looking that far down the road or be expecting someone to come around a curve on your street that fast. Same thing applies to your example. On the autobahn the other drivers are expecting people to be going fast and are thus taking the appropriate considerations into doing things like changing lanes. It's not always about how careful you are, you have to take into consideration the reactions of others. Your reasoning is fatally flawed.

    8. Re:Hoorah! by dcam · · Score: 1

      First off, for all the negative posts that name-call this gentleman for being "unsafe" and "reckless", I hope you do some homework and inform yourself about the German Autobahns. For those of us who have driven on the autobahns faster than this man did at anytime in his journey, we know that safety is how you are paying attention and driving, not that you are following the laws of the US roads. The man planned with extreme detail, drove a car that was designed to drive this speed for much longer durations, and obviously from the videos it is clear they were "paying attention". Just because the name callers on these posts are not capable of driving the speeds and distances safely does not mean that that team could not do it. And they proved it.

      The difference is he wasn't driving on a German autobahn, he was driving on US highways where the other road users aren't trained to drive at that speed and do not expect people to drive at that speed. If he had been on a German autobahn, his behaviour would have been fine. As it is, it is recklessly endangering other people on the road.

      --
      meh
    9. Re:Hoorah! by Conspire · · Score: 1

      I would bet you that there was not one stretch of "residential" road that he drove 100MPH on. That was my whole point, he planned the route out very carefully for roads that provided the safest route for 100+MPH (highways, not suburban areas!).

      --
      Real men don't need signitures!!!
    10. Re:Hoorah! by Conspire · · Score: 1

      I've driven on the Autobahn once in a Ferrari F355 (for about 4 hours straight). I don't live there so don't expect to do it again any time soon (but I'm sure I will in this lifetime).

      I've also driven a Yamaha R1 from Pheonix to LA averaging much faster than that guy, and surely with faster top speed. And yes, I only did it because I knew the road somewhat well (had driven the route many times before), and I also knew the bike well.

      --
      Real men don't need signitures!!!
    11. Re:Hoorah! by Conspire · · Score: 1

      As someone who has personally:

      1) drag raced on public roads starting at 15 years of age for 3 years after almost every weekend.
      2) canyon raced through the Colorado Rockies at least once a month on motorcycles, in a souped up Datsun 240Z, in compact cars, in a surburban.
      3) always had fast cars and motorcycles and driven them at speeds much higher than the speed limit often (in over a dozen countries over a decade)
      4) driven a route on public highways in Taiwan from Taipei to Kenting (where road conditions and traffic much worse than average US highways) in my highly modified 1994 3.8L BMW M5 and my friend's Porche 996 topping 220KPH many many times over the course of 3 years.
      5) NEVER BEEN IN an accident while driving (only when others are driving have I actually been in an accident).

      I'm 37 now, I've kind of grown out of all that. But I can tell you, yes I believe that Roy planned a lot better than I ever did and I really don't think it was that reckless. A little outcome bias? Maybe......

      --
      Real men don't need signitures!!!
    12. Re:Hoorah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "As someone who has personally:"

      6. Measured his willy numerous times and always found it somehow lacking.

      Seriously dude, no one likes a braggart. Try some humility some time, it's a virtue.

  77. "Innocent until proven guilty" ? by Eternal+Vigilance · · Score: 1

    It's so sad that that's now the setup for a joke.

  78. I'm amazed he had trouble with rain visibility.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been using Rain-X window coating for decades, but that had as disadvantage you had to re-apply it every 2 weeks. Now I found stuff called 'nano coating' which does the same job but lasts about a year, and combine that with yellow vision enhancer glasses.

    Rain is easy to remove from the windshield, the above products lower adhesion so the water just rolls off in beads to the point of not even needing screen wipers. It is so effective that you don't need to worry about the splash thrown up by trucks - you hardly notice it. In my opinion this should be standard on every car, with the VERY important proviso that people are told that not seeing rain on the windshield does not equate to no water under the tyres..

    One tip if you go that route: use new windscreen wipers. And again, don't forget that the water's still on the road and seriously affects your road adhesion. Forget that and you'll increase tree adhesion instead.

    As for the drive - I would be uncomfortable with the risk to others. It only takes one mum to swerve a bit while the kids have fun in the car to create a tragedy because it's actually unreasonable for her to expect something is approaching at twice the accepted velocity - by the time she spots you it'll be all over.

    It's not like in Germany where on the unlimited stretches it's quite normal to see something barrel past at 170 mph (I've done it too :-) and people plan their manouvering accordingly. But even there you would still have to be careful - the trick with fast driving is not going fast, it's being very aware that it takes a LOT more effort (and rubber) to slow down. You have to plan at least 2 miles ahead for it to be safe, and that can only happen with very few people on the road.

  79. asian team in canonball run?! by hitmark · · Score: 1

    it sure sounds like them at least ;)

    --
    comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
  80. Re:Wow, so many people bitching by rs79 · · Score: 0, Troll

    "you can be attentive as hell, and still get yourself and/or other killed. That is a FACT

    Sounds more like an UNPROVED ASSERTION to me.

    The only poeple to die in one of these high speed thingies is a couple who ran a stop sign.

    Other than that, they've proven to be safer than the average major highway on a holiday weekend with people doing the speed limit.

    --
    Need Mercedes parts ?
  81. well by heper · · Score: 1

    I don't really see the point in trying to beat that record (or any record for that matter)
    But doing 140mph isn't that big of a deal. Almost every european car max' out at that speed, some just take longer then others to get to it.

    Also huge parts of german highway allow these speeds while year after year they are elected the safest highway system in europe.
    Speed != danger

  82. Re:And yet will all those gadgets... by miasmic · · Score: 1

    A 911 would be a very poor choice. I'm not sure about fuel consumption but I'd be surprised if a 911's wasn't a fair bit higher than the old M5's.

    But primarily because of visibility - A BMW M5 is a wolf in sheeps clothing, it looks just like a normal sedan, and there are lots of 5-series BMWs on the roads to blend in with - a 911 looks like a flash sportscar and unless you live in Beverley Hills, sticks out like a sore thumb - (if you watch the videos on their you'll see the one they drove for the actual attempt was painted plain, dark blue, not the polizei design shown on the first page).

    I would say the (old) M5 was a great choice for the trip, probably the essence of the executive performance tourer. If the time was to be beaten I reckon a lot of time could be saved with less frequent refuelling, I would probably tip a turbo diesel engine with a bigger second tank.

  83. Re:Wow, so many people bitching by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Oh, that car is still several hundred meters away".

    As someone who has actually driven 250km/h on an Autobahn: if you drive at these speeds you need to keep traffic in the eye at all moments. You know a driver in front of you will not realize that you'll be there very quickly and as such it is your responsibility to foresee what other drivers might do. A car that is 500m away is a potential hazard already, so you pay attention to it even if the road is clear in front of you. At the moment you even see it slightly veer to the passing lane, you hit the brakes.

    Driving at these speeds is exhausting if you're not trained. I can't do it for much longer than 20 minutes, without falling back and going to a more reasonable 160km/h.

  84. Speed doesn't kill people by threaded · · Score: 1

    Speed doesn't kill people. Coming to a sudden stop: that's what gets you.

    All these knee jerk, 'think of the children' prats: come up with some statistics that show driving in excess of the posted speed limits does cause more actual deaths.

    In fact the converse appears true. I can provide statistics that show driving a high powered motorcycle is way safer than driving one that cannot break the speed limit.

    The fact is most posted speed limits are nothing more than a tax, in the form of speed fines, for driving.

    1. Re:Speed doesn't kill people by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

      A tax you say? Well I've driven 10000km so far and haven't paid it yet. Must only be when you drive like an idiot...

      Seriously folk, what the hell is with all the Internet Tough Guy routines? Driving in excess is not cool, it just means you're a little kid and the MAN should tell you what to do. Honestly, I drive most of my way to work doing about 2-3kph or so over the limit on cruise (I do a smidge over so people can't bitch that I wasn't at least doing the limit) control. And you know what, especially for city driving, I end up getting places at the same time as those who tailgate and speed. Red lights kinda gate your ability to speed over long distances. Heck, a few times I've even passed tailgaters who previously passed me, then started the weaving game only to be caught in the wrong lane at a red light.

      So any argument of "getting there faster" is blown out of the water. And efficiency? Well if I spend less energy and get there at the same time as a speeder, logic dictates I also burned less fuel.

      So not only do I take it easy, save money and wear on the car, but I follow the law, never get tickets, and don't act like a prick all the time. All around win win.

      What really causes accidents is people who put themselves at risk. For example, following too closely means that if your attention strays for even a moment you can end up piling into a car ahead of you. Whereas I tend to leave 2-3 seconds [when feasible] means that I can afford to stray attention for a second and not plow into shit. By not speeding, my stopping distance is a lot shorter, etc, etc.

      Not saying I'll never be in an accident [where I caused it]. I'm only 25 and I have many years ahead of me of driving [hopefully]. Just saying that I'm less likely to get into an accident because I set myself up for success when I drive. Whereas the speed demons and other losers are outside safe margins and are just one event away from an a crash.

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    2. Re:Speed doesn't kill people by Zurk · · Score: 1

      youre either an idiot or you drive to the mall and back. tell me how a 3 lane highway justifies a speed limit of 50mph ?
      youre likely to get into an accident when someone driving at 70mph in a pickup plows thru the back of your shitbox and kills you because you werent driving at the safe and reasonable speed that everyone else was driving at instead of following the arbitrarily low limit.
      the speed limits in the U.S. are a tax. period. i drive 50K miles/year, never under the limit and usually 20 over and ive never had an accident. i use an STI, CB and LPP jammer to avoid tickets along with a GPS. not as sophisticated as this guy with microbolometers but good enough for average us highway use. you people should stop being sheeps and grow up. coupla years ago this guy would get high praise from /. instead of a bunch of whiners crying about protecting the children.

    3. Re:Speed doesn't kill people by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

      I hate that argument because it lacks context and grounds in law. By your logic, you should stay out of the inner most lane because people driving into oncoming traffic [illegally] might be there. Well ya shouldn't speed either.

      And who sets the limits? What if I were to call you the idiot for ONLY doing 20 over? I mean if 20 over is safe, 25 over is probably safe too. So why are you fucking in my way you idiot?

      Hmm, well if 25 is safe ... If you think a road should be faster, address the appropriate government and have the limits changed. But you'll probably find they're set for a reason.

      The dangerous people are not those who follow highway laws, it's those who are so self-absorbed as to not pay attention to those around them. I mean what if I were doing 20 over and then my engine died. Presumably I'd slow down right? So should I expect people to ram into me? Or is it more adult and mature to assume that they'll slow down and go around me?

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    4. Re:Speed doesn't kill people by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      There are some statistics that support the idea that driving a LITTLE in excess of the speed limit may be slightly safer, probably because your speed is then more similar to everybody else's.

      This guy was clearly NOT driving a little in excess of the speed limit. There is no doubt statistically that driving greatly in excess of the speed limit is much more dangerous for you, and more importantly, everyone else on the road. Doing it while sleep deprived is just stupid -- fatigue has much the same effect on driving ability as alcohol. Greatly exceeding the speed limit while sleep deprived on city streets is incredibly stupid.

  85. You bunch of Pussies!! by maroberts · · Score: 1

    For once, i am going to sacrifice some of my karma for a rant.

    Here is a guy obsessed about going for something and using technology to assist his attempt. He's using a well prepared car with better braking systems than the average bear (pun intended). Since most of his travel is likely to be on interstates, he's hardly likely to bump into a pedestrian either.

    We even, through the Darwin Awards, recognise those who didn't make it.

    And here you lot are, denigrating something you normally approve of, and certainly would have a few years ago.

    You bunch of limp wristed faggots (and I mean that in a non-homophobic sense).

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

    1. Re:You bunch of Pussies!! by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

      I dunno about the rest of you, but as a 25 year old I don't fancy racing through the streets. Sure I may accelerate fast here or there, but I don't speed, and I don't weave in and out of traffic. I guess I'm just not hip and with it. But I'm not a big fan of writing off my car just to be cool.

      And it has nothing to do with "being scared" or afraid of the speed. I'm just a big follower of physics and aware of momentum. Getting into an accident at 160kph will hurt a lot more than [say] the posted 80kph. That's just science.

      You should lose karma because you're just an idiot. Driving fast doesn't make you "fearless" or cool, it just means you're reckless and irresponsible. You're putting lives at risk [not just your own] to satisfy some feeling of inadequacy.

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    2. Re:You bunch of Pussies!! by dave420 · · Score: 1

      I doubt you'll find anyone on slashdot who doesn't get a case of tight-underwear when they read about a tricked-out BMW with thousands of dollars worth of ridiculously cool technology (and a spotter plane). Most people are upset that he risked innocent people in his attempt. I think the whole thing is ridiculously cool, if it was in a movie. In real life it's pretty unacceptable behaviour in society to selfishly endanger others in that society for your own desires.

      I think Alex Roy is a classy guy - he has a wicked sense of humour, an undisputed appreciation for technology, and has the money and contacts to put some seriously exciting vehicular inanity into action. Willing to risk others' lives for it, though, is a bit disappointing.

    3. Re:You bunch of Pussies!! by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      I doubt you'll find anyone on slashdot who doesn't get a case of tight-underwear when they read about a tricked-out BMW with thousands of dollars worth of ridiculously cool technology (and a spotter plane).



      YAWN !


      Wake me again when the BMW is filled with enough technology to drive coast-to-coast all by itself, while this Alex Roy guy is taking a nap in the back seat. Then, and only then, it's ridiculously cool. (And probably illegal as heck, too).

    4. Re:You bunch of Pussies!! by dave420 · · Score: 1

      That would be much cooler, but this is pretty cool in itself :)

  86. wow. by mungtor · · Score: 0, Troll

    It's amazing how many many people are just coming off like bitter, jealous assholes this morning.

    Isn't this /.? Every day we get to read the hysteria about the "police state" and "big brother is watching", but for now it has been totally sublimated so that you can all hope this guy gets arrested for driving fast. Instead of giving up his dream, this guy did something about it and you all hate him for it.

    Anybody worried about the danger and wishing he was arrested, congratulations. You have just lived up to the ideal of "giving up freedom for security". Make sure to write your congress-critter and tell them that you support the Patriot Act too. Miserable fucks.

    1. Re:wow. by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

      Speaking of someone who has been rear-ended by a careless driver ... I say wait until you get into accident to bitch about people wanting others to drive safe. You're free to driver anywhere you want on public roads, provided you don't sacrifice *MY* safety (e.g., security) to do so. Someone please mod parent as troll and flamebait.

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    2. Re:wow. by dave420 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You've missed the point. Alex Roy was giving up the freedom of others to not be smeared down a freeway for his own freedom. Alex Roy was the guy giving up freedoms, only they weren't his to give up. Just as murderers don't have the right to kill people (even if it's their dream), people don't have the right to endanger others for their own indulgences. The PATRIOT act and talk of a "police state" has nothing to do with this. Nothing at all. People are upset about the PATRIOT act and the "police state" punishing those who are not hurting anyone else. Alex Roy endangered everyone he was near during his stunt.

    3. Re:wow. by theantipop · · Score: 0, Troll

      I hope the asshole in TFA runs you over someday. How would you feel when irony hit you at 120mph?

    4. Re:wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wanting the government to not treat 90% of people like criminals and the country like a prison (e.g. no privacy, etc) is a far cry from wanting people that actually *need* to be punished escape justice.

      Do you really believe that the majority of /. would like to have murderers running free just so they could send an email without George Bush reading it with his morning coffee?

      Realize that there are shades of grey. It's not a choice between "police state" and "anarchy." It's not like /.er's are advocating computer controlled cameras watching 100% of the US roadways to catch people like this.

    5. Re:wow. by mungtor · · Score: 1

      Your safety, while important to you, isn't really all that interesting to anybody else. You are perfectly capable (assuming) and justified in taking any steps you feel necessary to protect it. However, you have no rights to regulate my behavior based on your assumptions about what is safe and what isn't.

      I doubt the driver who rear-ended you was anything more than the typical inattentive moron that inhabits roads all over. They most likely weren't speeding, weren't trying to accomplish anything, but were just poorly trained and not really qualified to be operating a 3500lb vehicle at all. Generally, speeders are involved in single-car accidents with property damage, not multi-car pileups and fatalities.

    6. Re:wow. by mungtor · · Score: 1

      I'll take those odds.

      I hope you're run over by some inattentive soccer mom who is too busy putting lipstick on or drinking a latte to see what might be in the way of her hurtling SUV. Or maybe you could be crushed under the car of an elderly driver who has confused the brake and the gas pedal. While still small, your odds are a lot worse than mine.

    7. Re:wow. by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "Isn't this /.? Every day we get to read the hysteria about the "police state" and "big brother is watching", but for now it has been totally sublimated so that you can all hope this guy gets arrested for driving fast."

      No, it is wholly consistent with an attitude of self-interest (though perhaps not always enlightened). People here are against government surveillance because they do not wish to have someone (government or corporate) rummaging through their personal information and communications. People here are against this kind of driving because they do not wish to have someone (government or individual) risking their lives and livelihoods as they drive daily down the road. Most people here have to endure the reckless endangerment of such drivers on a daily basis.

      "Instead of giving up his dream, this guy did something about it and you all hate him for it."

      Ted Bundy had a dream, too.

    8. Re:wow. by twocoasttb · · Score: 1

      Maybe you're a libertarian wanker gone too far. Or maybe you're just stupid. The arguments you're complaining about have nothing to do with "giving up freedom for security". This guy didn't go to the library and read some books that the government finds threatening. He didn't go on the internet and read about explosives. He didn't publicly protest something he didn't like (risking getting photographed and cataloged). What he did was deliberately risk the lives of everyone he shared the road with on his 3000 mile odyssey of irresponsibility. He fully deserves the condemnation he's getting in this forum. You deserve a dope-slap.

    9. Re:wow. by neo-mkrey · · Score: 1

      It's amazing YOU don't get the fact that someone could have been killed by this asshole. A combination of skill and luck is all that prevented disaster. Yes -- I believe he should be arrested for endangering public safety.

    10. Re:wow. by stdarg · · Score: 1

      Comparing this guy to a murderer "living his dream" is dumb because, well, murder isn't defined as "risking killing someone" it's actually "killing someone". There's a difference between risk and fact.

      IF the Patriot Act actually ends up doing some good (I don't think so, but bear with me), then in reality all of the people protesting it will have, in hindsight, been a greater risk than this guy. IF the Patriot Act is ever shown to be good, even in a single instance, are you going to stand up and say "Hey guys you are free to give away your own freedoms, but don't give away MY freedom from terrorism!" Somehow I doubt it..

    11. Re:wow. by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

      It must be lonely in your world....

      The safety of others is on my mind when I drive. I guess that's what makes me a decent driver as compared to how I can imagine you drive. By your logic, looking out for pedestrians is not required, so what if you kill someone, if they were in the way they're at fault!

      The guy who hit me wasn't speeding, he hit me while I was waiting to merge on to a busy road. He was in a hurry, and didn't stop properly. Even still I could have been hurt, and the car I was in [fortunately not mine] was written off.

      I don't know about you but I lookout for more than numero uno when I drive. Sure I want to get places and avoid accidents, but not at the expense of others. I'd ditch my car, for example, before running over a pedestrian because I'm more likely to survive running into a ditch (the car may not) than a pedestrian getting hit by a car. And since the insurance would cover it anyways it's not the end of the world.

      Oh well, guess I'm just responsible...

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    12. Re:wow. by dave420 · · Score: 1

      The PATRIOT act has nothing to do with some guy risking the lives of everyone he passes from New York to Los Angeles. His freedom to undertake a whimsical, meaningless, empty, contrived, arbitrary, pointless endeavour should not trump the freedom of those around him to stay alive, as staying alive is a bit more important than driving your father's money down the highway. The reason I don't like the PATRIOT act is the same reason I don't like people endangering others. It's because they have a propensity to harm indiscriminately, or at least to harm the innocent. The PATRIOT act will hurt a lot more people than it'll catch, and Alex Roy is very lucky to have not killed someone, who, statistically at least, thinks driving like an ass down the road at 150mph. Unless Alex Roy sought permission from everyone he would affect, which is his right to do, then he has no business guessing that those he passes don't care their lives are being risked. And if he feels he doesn't need to, then he's some sort of grade-A cunt.

    13. Re:wow. by mungtor · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's not lonely at all in my world. I take responsibility for my actions and get generally positive feedback on it. Sometimes there's friction when I expect the same out of others, but more often than not there are no issues.

      So, speaking from your extensive experience of being hit at a stop sign by somebody who wasn't paying attention, you feel comfortable condemning a man who undertook extensive preparations for a risky venture where, ultimately, nobody was hurt. I'd think that being as risk-adverse as you make yourself out to be you'd be afraid of falling off your high horse.

      And get off the pedestrian kick too. We're not talking about doing 90mph through a residential area or a school zone. We're talking about 120+ mph on a multi-lane divided highway in an extremely capable car. I'd feel safer sharing the road with an M5 doing 130mph than a Suburban doing 80mph. Which do you think is better at making an evasive move?

      I can guess how you drive too, if you want to play that game. You're far too "careful" to actually make a decision and commit to it, which causes problems for everybody behind you, but you really don't notice. Most likely, the guy rear-ended you because you almost merged, thought better of it and slammed on the brakes, causing him to hit you because he was looking for whether he could merge. The law says he was at fault, but for all intents and purposes, you caused the accident. It's fun making assumptions.

      Anyway, I'm glad you think you're responsible. I think you're risk-adverse, which is not the same thing.

    14. Re:wow. by tomstdenis · · Score: 0, Troll

      Wow, defensive much? Maybe you're just rationalizing your poor driving skills?

      In my case what happened was I was merging right onto a road (with the little pedestrian triangle island thingy). There was a pedestrian crossing so I stopped before the lines, then after I stopped on the other side [like you're supposed to] to wait for the cars going straight to pass by. The guy behind me thought I was just gonna "gun it" [his words] to get in front of the car that was coming. Sadly, that's not how the law works, you yield right of way to flow through traffic. In either case, he should have been going slow enough to stop in a hurry. Most likely, he too was looking down the on coming lane and didn't see that I had stopped. In short, he was too impatient and not paying attention.

      Despite what you said, I actually commit to my mistakes. For example, if I get in the wrong lane, say I get in a turning lane by accident. I don't weave around to get out, I just take the turn like a man, then find a place to pull a u-turn and get back to the right direction. Similarly, if I'm too close to stop at a yellow, I don't slam on the breaks, I just keep up the pace and go through the yellow, etc.

      You can drive at the appropriate speed and not be an unsafe unaware driver. In fact, most people probably speed not because they're aware of the speed they're doing but because they just put their foot to the pedal and find whatever speed "feels right." I mean honestly, probably less than 1% of cars in the city use cruise control. Which is why their speed is rolling up and down all over the place. I on the other hand, have no problem using cruise control on about 95% of my trip into work (in city driving, over about 12km). Not only do I save on gas, but my speed is predictable which in turn makes me a safe driver not only through my actions, but because any aware driver around me would be able to predict my speed and actions as well.

      Again, this isn't about "can he pull it off". What if someone merged lanes inappropriately in front of him? Sure they'd be at fault, but at 140mph the accident will be a lot more fatal than it would at 65mph [or 55 whatever the limit may be].

      Believe it or not, actually I don't give a shit if you believe it or not, speed limits aren't to impose the mans will on the little guy. They're actually there for a reason. Until you can admit that speed limits serve a purpose, you shouldn't be driving on the road.

      That said, I too agree that in certain areas it's likely that a higher limit will be statistically indistinguishable in terms of safety as a lower limit. However, unless you change the limit or the law, that's not how to act. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should, and in many cases it actually doesn't matter. Speeding in the city, for example, usually does not get you any further ahead than people who do the limit [I know, I catch up to them all the time on my trips to/from work]. So why bother wasting the fuel and wear on the car accelerating to stupid speeds just to slam on the brakes at the next red.

      And on longer trips it rarely matters anyways. For example, to my brothers place is 494km. At the posted limits, it would take about 5h29m to get there. At 10 over [100kph] it would take 4h56m, and at 15 over it would all ttake 4h42m. Yet in reality, when I did the trip last at 105kph on cruise [where I could] it actually took about 5h20m anyways. Basically, at best, doing 10-15 over "makes up" for all the stop/go that happens around the cities where there are intersections. In reality, on that trip, you'd have to try and pull off like 120kph [30 over] to really make a dent in the ETA. At that speed, you're going way too fast [most sections are unlit, curvy, and through hills], and will get pulled over. So it's best to do the limit, or 10 over, and just take it easy.

      This guy was doing way more than a mere 18mph over the limit, when you start hitting 70mph over the limit that's just excessive, insane, and very dangerous [despite what he might have said]. Sure the car could take it, but the roads can't.

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    15. Re:wow. by stdarg · · Score: 1

      Unless Alex Roy sought permission from everyone he would affect, which is his right to do, then he has no business guessing that those he passes don't care their lives are being risked. And if he feels he doesn't need to, then he's some sort of grade-A cunt. This is exactly my point with the Patriot Act. Did you seek MY permission to protest against it? If I feel like it protects me from terrorists, then by protesting it you are actively seeking to hurt me without my consent.

      On the other hand I suppose you could say that our society tolerates political protest for the greater good even if it occasionally causes harm.

      Well, this just illustrates why analogies are good for explanation but not argument. :)
  87. It's like Rendezvous by Claude Lelouch by gregor-e · · Score: 1
    It's like the short film Rendezvous that was done in 1976 in which an unnamed Formula 1 driver does a speed run across Paris, imperiling groggy early-morning Parisians at up to 160 mph, careening around corners, driving the wrong way and blowing through traffic signals.

    I'm all in favor of one's freedom to perform reckless stunts like going over Niagara Falls in a barrel, but, like just about everyone else here, I'd like to see people who do stuff like this punished severely. No amount of self-glorification can justify putting others at risk. Indeed, it is placing others at risk that robs such deeds of all glory.

    1. Re:It's like Rendezvous by Claude Lelouch by fsulawndart · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sorry to burst your bubble, but that run was done in an old Merc S Class by a movie director. I doubt he reached anywhere near 160mph.

      http://fifthgear.five.tv/jsp/5gmain.jsp?lnk=401&featureid=790&show=s11e3&section=Consumer

    2. Re:It's like Rendezvous by Claude Lelouch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sonny, just getting into your car in the morning and driving slowly to work during rush hour is still endangering the lives of others. Maybe less so than the nutcase from TFA, but you still pose a risk. Moot fucking point.

    3. Re:It's like Rendezvous by Claude Lelouch by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Precisely. Anyone who admires this guy does so because he took a risk. But the other people on the road with him took an equal or greater, involuntary risk.

      Glory is in risking or sacrificing something of your own for a good cause. Risking other people for a useless stunt is called something else.

    4. Re:It's like Rendezvous by Claude Lelouch by Ayeffkay · · Score: 1

      Perhaps all the other people on the road combined took an equal or greater risk. But individually, other vehicles were only near him at "unsafe" speeds for a few seconds and fractions of a mile. He was near himself for 31 hours and 3,000 miles. If risk is measured in units over time or distance, they took only a small fraction of the risk he did. If it's not, then he took some untold number of risks to the one risk taken by each other motorist. Either way, that's far from the accepted definition of "equal."

    5. Re:It's like Rendezvous by Claude Lelouch by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter. Posing a significant risk to others without their permission in pursuit of a meaningless objective of your own is selfish, not glorious.

      I especially like the part in the video where they're flying down the highway in the rain and his copilot says "I can't see shit." Also the description of flying down the highway at night clearly overdriving their headlights and probably their thermal imaging system as well and "squinting to spot the deer that may end their lives."

    6. Re:It's like Rendezvous by Claude Lelouch by Ayeffkay · · Score: 1

      Words like "significant" and "meaningless" are pretty subjective. Smoking poses a significant risk to others, without their permission, in pursuit of a meaningless objective. You could say the same about any driving. Obeying a 25MPH speed limit driving past a park has a better chance of getting someone injured than driving fast on multi-lane highways. Does the 4 year old that runs in front of your car give you permission to hit him? Did you give him permission to make you swerve and hit the guy in the opposite lane? Why drive past a park anyway? There are always alternate routes. We could take public transportation, we could have communities where everyone parks in a garage at the edge of the neighborhood and takes a shuttle or even walks to their homes.

      If you watch the video on the first page of the article where it's raining, they show their speedometer at 73MPH, 20 below their average. It took them 4 seconds to pass a truck in the rain, which comes out to a difference of about 10MPH. The truck poses a much greater risk to other motorists.

      The deer that may end their lives only poses a risk to themselves, the deer, and other people who are driving 100+MPH. Which most of the comments here seem to support capital punishment for driving that fast anyway.

    7. Re:It's like Rendezvous by Claude Lelouch by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      In this case we have a nice measure. Society has enacted laws that say driving that fast is illegal, that is, society deems it an unacceptable risk for most objectives. Emergency services are allowed to drive that fast in some circumstances because their objectives have been deemed worthy of the risk by society.

      Since he's endangering the public in the pursuit of his "goal," and using a road system built and maintained by the same public, he has to play by their rules. Their rules specifically say that what he is doing is not acceptable.

      Relatedly, society has also, in most places, some fairly recently, decided that smoking is, in many circumstances, an unacceptable risk to the public. You are free to do so where the risk is entirely yours, but are not allowed to do so where that risk is shared by bystanders.

      There are communities that do as you suggest. They've made the decision that cars around their parks are not acceptable. Other communities have decided cars and parks are an acceptable risk.

      The truck may pose a greater risk to other motorists. It's transporting goods of some kind though, and using the public highway in a way that has been deemed acceptable.

      And to head off the inevitable criticism, last I checked the US was a democracy, supposedly the shining example of democracy, actually. If you think speed limits are unfair then go vote. If you get enough voters on your side they'll be changed. I believe exactly that happened in Montana. Otherwise, if you want to use public roads you have to obey the rules set by the public for the use of those roads.

      As for the deer, that's great if it's a deer they're going to hit. The point was they were overdriving their headlights. They could hit a broken down car, a pedestrian or somebody ELSE who hit a deer at non-fatal speeds. All because some rich kid decided he wanted to set a speed record and couldn't be bothered to find a track or head out to Nevada where the real professionals do such things.

    8. Re:It's like Rendezvous by Claude Lelouch by Ayeffkay · · Score: 1

      Speed limits aren't necessarily unfair, but they are written for the lowest common denominator. The guy whose car is loaded with those sensors, enhanced breaks, etc., and is focused on driving, is not the same kind of risk as the soccer mom on her cell phone doing the speed limit. The law is written for the unwashed masses, but not everyone is the same level of driver.

      Speed limits are not a rigid law either. Here in Pennsylvania, there's no punishment for driving up to 5MPH over the limit, and I routinely drive past speed traps on I-78 at 15-20 over, and occasionally am passed while doing so, without issue. I'm sure in some states there's zero tolerance for speeding, but not everywhere.

      I never really intended to defend this guy. I think it's cool that he broke the record, and with all the stupid crap going on in America, one guy driving excessively fast is not a big deal, but my morals may be different than yours. I just wanted to point out the math of comparing risks.

      I don't think the US has been a democracy of late, but that's a topic for another time.

    9. Re:It's like Rendezvous by Claude Lelouch by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      As for whether his "record" is worthwhile, the world authority on records probably doesn't think so. Doesn't your record attempt have to be performed legally (and usually safely) to be included in the Guinness Book of World Records?

      Speed limits may not be absolute, sure. Here you can go 10km/h over (and everybody does) and the cops won't stop you. On the other hand, if it's raining or foggy and you can't see they might stop you for going 20km/h UNDER the posted limit because the posted limit is a maximum, as conditions allow.

      This guy was going a LOT faster than the posted limit. His speed was certainly illegal and punishable in most if not all the jurisdictions he passed through.

      Brakes? Brakes? The best brakes in the world won't stop you much faster than the ones installed on your mom's Toyota. A little bit, maybe, but not much. Unfortunately we're all subject to the limitations of friction, no matter how much money we have. Most of his gadgets were for avoiding cops, not driving better. The thermal camera obviously didn't work all that well if his copilot was busy squinting into the darkness watching for deer. Not that a thermal camera will see over the crest of a hill or through the back of a semi anyway. If anything the fancy car and gadgets give him a false sense of security.

      Even if he's the safest driver in the world (which is unlikely -- he's a rich kid with no training who likes to drive fast) he's still on the road with all those soccer mom's who are NOT the best drivers in the world.

      If only there were a place where people could race and try and set speed records under controlled circumstances, with only other good drivers who have accepted the risk present. Hm....

    10. Re:It's like Rendezvous by Claude Lelouch by Ayeffkay · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what procedure is for the Guinness Book. It sounded like it was more of a personal accomplishment anyway. Not to say that he's not going to milk it for the notoriety, but the article set it up as a personal accomplishment.

      My point about speed limits is that they're written for idiots. Many people are capable of driving safely well over an arbitrarily defined limit. Many people aren't. Intelligence isn't a requirement for legally driving though, so speed limits are set below what's actually safe to accomodate them.

      Better brakes combined with paying attention and a low reaction time will stop you much faster than standard brakes, a cell phone in one hand and a pen and paper in the other.

      I've never been in an accident caused by my own inability to brake. I've had my car over 100 on public roads, but the only accident I've been in was going the speed limit in town (I was not at fault, for the record). I've avoided a deer at 4am at 90MPH on an unlit road, too.

      There's no place where you can set a cross country speed record under controlled circumstances. Even if there was a cross country race track, then it would take a lot of the skill out anyway and really would be a meaningless accomplishment.

  88. Why are you being difficult. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's assume the man is a "geek" and an "idiot." He falls into both of these classes.

    Either of the headlines you provided are accurate, but consider the following.

    Slashdot is a website for geeks/nerds/etc.

    Why would Slashdot post something relating to a man's idiocy, and not his geekiness.

    If I saw your idiotic headline, I would think, "Why is this news about an idiot on Slashdot."

    What is interesting about the story, with relation to Slashdot, is the technology he used, not his idiocy.

    Besides, your silly suggestion would have almost every headline contain the word "idiot."

    "Government outlaws downloading"? More like "IDIOTS outlaw downloading"!

    Generally, pejorative words aren't used in headlines, and in this case his stupidity is not at issue, it is his geekiness.

    1. Re:Why are you being difficult. by zig007 · · Score: 1

      Why would Slashdot post something relating to a man's idiocy, and not his geekiness. Exactly my point. :-)
      --
      Baboons are cute.
  89. -1 Non-Sense by dunc78 · · Score: 1

    How in the world did this get moderated interesting? As another person pointed out, all 31000 police officers aren't lined up on this guys route. A little common sense and personal experience should help people realize the parent post is non-sensical (spelling?). Say you average 1/4 the speed of this guy, how many have passed a cop every 14.8 seconds (on average), unless at a FOP lodge?

    1. Re:-1 Non-Sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      all 31000 police officers aren't lined up on this guys route.
      The writeup does say "about 31,000 along the way".
  90. Independtly Wealthy versus PMITA by nebulous_afterthough · · Score: 1

    So your independently wealthy. Guess that means auto insurance costs don't really bother you. Nor the occasional speeding ticket.

    However, how independently wealthy do you have to be to get out of PMITA when your cell mate Bubba takes a liking to your nice white bald head?

  91. Interstate Speeding and reciprocity by COredneck · · Score: 4, Informative

    One thing that has to be considered on cross country trips is the ramifications of traffic violations in the different states and what is does to your license back at home. Today, almost all states communicate with each other on traffic violations committed by non-residents. There are only 3 states in the Union that don't consider minor offenses from other states - CO, NY, PA (no points, no record - NY will assess points for Ontario and Quebec Tickets by special agreement). A few states (MD, WI, NV) will post the violation to your record but assess no points and most states will assess points for out of state offenses. Major offenses would be a different issue such as alcohol related. The offenses that could be written up include reckless driving and I am not sure how those states that don't assess points for out of state offenses would deal with reckless driving.

    There are a few states that treat speeding very harshly such as Virginia (automatic reckless driving over 80 mph or greater than 20 over the limit), North Carolina (over 80 mph or greater than 15 over the limit earns a form of license suspension) to name a few.

    Assuming Alex has a NY driver's license, he would not to worry too much especially if he has an attorney to plead down major charges. I myself have a CO license and have a share of out of state tickets but not doing something like 120 mph but doing something like up to 25 mph over the limit. In fact my last two speeding tickets were something like 10 mph over the limit in Missouri and Indiana. I have family back in the midwest such as Ohio, Indiana, Illinois so usually my tickets are received between CO and Ohio. We even got pulled over in Ohio for tinted windows.

    On the reciprocity part especially with today's computers, if you get your license suspended in a different state, more than likely, you will get suspended at home. Your name will be posted on the National Driving Registry/Problem Driver Pointer System (NDR/PDPS) if you get suspended by your home state or a differnt state. The NDR/PDPS would be a tool to prevent you from getting a license in a different state. For myself, I have points in Missouri for a ticket I got more than a year ago (May 2006). Some states in addition to reporting the ticket to your home state will also open up a point file on you as well. This can snare poeple like out of state college students. Ohio does this as well. My brother went to school in Ohio, held an Indiana license back in the early 1980's. Ohio at the time didn't report tickets to other states. He was a ticket away from being suspended in Ohio but he had a clean record in Indiana. I got a speeding ticket myself in Ohio back in 1986 right before Ohio joined the compact.

    Coming down the pipe unfortunately and the Real ID Act has something to do with this is the requirement that states communicate with each other - share databases. Don't know how extensive this will be yet since it is still being worked out. Another item is the Driver License Compact (DLC) and Non-Resident Violator Compact (NRVC) will be replaced by the Driver License Agreement (DLA) which is more harsher. The DLA will require states to share their whole databases not only with other US juridictions but also must share with Canadian and Mexican jurisdictions as well. In addition, there are no loopholes for blowing off parking violations unlike today with the NRVC. The sharing with foreign countries combined with identity theft was why the DLA was the most controversial element of the Real ID Act. The mandate for states to sign the DLA was removed from the final bill that was signed into law. Connecticut has signed the DLA and they will pull your license for blowing off an out of state parking ticket. In addition, some states don't like tinted windows

    1. Re:Interstate Speeding and reciprocity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My friend lost his CO license from two speeding tickets in NY and one in RI...

    2. Re:Interstate Speeding and reciprocity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did he pay the tickets or ignore them ? I you ignore them, then under the NRVC, your home state will suspend your license until you pay the other state. What CO Dept. of Revenue has told me is as long as you pay the other state and it is a minor offense (non-alcohol related), they won't assess the points and will not post you yor driving record. This is regardless if the violation is reported to CO or not.

    3. Re:Interstate Speeding and reciprocity by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      Sometimes I wonder why we even have "states" anymore. The Tenth Amendment has been worn down to nothing, the states are communicating more and more like they're all one government, and a vast majority of "services" are paid for through federal tax dollars anyway (unless the state "acts up" and doesn't do what it's told; then the dollars go away as punishment, but the residents of that state are still forced to pay federal income tax).

      I don't live in the "United States." I live in the "United State."

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
  92. Cannonball Run isn't new... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That movie has been out since the 80s, and guess what, it's based on real life contests like this...

  93. Hello Blackwater! by mkcmkc · · Score: 1

    It tests two things: being able to stay awake, and being able to break laws and get away with it. Here they are tearing across the country in a car filled with distracting devices, sleep deprivation, fatigue, driving at unsafe speeds near vehicles filled with normal people trying to get to work or school. Hmm. This sounds amazingly familiar, for some reason...
    --
    "Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
  94. cool by mrycar · · Score: 1

    This is pretty cool. Always wanted to do this myself. Have made some trips from Detroit to LA in 22hour and 26 hour attempts and found that taxing. Also made some trips from Bowling Green, KY to LA, Ca in 26hours.

    Definitely not easy, but sure a lot of fun.

    Kudos go out to this driver.

    --
    Gator/Claria is Spyware.
  95. Re:Wow, so many people bitching by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

    "Sounds more like an UNPROVED ASSERTION to me."

    No it does not. When you drive fast, you have less time to react. That is a fact and common sense. So what would you do if you were doing 100+mph and something suddenly jumped in front of your car? Like a moose or something. You might have been the worlds most attentive driver up until that point, but it would still do you jack shit. At those speeds you simply would not have time to react. At those speeds you simply would not have the time to scan your entire surroundings all the time.

    "The only poeple to die in one of these high speed thingies is a couple who ran a stop sign."

    Or it might be that they drove in front of the other car because they thought that it was obeying the speed-limit, instead of driving like crazy. Maybe they thought that the other car was driving sensibly and they would therefore have more than enough time ? And should we now say that "hey, these races are safe! Only two people have died so far!".

    "Other than that, they've proven to be safer than the average major highway on a holiday weekend with people doing the speed limit."

    Driving on public roads like maniac is safer than driving sensibly? Uh, OK... And before you say "a lot more regular drivers than racers die in accidents!". Well, duh! Three are maybe 1-2 racers for every 10.000 regural drivers! So is it any wonder that there are more regular drivers dying than racers? And that still does not prove that driving like a maniac is somehow "safe".

    --
    Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
  96. What ever happened to kids these days? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reading all these comments, I fear for our future. Bunch of nancy shit whining about breaking the law.

    Just for the record, it's people who push the limits - speeding, space, computers, whatever - that created this world we live in.

    Damn pansies.

  97. Re:And yet will all those gadgets... by madbastd · · Score: 1

    Despite all this rhetoric, he did it.
    At last someone gets it. The guy might be a rich irresponsible asshole, but he still had the balls to do it. To gazillions of car nuts he's now immortal. That's more fame than most of us will ever have.
  98. On the topic of "Speed Kills" by SpaghettiPattern · · Score: 1
    I saw he drove well over 74 Mph and most would condamn his actions saying slly things like I.

    Bollocks!

    This guy was driving carefully. Even takeing into account the rain he was in. Aso most half decent hghways can comfortably accomodate speeds up to 140 - 160 Mph for well serviced cars.

    If you care to know, I sometimes drive 150 Mph with my family in my family car. That's because I have a very decent (German) car that allows this and because when I do these speeds I drive in Germany on roads where this is egal. I take there is little difference between German and US highways in order to make 150 Mph not save in US.

    IMHO speed limits on highways are in most cases little more than taxes.

    In order not to be modded troll:
    • When it comes to driving in urban areas the question changes and speed limits tend to make sense.
    • Then again, speeding at night or on Sunday mornings in urban ares should be rated an anti social and not a criminal ofence.
    --

    I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
    1. Re:On the topic of "Speed Kills" by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      I take there is little difference between German and US highways in order to make 150 Mph not save in US.

      Ahahaha.

      I take it you have never encountered potholes large enough to swallow a (European) compact car whole.

      The interstates in best condition could probably pass as Autobahns, but not all that many are in that condition.

    2. Re:On the topic of "Speed Kills" by dave420 · · Score: 1

      The big difference between US and German roads is the relative speed of traffic. That's what's dangerous - when you have massive differences in speed of vehicles sharing the same road. One guy doing 150mph on a road where people are expecting it, at least as a possibility is far safer than doing it on a road where people are expecting folks to drive at 80mph tops (or 65, or whatever it is on that particular stretch). Speed limits on highways are taxes? So the difference between crashing at 70mph and 150mph is negligible? German roads are also engineered with the high speeds in mind - the slight banking on corners, etc.

      I would have thought someone with a family would know better than to endanger them, but I guess you learn something new every day.

    3. Re:On the topic of "Speed Kills" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the difference between crashing at 70mph and 150mph is negligible?

      Yeah, basically. If you crash at 70 mph, you're dead. If you crash at 150 mph, you're dead and you're paste. Is that such a big difference?

    4. Re:On the topic of "Speed Kills" by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      Yeah, basically. If you crash at 70 mph, you're dead. If you crash at 150 mph, you're dead and you're paste. Is that such a big difference?

      No ... as long as you don't care how many people you're dragging with you when you die.

    5. Re:On the topic of "Speed Kills" by servognome · · Score: 1

      . I take there is little difference between German and US highways in order to make 150 Mph not save in US.
      There is a huge difference, and that is the people behind the wheel. People in Germany know how to drive when they are sharing the road with vehicles going at high velocity, just as drivers in Philippines know how to drive when they share the road with people who don't follow any sort of traffic laws. US drivers put in those situations will do "stupid" things (eg get surprised by the car flying towards them and slam on the brakes) because they are not prepared to handle the situation. Add to that all the distractions the driver allow because they feel they know what is happening on the road, and there is a higher risk of traffic accidents.
      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    6. Re:On the topic of "Speed Kills" by sogoodsofarsowhat · · Score: 0

      Um no that is where you are wrong.
      It is not the max speed it is the fact that in America people lack the skill and training to drive at elevated speeds. Having spent time on the Autobahn they do know how to drive in Germany. Also the accident rates on the Autobahn are considerably lower than on the US Highway system even though we have more room and fewer cars per mile (or Kilometer - Thanks Discovery Channel!)

      So once again lets cover this. Americans are really bad about not paying attention while driving.

      So please dont post what you do not know about.

      And please dont bother responding from your iphone or treo or blackberry while driving down the highway.

      --
      . I love the sound of burning women and screaming rubber....
  99. It has everything to do with it. by hey! · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I agree you have to be careful about imposing your particular philosophy on other people, but I don't think it's true that being a geek as nothing to do with any moral philosophy.

    Being a geek (in the sense of the word we use it here) is more about values than anything else:
    • A geek values the pursuit of knowledge.
    • A geek values the acquisition of knowledge through direct experience.
    • A geek values the use of creativity to overcome challenges. Constraints? Bring 'em on.


    I should point out this point includes ethical constraints: it's a greater accomplishment to do something better than anybody else, whilst doing it ethically. In fact, making intelligent decisions about which constraints matter and which ones don't is central to being a geek. When I was a young, rule-breaking hacker at MIT, we had a rule -- or rather a sense of style -- that demanded we do dangerous things safely and illegal things responsibly. If we were some place we didn't belong, we didn't interfere with the legitimate users' activities. Leave the place better than you found it, or at least no worse.

    These values are not a moral philosophy in themselves, but they can inform whatever moral philosophy you subscribe to. Insofar as it is easy (observe the note of contempt here) to reconcile being a geek with being an ethical egoist, the particular stunt being done can be called a geek stunt. But it is not a hack.

    Eluding the authorities whilst doing a hack can add to its stature, but only if what you are doing is strictly reasonable. Otherwise there is a good chance that you're not a hacker, you're just a scofflaw. Scofflaws use technology to avoid the authorities too. It's not much of an accomplishment.

    Now, setting the record for crossing the country with the requirement that you don't exceed the speed limit even once -- that would not only be a hack, it would be an epic one. Naturally, you'd have to develop a technological method for documenting your feat, one that would convince a skeptical rival. That would be a hack too.
    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:It has everything to do with it. by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      I should point out this point includes ethical constraints

      This is the arbitrary part. Thank you for illustrating my point.

    2. Re:It has everything to do with it. by hey! · · Score: 1

      Ethical constraints are only arbitrary to the degree your ethical standards are arbitrary. My point is that ethical hacking is inherently better hacking according to shared geek values.

      I agree the ethical standards any individual applies to a hack depends on that person's moral philosophy. Of course it does. This is a far cry from saying that ethical constraints are arbitrary. That people can't agree on something doesn't mean it is arbitrary, although even if ethics were purely a personal and subjective choice, no person is obliged to admire a prank that he consideres immoral.

      One of the things we enjoyed as a college kid was going places we weren't supposed to be. This usually meant defeating locks, sometimes bypassing alarm and video surveillance systems. Some (perhaps more mature people) would consider trespassing fundamentally wrong, and so not see our pranks as hacks. We had a "do no harm" rule -- not only did we not damage anything, we didn't touch anything we didn't understand. Since our presence did no harm to the "victims", and benefited us with an interesting and rewarding experience, we thought of it as ethical and therefore a hack. Other unauthorized visitors might put graffiti in somebody's office or mess with their lab experiments. We'd consider that unethical, and therefore mere vandalism.

      The vandals might disagree with us, but they'd still be wrong. They might have a moral philosophy in which harm to other people doesn't matter if they are unable to prevent you from doing it. That's not so farfetched: many people actually think that way. However, I believe in most cases, people who think the harm to other people is an arbitrary factor are the ones being arbitrary. I've met plenty of people who think that way, but nobody who thinks that way then the harm is directed at themselves.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:It has everything to do with it. by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      However, I believe in most cases, people who think the harm to other people is an arbitrary factor are the ones being arbitrary.

      The point is that applying any moral philosophy (mine included) to the definition of geek-dom would be arbitrary, because that isn't what "geek" means. I'm not being arbitrary because I'm seeking to loosen the definition, not constrain it.

      Remember the exact text that I was responding to: To call him a geek is an insult to me and all other geeks i know of ...

      Geeks come in different flavors, and I don't think it's a stretch to say that there could be such a thing as a "reckless Geek."

      Personally, I'd never endanger myself by driving in the way that the article describes, but that doesn't mean that I renounce the man's geek-hood or anything. He's just a different sort.

      That people can't agree on something doesn't mean it is arbitrary ... The vandals might disagree with us, but they'd still be wrong

      Applying the words "right" and "wrong" to different philosophies is inherently arbitrary. The vandals could easily argue that they were "right" and you were "wrong." Those are meaningless words.

  100. No harm, no foul by srussia · · Score: 1
    --
    Set your phasers on "funky"!
  101. Well... by Acecoolco · · Score: 1

    You know they only have to average just above 87mph the whole trip...

    Radar, GPS - I have those (rx65, tt910), I think Alex has a few other cool toys too though :-)

    Josh

    --
    Just because it works, Doesn't make it right. - JTM
  102. Yes, But Is He Wearing A by aquatone282 · · Score: 1

    . . . diaper?

    --
    What?
  103. All the cool gizmos are fine...but... by PrimordialSoup · · Score: 1

    does his car have Linux ???

  104. Oh, for fuck's sake. by theonetruekeebler · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Hear, hear! I hope they jail the SOB. These people aren't rebels or pioneers, they're dangerous sociopaths. They shouldn't be on the roads.

    Since when does driving real fast qualify as sociopathy? And judging from the incredibly lengths he went to to defy authority while doing what he enjoys, yes, I'd say that at least in this domain he's very much a rebel.
    --
    This is not my sandwich.
    1. Re:Oh, for fuck's sake. by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Since when does driving real fast qualify as sociopathy?

      When it's putting other people at risk of death or serious injury so that you can enjoy youself. We're not talking about merely violating speed limits on an empty highway, which I've certainly been known to do myself; we're talking about weaving in and out of traffic inches from other cars, driving recklessly, hitting triple digits in downtown areas. These guys are a threat to the safety of other people, and should be locked up.

      The Wikipedia article on Antisocial personality disorder quotes the DSM diagnositic critera. Their actions definitely meet two of the them:

      • failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest
      • reckless disregard for safety of self or others

      Two others may be met:

      • deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure
      • lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another

      For a diagnosis of APD, though, there needs to be "evidence of conduct disorder with onset before age 15 years", and of course we don't know their childhood. (But the ICD criterea are a little looser, with conduct disorder at a young age being suportive of a diagnosis but not necessary.) But regardless of whether a clinical diagnosis is appropriate, it's certainly accurate to refer to the behavior as "sociopathic".

      It's no different than if I were to take my rifle and start shooting out of a window into a crowded street - even if I were aiming at inanimate targets, even if I were an expert marksman, putting others at risk so I can get my jollies is not tolerable behavior. You take your rifle to the range to shoot, you take your car to the track to drive fast.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    2. Re:Oh, for fuck's sake. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      are you a complete idiot or over 50 ? old people shouldnt be allowed on /. go talk to your shrink.

    3. Re:Oh, for fuck's sake. by rs79 · · Score: 1

      "The Wikipedia article on Antisocial personality disorder quotes the DSM diagnositic critera. Their actions definitely meet two of the them:
      failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest
      reckless disregard for safety of self or others

      Two others may be met:
      deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure
      lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another

      For a diagnosis of APD, though, there needs to be "evidence of conduct disorder with onset before age 15 years", and of course we don't know their childhood. (But the ICD criterea are a little looser, with conduct disorder at a young age being suportive of a diagnosis but not necessary.) But regardless of whether a clinical diagnosis is appropriate, it's certainly accurate to refer to the behavior as "sociopathic"."


      My daughter is doing psych and regails in telling me everything she's learned. Sociopathy is her favorite.

      You're way off base here. There's a long history of criteria that need to be bet in order to be qualified as a sociopath. Torturing animals while young and the lack of any ability to love are just two that are absent from this case, "doctor".

      As for "failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest" anybody that regularly speeds one mile over the limit or snokes pot has sociopathic tendancies?

      That's about one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. It would be more accurate to say "some perfectly notmal people so things that are one of the (7? 10?) DSM-IV diagnostic criteria of sociopathy."

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    4. Re:Oh, for fuck's sake. by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      Torturing animals while young and the lack of any ability to love are just two that are absent from this case, "doctor".

      I mentioned "evidence of conduct disorder with onset before age 15 years". A child torturing animals would fit that criterion, but is certainly not the only way to meet it. And as I mentioned, the ICD criteria don't require it.

      "Lack of any ability to love" is not one of the criterea mentioned in the DSM.

      As for "failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest" anybody that regularly speeds one mile over the limit or snokes pot has sociopathic tendancies?

      You can be arrested for driving one mile over the limit where you live? (Yes, in LEO jargon a ticket is an "arrest" but I assume the DSM refers to the more common notion of getting dragged off and put in a cage.) Similarly, smoking pot (or even getting a blow job, in some states) in the privacy of your own home is a crime but is so unlikely to lead to arrest that it can be discounted. Though if you go and smoke up on the steps of the police station for the thrill of it, yes, there might just be some faulty wiring in your brainpan.

      Getting involved in high-speed pursuits, on the other hand, is likely to and should lead to you being caged.

      It would be more accurate to say "some perfectly notmal people so things that are one of the (7? 10?) DSM-IV diagnostic criteria of sociopathy."

      Certainly that is true, indeed for the diagnostic criteria of almost any condition. (It's why people who study abnormal psych often start to wonder about their own sanity..."Hey, I do that..." And I'm not necessarily a huge fan of the DSM as the "official" arbiter of who is sane - after all, just a few decades ago homosexuality was a "mental illness".)

      However, some behaviors are more telling than others. Suicidal ideation is much more telling of clinical depression than disturbed sleep patterns. Reckless disregard for the safety of others, as these guys evinced, is much more telling of APD than breaking minor laws. It's appropriate to refer to suicidal ideation as "depressive", and it's appropriate to refer to reckless disregard for the safety of others as "sociopathic".

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    5. Re:Oh, for fuck's sake. by theonetruekeebler · · Score: 1

      For a diagnosis of APD, though, there needs to be (snip) For a diagnosis of APD there needs to be an evaluation by a psychiatric professional whose knowledge of the subject goes beyond what a Slashdotter can copy-and-paste from Wikipedia.

      Speaking of Wikipedia, look up clinomorphism for a brief introduction to this thread's favorite hobby.

      "Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors" isn't inherently sociopathic, particularly when the unlawfulness surrounds a specific activity or set of activities. A prostitute isn't a sociopath even if you can bust her a dozen times a night for loitering, solicitation, prostitution, trespassing, cruising, and whatever else an irate cop feels like pressing charges for. But if she's abused and abandoned her children, cut johns who refused to pay her after-the-fact upcharges, shoplifted, habitually borrowed money without repaying, smeared dog shit on her tattletale neighbor's front door, that's the pattern of criminal behavior this criterion has in mind.

      The second criterion you cite doesn't hold either: A trained and skillful driver who is soberly and attentively pushing his well-maintained sports car through traffic is not demonstrating sociopathic behavior. Tailgating somebody without passing them, or passing them then slamming on brakes, or forcing them off the road, or pulling up next to them and just staring at them for a few miles would be far more indicative of an antisocial personality than squeezing past them in the breakdown lane.

      Your third criterion fails because the only person he's trying to deceive is the police officer trying to catch him (his efforts to avoid detection show deliberation and forethought, atypical of the APD personality). Your fourth criterion fails because there is no evidence that he's hurt somebody in a way to show remorse for!

      I will say, with the same amount of diagnostic authority you have, that he has demonstrated an unhealthy degree of obsession with his goal of crossing the country by car in thirty-four hours. Just like Steve Fossett showed an unhealthy obsession with circling the globe in a balloon.

      Oh, and your firing-a-gun-down-a-crowded-street analogy is bogus: It equates giving somebody reason to think they are being shot at with giving them reason to think they are being overtaken by a fast car.

      --
      This is not my sandwich.
    6. Re:Oh, for fuck's sake. by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      For a diagnosis of APD there needs to be an evaluation by a psychiatric professional whose knowledge of the subject goes beyond what a Slashdotter can copy-and-paste from Wikipedia.

      Thank you, Captain Obvious.

      The doesn't mean we lay folk can't discuss the critera they use for such evaluation.

      A trained and skillful driver who is soberly and attentively pushing his well-maintained sports car through traffic is not demonstrating sociopathic behavior.

      "Pushing through traffic"? An interesting choice of phrase.

      Imagine if you will a footbridge over a gorge, with no rails on the sides. It's fairly crowded. I'm in a hurry and believe I am more important than other people, so I (soberly and attentively) start pushing my way through the crowd. I might push somebody off the edge, but hey, too bad for them.

      "Pushing through traffic" is no different than pushing through such a crowd. It's forcing your way through a group and putting them at risk.

      I've ridden with real trained drivers, folks who've done speedway racing. They certainly might exceed the posted limit if conditions were right, but they certainly aren't going to "push through" traffic and fsck over other drivers.

      Oh, and your firing-a-gun-down-a-crowded-street analogy is bogus: It equates giving somebody reason to think they are being shot at with giving them reason to think they are being overtaken by a fast car.

      The issue is not what people think the motivation is. Or if I took a bullhorn and annoucned "Hey down there, I'm not shooting at anyone, just having fun plinking on this crowded street, woo-hoo!" before I opened fire, would that make it ok in your mind?

      The issue is the risk at which non-consenting other people are being put so that someone can get their jollies.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
  105. Paris when it's speeding by xactuary · · Score: 0

    This reminds me of a film I saw once called Rendezvous made back in the seventies, I think. Some guy straps a camera on the front grill of a Ferarri and early in the morning heads through Paris at very high speed (running every streetlight) to meet a hottie on the top of Montmartre at sunrise. The sound of the gear changes and tire squeals as he winds through the city in a blur makes you almost forget how freaking dangerous it must've been for him and the pedestrians (although at that time of day, the streets are much more empty.) Check it out if you can find it.

    --
    Say hello to my little sig.
    1. Re:Paris when it's speeding by lazy_playboy · · Score: 1

      I think that footage was faked.

    2. Re:Paris when it's speeding by wattrlz · · Score: 1

      It was a Benz ('75 or '76 450SEL 6.9). He dubbed it with his Ferrari 275GTB after the fact. C'etait un rendex-vous

  106. He's saying you're silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    His point is a reasonable one that people overreact to perceived danger and underreact to actual danger.

    Lots of half-trained drivers pushing SUV's down the road while they talk on the phone and check their hair is an actual danger that you will encounter at least a dozen times on your way to work.

    A guy doing the cannonball? Your odds of encountering him are probably about the same odds as hitting the pick 6 lottery.

    So you tell me the real risk to you.

    Do you worry about being struck by a meteorite, too?

  107. Interesting by Epi-man · · Score: 1

    Reading the comments of outrage about this guy is interesting to me. When I was in college I would make 4 junkets from the Midwest to Texas, a trip of just over 1100 miles. I had a 1986 CRX, and I would fly. This guy was trying to do 2800 miles in 32 hours, averaging around 88 mph. In my dinky little CRX I was able to cover my route in under 16 hours once. Needless to say, I was breaking the speed limit, but I was on interstate most of the way, with little traffic. I was cruising just shy of 90 mph most of the time, and only stopped to gas up at my pre-determined spots. I of course tripped my triple digits on the long bridge in LA (and only when no one else would be in the way). My average speed, nearly 70 mph (this is in the early days of the national 65 mph speed limit). Was I endangering everyone else on the road? No more than the other people running in the 80s, some would even say less given the small vehicle I was driving. At least I wasn't like the kids would paced me for a while in MO and held up their bong just before exiting (I assume offering me a hit, I'll pass, I actually had somewhere to be).

    I have no doubt this guy isn't driving intelligently, but I certainly don't think the speed limits imposed on our interstate system are anything more than a money grab. Safety isn't why legislatures have passed them folks, it's all about the green. If you want to talk about dangerous drivers, talk about those that don't respect the "left lane is for passing only" law (in some states, should be a law in all states if you ask me), talk about those who are going over 80 mph on the loops in the cities, talk about those going 50 mph on the loops in the cities, talk about the cell phone users, leave the long distance, sparsely populated highway, fast drivers out of it.

    1. Re:Interesting by miasmic · · Score: 1

      I wish I could mod this up - I mean in other countries than the US, for example South Africa, the speed limit is much higher - 130kph, which is I believe about 80mph, and in the UK although 70mph is the limit on the motorway, that's really the slow lane speed and cars in the fast lane generally do 80-90mph except in speed camera areas, and that's perfectly normal.

      What I don't like are the boy racers that drive round towns and cities in crap modded cars doing burnouts and crashing into kerbs - the open road is the place for driving fast - and not the freeway/motorway, but on empty backroads. I live in NZ and nearly every road here is an empty back road, many are very twisty, but most are well surfaced with wide, cambered corners and markers that indicate the severity of bends, and most of the year you frequently don't see another car for 10km at a time in more remote areas. The average driver in NZ would be seen as a lunatic in the US or UK, and driving fast (ie on the verge of losing traction on every corner) on public roads is not frowned on like in other countries. Foreign tourists in rental cars frequently cause queues 20 or 30 cars long behind them on more windy roads where overtaking is difficult in the busiest months of the summer, and on the quite common gravel roads that leave the highways here they can be extremely dangerous, locals generally drive fast, maybe on average 80% of the speed of the same road if it was tarmac, and they'll come round a corner and there will be a foreign tourist in the middle of the road crawling along doing 20kph, very hairy.

  108. Re:Wow, so many people bitching by Yosho · · Score: 1

    You're 100x more likely to be killed by some retard running a red light because they're talking on their cellphone than you are to be killed by a trained driver going at high speed on a deserted road in a carefully prepared and well instrumented car.

    Got any statistics or research to back that up, or are you just saying that because you feel it in your gut?

    --
    Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
  109. unsafe but not uncommon by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 1

    There are tons of street races and drunk drivers on the road, since this guy actually had his faculties about him and was essentially a professional race driver, It shouldn't be considered as horrible for what he did, not that it wasn't extremely dangerous. I'd rather see more of him on the road vs. 10,000 drunk drivers after the big football game. I've had fancy cars pass me at 120 mph on the highway, and as long as they pass w/o hitting anyone, i'm more or less indifferent. It's the drunk, on drugs, randomly swerving, way too tired, hopelessly distracted, etc drivers who cause these guys (and everyone else) to wreck.

    --
    stuff |
  110. What these idiots don't get... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is that the moment the radar or laser beam hits your car, your speed has already been measured. Too late to hit the brake pedal at that point!

    Those detectors are a waste of money.

    1. Re:What these idiots don't get... by trongey · · Score: 1

      I believe the idea is to catch the stray emissions when they're tagging other people so you know ahead of time.
      But, yeah, if it's 2am and there's not another car within a two miles you're pretty much screwed.

      --
      You never really know how close to the edge you can go until you fall off.
    2. Re:What these idiots don't get... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its called finding a rabbit and works well. try http://radardetector.net/ for all your rabbit fantasies.

    3. Re:What these idiots don't get... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jammers.

  111. 4 hours by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wish i had known there was a record for this. My friend and i drove 2800 miles in 36 hours. Prescott, AZ to Providence, RI. We were only 4 hours off and we had no special equipment. 3 people, 2 dogs, 1989 Saab 9000 turbo.

    1. Re:4 hours by bkr1_2k · · Score: 0

      Exactly. This is a non-story. The guy didn't do anything special except draw attention to his racing team by making a big hype out of a ridiculously easy "record" to break.

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    2. Re:4 hours by jlgolson · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ah, that must be why it's stood for 22 years. Let's see you do it.

      90 mph average from NY to LA? Good luck.

    3. Re:4 hours by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

      I think it's stood for 22 years because most people wouldn't even consider bothering to do it. As for me doing it, no thanks. I have far better things to do with my time. I know people who've done very close to this speed, multiple times so no biggee. As I've said in other comments, talk to any member of the US military and you'll hear stories about people doing similar things fairly regularly.

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    4. Re:4 hours by hhawk · · Score: 1

      You could probably go 110 mph from the edge of NJ to Nevada but with all the sprawl in NY, NJ and Cali the rest of the trip would take a life time ;)

      --
      http://www.hawknest.com/
    5. Re:4 hours by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      If you want to speed in Nevada, you can do it legally at this event:

      Silver State Classic Challenge http://www.silverstateclassic.com/

      or in Las Vegas:

      Las Vegas Motor Speedway Midnight Madness http://www.lvms.com/news/strip_news/514740.html

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    6. Re:4 hours by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      > Prescott, AZ to Providence, RI. We were only 4 hours off and we had no special equipment. 3 people, 2 dogs, 1989 Saab 9000 turbo.

      ...and no Los Angeles or NYC traffic. Don't get me wrong, that's a damn good drive, but there's a reason the record stood for 22 years.

  112. Re:Wow, so many people bitching by fractoid · · Score: 1

    "deserted road". Capiche?

    I'm not condoning the guy speeding excessively in traffic, or in a built up area.

    --
    Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
  113. The best defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He should just go ahead and paint his car like a police car and add some lights and sirens to it. Though instead of New York State Police or Ohio State Police he would need something like Current State Police painted on the side of his car.

  114. Re:And yet will all those gadgets... by Khazunga · · Score: 1

    You've never seen an M5, much less driven one. It's perfect engineering on four wheels. While Porsche places a very high quality bar, I would not place the M5 any lower. It's German auto-engineering at its best.

    --
    If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you
  115. Thanks, kdawson! by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

    Thanks for posting this! There's nothing like a little attention to stroke the ol' ego and encourage more behavior like this!

  116. Rant & Sponsors!? by PeterChenoweth · · Score: 1
    I'm a car guy. I can totally appreciate wanting to drive your modded M5 at autobahn speeds. It was designed for that. That car can run at 130mph+ all day long. It is, frankly, an automotive masterpiece. Very different than some kid with a fart-can on his Civic. But the US Highway system is not the place for this. Enjoy the art of driving fast and well where it belongs: on the track. It's a lot more enjoyable there anyway, and you don't have to have all those electronic doodads floating around the car. What he did/does is dangerous, illegal, and dumb. Bragging about it in the form of 'broken records' and YouTube videos is a slap in the face to every law enforcement agency in the country. I guarantee that they will be watching and waiting for him. Frankly, he's lucky he didn't get his precious bimmer blown off the road by a semi. I've traveled the highways enough with a CB to know that truckers frequently do not take kindly to crazy antics like this 'in their office'.

    How does he possibly have sponsors for this? From that photo you can clearly see 'T-Mobile' and 'Meguiars' stickers. Many others that you can't quite see from the photo. I don't understand that. If they're actual sponsor decals, what in the world were these companies thinking in sponsoring an illegal activity like this? What's next, Coca-Cola branded cocaine smuggling cigar boats? If they're not actual sponsors, then what's the point of having the decals? Is this guy so starved for attention and praise that he's just another 'ricer' but with a big bank account? The 8-ball says, "Signs point to yes".

  117. Re:Wow, so many people bitching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just curious - what are your thoughts about base jumpers who jump from buildings or towers in a city. (Like the Space Needle in Seattle). If their chute doesn't open they could land on someone. Even if their chute opens, they are still a risk to people on the ground as they have to worry about missing powerlines and traffic more than pedestrians.

  118. Re:Wow, so many people bitching by stdarg · · Score: 1

    If you go 60mph and something suddenly jumped in front of your car, you will still probably have an accident. Doesn't really make a difference. People get hit in parking lots when they step out suddenly and drivers couldn't see them. The key, like you sort of said, is reaction time. But let's stop pretending that every human has the same reaction times in every situation. If you believe that people can learn their own limits

    The couple that died, if you read some of the other comments and links, really did run the stop sign. The person who hit them was only going 6mph over the speed limit (pretty normal). The victims' family went to court on the driver's behalf to prevent them from going to jail, because the situation was pretty clearcut.

  119. Honor thy nick by srussia · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    But regardless of driver training, nothing can prepare you for some idiot coming up behind you at twice your speed.

    I'm sure you've survived many instances of an idiot coming up behind you at an INFINITE multiple (divide-by-zero error) of your speed.
    --
    Set your phasers on "funky"!
  120. Re:And yet will all those gadgets... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While I tend to agree about German cars being good for all day high speed runs. The Italian cars are pretty good also, as long as you don't care too much about comfort (although I agree about British cars). For example my 1978 Ferrari has the fuel usage (mpg) in the manual at 100 mph, and I was able to make an 1100 mile run in under 16 hrs without driving too fast.

  121. That's nothing, this is impressive... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...resulted in the Taylors successfully circumnavigating 28,970km around the globe across 25 countries, in 78 days of driving, with only 24 fill-ups and 1,303 litres of fuel. They achieved an average of 22.2 km per litre and surpassing all expectations.. The Taylors used a completely standard car -- a VW Golf FSI1.6 --
    http://www.shell.com/home/content/sg-en/news_and_library/press_releases/2006/fuel_economy_formula_0709.html

    This guy is small-time compared to this couple.

    Few, if any, vehicles (including hybrids) can beat the Golf's fuel economy.

    I regularly used to make a 1500Km drive in my 1.8L GL in 16 hours with similar mileage.
  122. Challenge is more important than safety by athloi · · Score: 1

    Lighten up, Slashdot. Put away your moralizing Nanny State do-gooder hats for just a moment.

    What he did rocks. It rocks because it was a challenge realized, unlike just showing up for his day o' cubicle like the rest of us. He rose above and took on something that for whatever reason seized his imagination.

    That's a more spiritual, more intelligent, more meaningful way to live.

    You're just pissed because you're in a cubicle. I know because I used to have the same impulse. Now I think the spirit of the action is more important.

    Like most great challenges, this one was self-regulating because hitting anyone would really have slowed them down. 5 years of jail time and 32 hours of driving won't break a 32 hour record.

    1. Re:Challenge is more important than safety by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Oh please. There are lots of actual worthwhile challenges, that don't endanger other people.

      If breaking a silly speed record on public roads is your idea of a more meaningful way to live you need to get out more. I suspect you think this rocks so much because YOU'RE stuck in a cubicle.

      I started hang gliding a few years ago. You do everything you can to make it as safe as possible for yourself but you NEVER, ever, endanger the public. Ever.

      Breaking a speed record under controlled conditions on the salt flats? Way to go. Doing the same thing on a city street? Idiot.

    2. Re:Challenge is more important than safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hear fucking hear! Many things done by regular joes are far more dangerous to others than what this guy did - and they are unplanned 'hey watch this' moments. Slashdot is confusing this guy with street ricers, and you cry-whiners really need to get some juice in the balls. No wonder the Constitution is a goddamned piece of paper, and YRO sees more stories everyday with all these rollover-saftey-first-lockstep-geeks. sheesh.

  123. Somewhat dangerous, and arbitrarily illegal by hottoh · · Score: 3, Informative

    Until I see the video I will give them the benefit of the doubt about being safe. Many people think driving fast equates to being irresponsible. It is not that simple. Sure the risk is higher the faster you go, but how many of you have driven well over 100 mph for 100s of miles.

    Theoretically they could have completed this in a mini van. The obstacle was not traffic it was being caught. The rules they broke are arbitrarily set, and the parent poster is short chill-pills. IMHO, does not warrant a felony.

    Many years ago in most western states the speed limit was 'reasonable and prudent.' The capabilities of the automobiles in the 50's to early 60's were just awful. 4 wheel drum brakes, bias-ply tires, and poor suspension.

    Point is when the limits were highest the cars ability to brake, turn and stop were the WORST. Driving faster than the current speed limits is not harmful.

    Montana defined 'Reasonable and Prudent' - now history
    http://www.us-highways.com/montana/reasonable.htm

    1. Re:Somewhat dangerous, and arbitrarily illegal by sammyo · · Score: 1

      > Driving faster than the current speed limits is not harmful.

      True (in some cases), but when there is an accident, leaving is irresponsible and a crime. \

    2. Re:Somewhat dangerous, and arbitrarily illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Many years ago in most western states the speed limit was 'reasonable and prudent.' The capabilities of the automobiles in the 50's to early 60's were just awful.

      Oh yes. The good old days. Back when traffic accidents were the leading cause of death in the United States.

  124. Speed limit you can't udnerstand ? by aepervius · · Score: 1

    Well there are many I can. The 30 kph limit ? Are you in a neighborhood with kids ? See I can find reason. Speed limit of 30 on top of a climb ? You might not be able to see what's behind the climb. Go with 70 kph, and the cyclist which is behind get stamped. Go on 30 kph and you have time to brake or slow down or take him over. 30 kph where inhabitation are ? I lived near a place where 80+ kph was allowed. Needless to say there was NEVER a silence even at night. Then they reduced it to 50 kph on the freeway in the middle of the city, and 30 kph on the exit. That was a blessing. I bet you just started fuming at the 30 kph sign, without even trying to check why it is there.

    Furthermore to all those which say that the speed limitation are there to get money from driver , that is on par with 9/11 truther. True there might be a very minor percentage of speed limit sign which are not readable (I would be surprised if it reach above the 1%, for all i drive I ever saw 2 of those). But the majority is clear and way ahead enough of the zone. The truth of those which say they have to pay ticket and fume at those sign cropping up, is that They are too dumb to udnerstand that jsut by slowing down under the limit they will not pay a fine. See I showed you a way easy enough to avoid paying a fine ! Slow down under the limit ! Incredible isn't it ?. You don't like it ? write traffic authorithy. But Nothing give you the right to speed over the limit and endanger the other. IMHO speed limit fine are yet not hefty enough that people feel entitled to break them.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:Speed limit you can't udnerstand ? by syylk · · Score: 1

      "Freeway" as in:

      o) Forbidden to pedestrians. Actually, with very tall (2+ mt) metal and plastic fences. You'd have a very bad time trying to materially cross the road.

      o) Forbidden to cyclists/light bikes and scooters (under 150 cc).

      o) No perpendicular crossroads, only smooth joins and exit ramps.

      o) No traffic lights whatsoever.

      o) At least two wide lanes + emergency lane.

      And yes, the actual road is within, say, 30 mt of my condo outer wall. Noise CAN be a problem, but the benefit for the whole city far outweighs the inconvenience of inhabitants, who KNEW about the freeway when they bought their homes. NIMBYes don't belong here.

  125. Question the law by Nicolay77 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The speeding laws are outdated and only serve to let the police reach their weekly quotas. It is the police who keep them outdated.

    In more logical countries it is not illegal to drive fast, but it is illegal to tail-chase other cars. This has shown to reduce accidents much more than speed-limiting laws, as tail-chasing is a very dangerous behavior, but simply speeding is not.

    The next time when you drive slow enough but are tail-chasing the car in front of you ask yourself if you're not a reckless driver, just because the law says so.

    --
    We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.
    1. Re:Question the law by macduffman · · Score: 1

      You make an interesting claim. Do you have any data to back it up, or do we just have to take your word for it? I'm all about saving lives on the road, so if you can show us some data, I'm behind you 100% on this one.

      --
      Don't cry "Oust Bush," cry "Restore Freedom!" Don't support a candidate who isn't doing anything to unravel Bush's web.
    2. Re:Question the law by Nicolay77 · · Score: 1
      From:
      http://www.spangdahlem.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=4207

      On the German Autobahn you need to know your geography in order to find your way around. The directions are not listed as north or south, but rather what is the next major city in the direction in which you are heading. Germany is the only country in Europe that does not have a speed limit for many stretches of its Autobahn. Most of the time, however, there is a speed limit, usually 130, 120 or even 100 kilometers/hour. When driving on the Autobahn, keep in mind that the left lane is for passing only. You can be fined for driving in the left lane if you are not passing. Although you will see a lot of it, tailgating, flashing lights, turning on the left turn signal and wild hand gestures are forbidden.

      The speed limit for driving within the city is 50 kilometers/hour. Many cities and smaller villages have residential areas with a speed limit of 30 kilometers/hour. Remember that at most intersections you cannot make a right turn on a red light, unless a green arrow sign pointing to the right is displayed. About accidents:

      From http://www.collegetermpapers.com/TermPapers/Speech/Life_in_the_fast_lane.shtml

      Highway deaths did go up when speed limits were raised but overall
      deaths on all roadways stayed the same. That is because more people
      used the highway. The highway with higher speed limits attracts
      drivers from the slower roads.

      On the Autobahn only motorized vehicles with an maximum speed of more
      than 60 km/h are allowed, no pedestrian, no bikers.
      As there are fences on both sides no animals and no pedestrians can
      enter the Autobahn.
      Therefore accidents with non-vehicles are very rare.
      --
      We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.
    3. Re:Question the law by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      If you really think that driving fast is not in any way dangerous, then you must not know much about physics.

    4. Re:Question the law by Nicolay77 · · Score: 1

      That really depends on how fast you mean by 'driving fast'.

      20% above max in straight and well maintained roads?

      Twice the max speed in sinuous and heavily transited roads?

      Without context your assertion is meaningless.

      --
      We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.
    5. Re:Question the law by The+Raven · · Score: 1

      If you're tailchasing the car in front of you, you ARE a reckless driver. Just because someone is slow doesn't mean you should be sniffing their trunk with your grill. You won't get there any faster by being that much closer.

      I don't mind when people speed... they can go as fast as they like, for all I care. As long as they don't tailgate. Unfortunately, the two are commonly found together. Speeding isn't inherently that dangerous, especially on an open road... tailgating is. And speeders become assholes when they speed have the audacity to be MAD at the people that don't.

      I support your desire to go any speed you like. But if you're on my tail, 5 feet from me, gnashing your teeth that I'm not going fast enough for you, by god I'll park myself next to a goddamn semi and see that you don't pass for the next 30 miles.

      --
      "I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
    6. Re:Question the law by macduffman · · Score: 1

      Thanks.

      --
      Don't cry "Oust Bush," cry "Restore Freedom!" Don't support a candidate who isn't doing anything to unravel Bush's web.
    7. Re:Question the law by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      In more logical countries it is not illegal to drive fast
      Where specifically? And are the roads any good?
      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    8. Re:Question the law by Ihlosi · · Score: 1

      Where specifically? Germany. And are the roads any good? Picture-perfect, and smooth as a babys butt. Paid for by outrageously high taxes, but at least it's tax money put to good use.

  126. Woo! by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

    Fight the man! Just one arrest is a slippery slope into SLAVERY! If you support public safety, you support the TORTURING OF INNOCENT SUSPECTED TERRORISTS! People should be allowed to drive as fast as they want! Anything less is UNAMERICAN should be UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

    See? You're not the only person who can blow liberal caution out of scope, proportion, and context.

    --
    You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
  127. Previous Alex Roy road trip: Bentley vs. FedEx by TrebleJunkie · · Score: 1

    Automobile Magazine had a write-up a few months back of a previous roadtrip of Roy's, attempting to beat a package overnight from New York to Miami:

    http://www.automobilemag.com/features/great_drives/0703_fedex_jet_vs_2007_bentley_continental_gtc/index1.html

    It's a funny read, the author has a hilarious writing style.

    --

    Ed R.Zahurak

    You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.

  128. Re:And yet will all those gadgets... by P3NIS_CLEAVER · · Score: 1

    Ever been to the 24 hours of Daytona? The pits were littered with blown BMW straight sixes by the end. A 911 won.

    --
    Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!

    http://financialpetition.org/
  129. American sense of "speed" by Joce640k · · Score: 0

    I always laugh when you see those police chase videos and they say things like "he's doing 80mph!!!!!".

    And if somebody manages more than 100 they all have heart attacks, but only something like a "Corvette" could possibly do that...

    This guy tries to average 90mph in an M5 and everybody is up in arms over it.

    The USA has very low expectations of what a car can do. I blame the crappy suspension they put in their cars, that and all those top-heavy SUVs which roll over and kill everybody inside if you clip a curb or try and use the steering wheel.

    A modern BMW M5 can do over 200Mph, and do it in reasonable safety. 125 mph in an M5 is completely safe (other idiot drivers notwithstanding). 90 mph in an M5 is so far within the limits that it's boring.

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:American sense of "speed" by KylePflug · · Score: 1

      It's not the cars, it's the traffic and conditions. I've had my Corolla up to 110 and my friend's old Camaro over 130-140...

    2. Re:American sense of "speed" by Surt · · Score: 1

      The higher your speed, the higher the probability that a tire blowout due to a metal shard you can't see on the roadway will kill someone. It really is that simple. We accept a certain level of statistical risk for convenience, and we are unwilling to allow for that risk where it really starts climbing up the steep curve. This is not rocket science to understand. The debate about speed limits is all about where we are willing to trade risk for convenience, and people in the US are more risk averse (which also explains much of the preference for larger vehicles).

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    3. Re:American sense of "speed" by markov_chain · · Score: 1

      You need to appreciate just what it means to *average* a certain speed. Think about any time you drive slower, and think about what it takes to compensate. For every hour he spends in stop-and-go, he'll need to drive an hour almost twice the average to make up. Now tell me how many places in the US you can go 180mph?

      --
      Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
    4. Re:American sense of "speed" by dgatwood · · Score: 1
      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    5. Re:American sense of "speed" by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The USA has very low expectations of what a car can do. I blame the crappy suspension they put in their cars, that and all those top-heavy SUVs which roll over and kill everybody inside if you clip a curb or try and use the steering wheel.

      A modern BMW M5 can do over 200Mph, and do it in reasonable safety. 125 mph in an M5 is completely safe (other idiot drivers notwithstanding). 90 mph in an M5 is so far within the limits that it's boring.


      Ahh, another day, another idiot who presumes that "doing 200Mph safely" has anything to do with your car.

      First off, the M5 is electronically limited to 250kph, like most European vehicles that can go that fast.

      Second, stopping distance is proportional to the square of speed. Your reaction time is not.

      People who claim that driving at 125MPH is safe don't understand the problem. The problem is not whether or not you can control the car. The problem is what you do when something unexpected happens.

      I blame the crappy suspension they put in their cars, that and all those top-heavy SUVs which roll over and kill everybody inside if you clip a curb or try and use the steering wheel.


      Considering that a pretty good fraction of our cars are manufactured in Korea, Japan, or Europe, I'm not sure what you mean by the "crappy suspension" that "we" put in "our cars". Wake up. Volvo, Jaguar, and Land Rover are owned by Ford. Until recently, Daimler owned Chrysler.

      90 mph in an M5 is so far within the limits that it's boring.


      This expresses everything that's wrong with your attitude. You are driving on a public highway, putting everyone else at risk by the very nature of you being there. Good drivers cause crashes. Bad drivers cause crashes. You are not so skilled that you could not screw up. Even F1 drivers screw up.

      This is the LAST place where you want to be testing the limits of your vehicle. And if you do screw up, it will be far, far worse if you are going 125MPH.

      Note that this driver AVERAGED 90 MPH. Considering that he had to stop for gas and other necessities, he must have been going faster than 90 MPH for a fair portion of the trip.

      I am so sick and fucking tired of these arguments. Somehow, it's always the OTHER drivers who are the problem. Somehow, YOU are "skilled" enough to drive excessively fast (note that over the limit doesn't necessarily mean excessive). Perhaps YOU have never made a mistake and caused an accident. That's not the point. Perhaps someone else will make the mistake. Perhaps you will slip up. IT HAPPENS FAR MORE OFTEN THAN YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADMIT.

      We design and operate airplanes with significant safety margins, so that people don't die when mistakes or failures happen. The same logic should apply to motor vehicles.
    6. Re:American sense of "speed" by d3vi1 · · Score: 1

      You've got to be kidding me. I must honestly say that I've never seen (even on the news) an accident caused by a tire blowout. Mainly because WE DON'T USE INNER TUBES ANYMORE for at least two decades (I am not talking about bikes and trucks).
      I did see once a Honda Accord that was driving a little faster than the car that I was in (we were at 105 mph) and it's tire deflated and was torn to shreds, but the driver didn't even realize until he looked in the side-mirror because the car kept going in the right direction at the same speed. That being said, there is a _HUGE_ difference between the quality of the tarmac in the EU zone and the US. In the EU there are no bumps and cracks and the whole road foundation is leveled a lot better, the turns are wider (except the milan-genova highway in italy, near genova) and the lanes are wider as well.

      --
      UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever ones.
    7. Re:American sense of "speed" by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      I agree. As much as I like cars and motorsports, there really is no excuse for speeding on public roads. It's selfish, plain and simple, and no amount of deluded "but I'm a good driver" thinking excuses it. If you want to race, find a track. Or if you just can't help yourself, at least keep it to deserted roads in the day, under good conditions, where any fuck-ups are much more likely to just harm yourself and perhaps a poor farm animal.

      One thing I've noticed is that many of these drivers have never had a real incident; unless you have lost control of a car many times, you won't have the same reflexes as a WRC driver.

    8. Re:American sense of "speed" by Stray7Xi · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between responsible speeding and excessive speeding. You can speed and be courteous if you pass on left, proper lane changes, proper following distances and don't go at speeds so much faster then the flow of traffic that others can't safely react.

      Now people like in the article and the Great grandparent... well their cars should be impounded and auctioned off to help pay medical expenses for the victims caused by that kind of behavior.

      I find drivers are a good way to access a persons personality (provided they are not a new or inexperienced driver). It shows the consideration that someone pays to strangers. Obviously its a generalization thats not always true. But I'd much rather be in a business relationship with someone that waves a pedestrian to cross ahead of them then someone who cuts off another driver. Cautious drivers afraid to pull out in traffic may have trouble making hard decisions. Plus see someone get cut off and you can see how they react, do they take it in stride, do they go into a fit of roadrage? But you can't get that kind of insight into a person when it matters usually.

    9. Re:American sense of "speed" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't usually watch those shows, but I always remember this one scene that I watched when flipping through the channels.
      A police car was chasing some kind of sports car (forget what it was) on a freeway in light traffic and says:
      "He's going over 90! This guy is going to kill someone!" And I thought to myself, "If I was running from the police in that car I would be doing way more than 90."

    10. Re:American sense of "speed" by d3vi1 · · Score: 1

      Considering that a pretty good fraction of our cars are manufactured in Korea, Japan, or Europe, I'm not sure what you mean by the "crappy suspension" that "we" put in "our cars". Wake up. Volvo, Jaguar, and Land Rover are owned by Ford. Until recently, Daimler owned Chrysler. And the irony is that the 2008 Ford Focus sold in the states is 2 generations behind the one in Europe, the Ford Mondeo (the car in Casino Royale), doesn't exist in the States, and most of the Fords sold in Europe have Diesel engines, and pretty good ones too. I don't think that American cars are crappy (except for the sports cars, which are simply lame), but I do think that the cars sold in the United States (regardless of origin) are crappy. Compare the Toyota Avensis with the Toyota Camry, they share the same platform, but the difference is huge.

      I've always wondered why on earth do American cars have 3,4,5 or even 6 liter engines, but after a trip to the gas-station I found out: the octane numbers for gas in California are 87, 89 and 91 (and in some places 93 seldomly 95). If you stop at _ANY_ gas station in Bucharest you will see 95, 98 and 99 or 100. In the manuals of most cars I've seen it says that you should use gas at least 95, preferably 98.
      --
      UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever ones.
    11. Re:American sense of "speed" by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      've always wondered why on earth do American cars have 3,4,5 or even 6 liter engines, but after a trip to the gas-station I found out: the octane numbers for gas in California are 87, 89 and 91 (and in some places 93 seldomly 95). If you stop at _ANY_ gas station in Bucharest you will see 95, 98 and 99 or 100. In the manuals of most cars I've seen it says that you should use gas at least 95, preferably 98. Sorry, you're not taking into account that the US and Europe use different systems to measure the octane numbers:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_number

      US 87 octane regular corresponds to European 91 octane regular, 89 to 95 and 91 to 98.

      But in Europe most cars run on 89/95 stuff with some (especially the FSI/TSI/whatever direct injection engines) even requiring 91/98, while in the US basically everyting runs on regular.

    12. Re:American sense of "speed" by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      First off, the M5 is electronically limited to 250kph, like most European vehicles that can go that fast.
      With bikes at least in the UK the limiter kicks in at 186 mph (300 km/h) but it's piss-simple to derestrict. Apparently.
      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    13. Re:American sense of "speed" by definate · · Score: 1

      Second, stopping distance is NOT proportional to the square of speed.


      http://phors.locost7.info/contents.htm

      I've never heard of an accident resulting purely from speed, I have heard of accidents resulting from poor judgement. Good drives, I define as having good judgement and experience handling at the speeds they do.

      Good drives slow down where they can not (within reason) assure safety, for them and the other motorists.

      If you read the article, you can see these guys were majorly on the lookout, slowing for rises and similar. These men made the trip safely, they obviously exercised good judgement throughout the trip, and were obviously safe throughout the trip.

      The example you show of your friends and their baby, is an example of bad drivers, they made an action with poor judgement.

      If other people made bad decisions based on their driving, that is NOT their fault. Since poor decisions can be made at any speed, would you always place the blame on the indirect person, who drove safely?
      --
      This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  130. What I'd like to see by johnkzin · · Score: 1


    1) a non-6 page version of this article whose summary tells me whether he did it, and what his time was

    2) a version of this race that has the following modifications:
          a) a device with GPS and car monitoring sensors put in to keep track of everything the car does during the race; disabling or tampering with the device is a disqualification.
          b) going more than 7 MPH over the posted speed limit is a disqualification.
          c) getting any moving violation other than a speeding ticket is a disqualification (speeding is covered by the previous rule, which will be caught by the monitor).

          Now tell me how long it took. This isn't the "grandma" version of the race, this becomes a race about navigation, finesse (how you get yourself through unexpected traffic jams, anticipating traffic problems, researching your route for construction problems, etc.) instead of raw speed. I'd find that much more interesting.

    1. Re:What I'd like to see by wattrlz · · Score: 1
      1. He did it in 31:04 Slideshow.
      2. That sounds uncannily like "Open Road" style rally rules ( www.openroadracing.com )
  131. Something I've always wondered about... by wattrlz · · Score: 1

    If breaking the speed limit is so dangerous, how come, in the states, they only give out speeding tickets towards the end of the month, presumably when they need money?

  132. Yes there is (OT) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There must be a safer way to compensate for your small penis than endangering people on the highway across the entire USA.

    Yep, their is, it's a new trend too. It's called Fite Pipes .You drive around making a lot of noise, many even drives them with earplugs.
    Wake up your neighborhood stating to everyone "I have a small penis". Show exactly how small by the amount of noise!

    PLEASE spread the word, with these kind of people, humiliation is the only solution!
    (Sorry, I moved recently and did not had a good night sleep in months because of these)

  133. Here in Spain that's mostly what happens... by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    I drive about the same speed as everybody else. In town town that's about 50mph, on the autovia it's 80-90mph.

    Common sense rules, and the police aren't too anal about it - I never saw anybody stopped for speeding in town and I've been overtaken when I was doing 125mph on the privately-owned autopistas which go between cities.

    (...though they too seem to be looking at revenue generating speed cameras for the autovias lately, hope they don't go the way of the rest of the world with this one).

    Speed isn't the issue, it's idiot drivers. I've driven in the USA and I think long hours on freeways with automatic gearboxes and cruise controls seems to produce more of them than the survival-of-the-fittest driving which goes on in Spain.

    eg. After about 10pm here I can (and do) ignore red lights. The reason it's safe is because *everybody* ignores the red lights so we're all actively looking out for other traffic instead of blindly relying on the signals. The only red lights I pay attention to are the ones at major intersections where there's *always* traffic going through.

    --
    No sig today...
  134. Blackwolf by Jaxoreth · · Score: 1

    it's dark(wolf the dragonmaster)
    That's Blackwolf the DragonMaster to you, mortal!
    --
    In general, it is safe and legal to kill your children. -- POSIX Programmer's Guide
  135. Then he got threadjacked. by Corwn+of+Amber · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Go, friend! Please don't kill anyone while driving, it would make you look bad, and you'd lose precious time.

    Frankly, that old "speed kills" line has to disappear into oblivion, fast. Here in Belgium everybody drives like a maniac, nobody cares, and we don't have more accidents per capita than in the US.

    Slowing down cars helps no one, it only creates bottlenecks, frustration, and a slowed country with a slow economy. Responsible people know how fast they can drive in what area so as not to damage anything or injure anyone, simply take into account every possibility at every crossroads and you'll never crash.

    Learn how to drive safe, you'll drive faster.

    --
    Making laws based on opinions that stem up from false informations leads to witch hunts.
  136. volunteers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you think that was pure blind luck or that I am a pretty good marksman? At the first shot, you wouldn't have known that I'm that good so you would have been really worried. But after the 20,000th successful shot, you would (hopefully) think "Gee, I guess he's really good, therefore the first shot wasn't as dangerous as I thought."

    Um, no. Actually I would probably be shitting my pants wondering why I just got shot at 20,000 times. Oh, wait, I guess you're assuming I was a knowing volunteer and/or participant in this apple shoot... kinda completely unlike all the other drivers on the road who wouldn't be expecting some jackass to do something dumb like... ya know ... illegaly passing in the rain at high-speed using the pull-off lane. Oh, but he knew what he was doing, because gumballers never screw up, now do they? 20,000 shots don't mean anything if the 20,001st caps somebody in the brainpan. So far he's been lucky, because experience would dictate not driving like a moron under fatigue and poor road conditions. There are plenty of experienced/professional drivers driving rigs, and even they can suffer a momentary laps or circumstance which ends badly.

  137. He may be driving at 100mph... by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    He may be driving at 100mph...but I bet he's actually looking out of the window, not using his cell phone, putting on makeup and all the other stupid things that your imaginary "safe" drivers are doing.

    I'd feel far safer on a road full of people who drive fast but pay attention to other drivers than what's currently out there.

    Fast != dangerous.

    Not even slighty.

    I'm not saying that there aren't idiot speeders, or that idiot speeders aren't more dangerous than normal idiots (they are). I'm saying this guy isn't one of them. Go direct your misguided anger somewhere else.

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:He may be driving at 100mph... by Surt · · Score: 1

      Fast != dangerous.

      Two words: tire blowout.

      Fast == dangerous. The kinetic energy involved means that if something goes wrong, your odds of killing someone go up (worse than linearly) with fast.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    2. Re:He may be driving at 100mph... by rs79 · · Score: 1

      "Two words: tire blowout. "

      Three words: Run flat tires.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    3. Re:He may be driving at 100mph... by Surt · · Score: 1

      Those will continue to 'function', but without training, you may still suffer significant loss of control, and at high speed, that may mean death for the person driving next to you.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  138. Surprised by nEoN+nOoDlE · · Score: 1

    I'm surprised at the moral outrage 90% of the posts here display. I'd much rather have an alert 30 year old professional driver going 130 past me that knew what he was doing then some 17 year old in her mom's minivan with a cell phone glued to her head. Those people are quite a bit more dangerous. As an aside, Will Wright won the US Express in 1980 - a similar feat but not as fast. Here's an interview with him for the documentary they're doing about this trip.

    --
    Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
    1. Re:Surprised by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "I'd much rather have an alert 30 year old professional driver going 130 past me that knew what he was doing
      unfortunately he can never know what anyone else is doing.
      See the problem?
      Not that I care, I've done the 80 at 150.
      He isn't really doing anything cool either. He can't beat aircraft.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  139. Re:He's saying you're silly by zippthorne · · Score: 1

    Yes, but he's not putting the people outside his path at risk. You shouldn't be looking at the aggregate odds of encountering a super-fast scofflaw. Those odds are always going to be low for as long as ditsy drivers in comically large (grr. Avalanche. How many times have you tried to kill me) vehicles vastly outnumber more conventional sociopaths. It's the odds of being in an accident after finding yourself in his path that counts.

    The question is not how much risk he put people in general in. The question is how much risk he put a very small subset of drivers in: the drivers near his time-space worldline.

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  140. He's a geek. by paladinwannabe2 · · Score: 1

    Many geeks have lots of money- science and engineering positions tend to pay pretty well. With money, it's possible to buy fast cars and attract women. Next you'll be telling us Bill Gates isn't a geek because he's rich, married, and wears a suit.

    --
    You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
    1. Re:He's a geek. by Score+Whore · · Score: 1

      I keep seeing people use the word "geek" outside of it's traditional circus meaning of the dude who bites the head off live chickens. What is this idea that "geeks" are some kind of computer experts? Shouldn't Richard "Pedantic" Stallman be here bitching about the abuse of the language?

  141. I think there;s a better way.... by Joce640k · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The best way to break the record is to forget the gadgets and have a team of drivers who drove half a mile in front of me to spot/distract the cops.

    It's not as cool... but it'd be fastest.

    The USA is far too anal about "speed". Speed isn't the problem it's moron drivers, and highway driving in SUVs with auto-everything is the best way to produce them.

    In Spain we drive through the center of town at what Americans would think of as "highway" speeds and nothing happens because we're used to it.

    PS: Check this video of Team Polizei's encounter with the Italian police - the Italians have a healthy attitude towards driving.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbbtK90LZ9E

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:I think there;s a better way.... by jcuervo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Speed isn't the problem it's moron drivers Of course. But speeding tickets make money.

      </tinfoil hat>?
      --
      Assume I was drunk when I posted this.
    2. Re:I think there;s a better way.... by KudyardRipling · · Score: 2, Interesting

      First, there are too many lawyers per capita in the USA.

      As for the scouting method, there was an idea floating around in the mid 1980's called playing football with cars or caterpillar tracks. Communications would employ modified CB radios with voice inversion, sideband channels above CB but below ten meter amateur. A train of vehicles each separated by fixed fractions of a mile the sum of which would be in the order of miles. The vehicles travelling at posted speeds would scan for Road Nazis(TM) [guess which US state I'm from. Hint: The only one where DWI is not a criminal offence for fear of jury nullification]. When all is clear, the vehicle in the back of the train would speed up to overtake the first of the train and assume the lead until the next one arrives. Should activity be detected, the speeding traffic would merge into the posted speed traffic. Nowadays, cell phone jammers in each vehicle would be used to surpress ratting motorists nearby.

      --
      Submission as evidence constitutes plaintiff and/or prosecutorial misconduct.
    3. Re:I think there;s a better way.... by atamido · · Score: 1

      Speeding tickets make money in some isolated areas where the pay to the officers is very low and the speeds are very high. In most areas speeding tickets cost significantly more to produce and prosecute than they bring in.

  142. Karma to burn by DirkGently · · Score: 1

    I don't remember what it says in the profile when your karma isn't "excellent". Time to find out.

    Why am I not surprised that the majority of the comments here are personal outrage?

    This guy did something that was BOTH wreckless and utterly effin' cool. These things aren't entirely incompatible. Anyone remember James Dean?

    Okay, he greased himself in his Porsche. Bad example.

    BUT maybe you can still get my point. Should he endanger others on the road, blah blah blah? Of course he shouldn't have. If you set down your righteous indignance and stop to read, TFA was about setting a record. Doing something that, because of our increasing nanny-stateness, would likely be impossible to attempt again, let alone beat. And he did it with style! Thermal imagers! Jammers! Mil-spec gyroscopic binocs! By all accounts, he's done such drives before; he's logged tens of thousands of miles of experience in avoidance driving on open roads. And I'm certain that he and his codriver knew that mistakes would make the kind of mess best cleaned up with a hose. Roy is not some kid with a poorly tricked-out import and 3 years of driving experience.

    Get down off your high horses; I'm sure plenty of you are getting saddle-sores. Fer chrissake, a couple of the "that's so illegal" comments I read had the HD-DVD encryption key listed in their sigs. So if you are the type to commit selective rebellion, you have to admit to yourself that, even just a little bit, it was still really effin' cool.

    --

    I keep trying to pick fights, but I can't shake this Excellent karma.

  143. Re:What an ass - and penises by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

    There must be a safer way to compensate for your small penis than endangering people on the highway across the entire USA. And there must be more dignified ways to compensate for your small penis than by writing off his cool accomplishment by questioning his manhood just so you can feel better... what's your point?
    --
    Bow-ties are cool.
  144. Not Defending Him But... by BigAssRat · · Score: 1

    I would probably rather have someone PAYING ATTENTION but going faster than the speed limit on a highway, than some jackass NOT PAYING ATTENTION, and going over the speed limit anyway, and talking on his cell phone during the whole trip!

  145. Mediocrity rules...NOT! by spaceyhackerlady · · Score: 1

    What's wrong with you people?

    This guy is obviously f**king nuts, but without the nutcases to show what's possible and make things interesting, the world would be a far duller place, and a far poorer one too.

    Harumph!

    ...laura, who occasionally indulges in nutsness, just not this particular kind

  146. A true "idiot" lane... by digitalsolo · · Score: 1

    Here lies the problem with all of these arguments; speed limits are set to the lowest common denominator by necessity. If they set the limit on the higway at say 70 mph (the limit around here), that means they have deemed it safe for soccer Mom with no avoidance skill and horrible attention span and reflexes in a 4500 lbs SUV to travel at that rate of speed. They are also stating that it is only safe for me, with professional driving experience and a high level of alertness, driving a 2500 lbs car with performance suspension, brakes, tires and tuning to travel at 70 mph. If it is safe for me to travel at that speed, it should be safe for her to travel at a maximum of, say, 50 mph, since even with equal reflexes and ability her vehicle will not be able to maneuver or stop in anywhere near the distance my vehicle can. Add to this her (or he, let's not be sexist) inability to pay attention and 2-5x longer reaction time, and she should be at 35 mph. Perhaps a sticker on the plate and a seperate idiot lane is necessary, or, conversly, a special tag and a high speed lane for those with the vehicles and ability to handle ourselves. I'm not saying that these guys are right for what they did, merely an all encompassing "speeding will kill others, you inconsiderate bastards" is entirely too knee-jerk of a reaction. Welcome to reality, it's complicated.

    --
    Just another ignorant American.
  147. they made it through OHIO?!?! by Budgreen · · Score: 1

    That is a major accomplishment in itself!

    Having lived here almost my whole life I know how bad the cops are here, state highway patrol is EVERYWHERE, especially so much on the turnpike that it looses huge amounts of truck traffic to side routes, so they are concentrated there as well. purely amazing and I give them major props for making it through!

    --
    The greatest right given is the right to be wrong...
  148. Interesting Fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When the interstate system was designed, one of the requirements was that X percent of it be straight and level so that military planes could land on them if necessary.

    1. Re:Interesting Fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, but only if X=0. LINK

  149. Re:And yet will all those gadgets... by Wolvie+MkM · · Score: 1

    ??? A M-Fcuking-5 ISN'T??

    After taking your foot out of your mouth please go learn more about this machine! It's an M series, it's built for this.

    --
    I Like Pie...
  150. There's prior art. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too bad for Roger Penske that he didn't apply for a patent on the Cannonball Baker Sea-To-Shining-Sea Memorial Trophy Dash.

  151. Other objects exist on and near roads ... by fantomas · · Score: 1

    "
    In more logical countries it is not illegal to drive fast, but it is illegal to tail-chase other cars. "


    I can't speak for the USA but in many other countries we also don't have such a car-centric model that seems to dominate a lot of Americans thinking. Roads are shared with cyclists, public transport, and pedestrians, and roads have pavements (sidewalks) alongside them which might have a number of users that need protection from the minority of car drivers who are complete idiots.

    "Simply speeding" is in itself dangerous when driving a car in these shared environments. You may be the best driver on the road but thank you very much, I don't want you driving at 90mph past primary schools, old people's homes, etc.

    In the UK folks are talking about dropping the urban speed limit from 30mph to 20mph because of the numbers of lives it will save. Getting hit at a ton and a half of steel at 30mph far increases the chances of death over 20mph. Plus the lower speed gives drivers more time to take evasive action/hit the brakes etc when somebody walks out into the road without thinking.

    1. Re:Other objects exist on and near roads ... by MDiehr · · Score: 1

      Very good points. In a shared environment it's definitely in everybody's best interest to have much slower speed limits. I think the key point is that traffic of different speeds needs to stay separated in order for it to be safe. For example mixing pedestrians and cars requires the cars to travel much closer to the speed of pedestrians.

    2. Re:Other objects exist on and near roads ... by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      You also likely live in a small country. Do you have highways where speeds upwards of 80MPH are possible that are being shared with bicycle/pedestrian traffic?

    3. Re:Other objects exist on and near roads ... by Maltheus · · Score: 0

      In the UK folks are talking about dropping the urban speed limit from 30mph to 20mph because of the numbers of lives it will save.

      I assume you mean kilometers per hour. Or are you still on mph like the US? My car hits 20 mph in neutral, just from the engine vibrations, and that's just a civic. Most cars can't even accurately report speeds this low, so it's almost impossible to comply with such a law.

      As for lives saved, I'm sure the stress that this will cause will lead to far more stokes and heart attacks in the long run than it will save pedestrians. As Homer Simpson would (correctly) say, "but millions will be late!" Seriously though, why stress out millions to save the lives of a few idiots? I thought us Americans were the only ones who didn't believe in Darwinism.

      Yep, with story after story like this, the UK are the only countries in worse shape than the US. And that's saying a lot.

    4. Re:Other objects exist on and near roads ... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I can't speak for the USA but in many other countries we also don't have such a car-centric model that seems to dominate a lot of Americans thinking. Roads are shared with cyclists, public transport, and pedestrians, and roads have pavements (sidewalks) alongside them which might have a number of users that need protection from the minority of car drivers who are complete idiots.

      The discussion was solely of those that wanted to travel fast. As such, they would remain on roads with few, if any, stop lights and intersections. Such roads in the US do not have sidewalks or pedestrians, and cyclists are often outlawed as well. Public transport is rarely, if ever, on these roads outside urban areas. There is almost no public transport between cities, only within them.

      In the UK folks are talking about dropping the urban speed limit from 30mph to 20mph because of the numbers of lives it will save.

      Dropping the speed limits kills. What happens is people are trained that laws are stupid. Most people drive the speed they think is safe. Some people choose to obey a limit set below the reasonable limit. When you take a properly set limit (there are engineering principals for setting them, rather than political), then lower it, you will decrease the speed of some people, and not affect others. That will result in a less uniform traffic pattern, decreasing throughput (worsening mileage, thus pollution and increasing travel time), as well as decreasing safety by the increase in crashes. Lowering limits below the properly reached limit has only ever been found to decrease safety. But no one cares about what the science and statistics say about traffic safety. They think "slow is safe" and petition for lower limits, even though they themselves are speeders breaking the law.

    5. Re:Other objects exist on and near roads ... by rs79 · · Score: 1

      The UK, Yurrup and are different. In Yurrup you can drive for three hours, always be in "a small town" and go through three different countries.

      Here in Ontario you can drive for three days and still be in Ontario. Drive another day and you get to the next provence. It'll take you a week to cross the country.

      Well, MOST people, anyway.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
  152. I have beaten this several times. by John+Sokol · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Roy is attempting to break a legendary cross-country driving record known to most people as the Cannonball Run. The time: 32 hours, 7 minutes, set in 1983 by David Diem and Doug Turner.


    I grew up in New Jersey just 14 Miles from NYC. But have lived in California since I turned 18.

    One thing I have alway found is anything above 120 Mph and the cops would turn on their lights and just disappear into the distance behind me.
    When I was in High School in New Jersey we used to do this regularly to mess with the cops on Interstate 80, We would even pelt them with eggs as we passed them doing over 120Mph.
    Just in case we had also taken some other measures such as the ability to monitor and jam police radio's.
    I also had a US WW2 surplus Super high power flash tube designed for night airial photography.
    This was capable of igniting a news paper near by, we placed in the rear window, fortunately never got to try it in traffic, but at the top of Garret Mountain facing New York City we could make the whole skyline light up. Let's not mention the bowling balls, super balls, and oh yea and the rail road flairs.

    Ok, So maybe I/we were a bit out of control..

    After I moved to CA, every year I used to take I-80 the whole distance to NY and back, to visit my parents. Always flat out pedal to the metal.

    On my first trip I easily beat this record with a 30 hour driver using a beater. 1979 Mercury Montego Station Wagon with a souped up engine in 1987. I was hitting a top speed of over 150 Mph. The started motor didn't work, so I couldn't even turn off the engine because we'd never get the car started again.
    I had stopped to rest with the engine idling a few times so some time was lost there.
    In Nevada I was ticked for doing 130Mph, The same cop had chased me from Elko to the CA boarder, when I made the mistake of slowing down to 40 to appreciate the incredible view just before the California Boarder. I had even stopped in Reno to get some gas.
    Photo from that trip right after cop ticketed me. http://www.dnull.com/~sokol/images3/welcome.jpg

    My best time was 28 hours from Redwood City California to New York City around 3000 Miles in a 1990 Nissan Sentra in 1992, while listening to Ozzy's Mama I'm Comin Home. My wife has just left me and went back to NJ and I was a tad upset at the time.

    The other big trick is to pick times that avoid rush hour when passing through larger cities.

    --
    I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso
  153. No offense to anyone. by wattrlz · · Score: 1

    In one respect traffic cops are like roaches: for every one you see there're fifty or so you don't.

  154. They should try that here. by wattrlz · · Score: 1

    Around here when they confiscate your car they sell it at auction and pocket the profit.

  155. Civil Disobediance - Stop the crypto-taxation! by spidey3 · · Score: 1

    While the participants in this stunt definitely seem reckless, in my opinion this is a wonderful example of civil disobediance.

    The fact is that most speeding regulations are just a form of crypto-taxation, in which artificially low speed limits are used as tools to enrich local governments (through assessed fines) and pad the profits of insurance companies (through point-triggered increases in premiums).

    Further, there is plenty of evidence out there which shows that lowered speed limits do NOT actually reduce road-related fatalities. See http://www.motorists.org/speedlimits or http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/home2.html for references.

    The prudent action would be to remove rural speed limits in most cases, and set speed limits at the 85th percentile speed in other highway cases. Urban and residential speed limits, however, should remain in force.

  156. He's a contender by CAPSLOCK2000 · · Score: 1

    I assume you are talking about the Gumball.
    You might have heard that someone was killed during that event earlier this year.
    That was done by this guys team, Team Polizei. Look them up on youtube or something. They made a few hilarious videos, but in the end they are just very stupid and very irresponsible.

  157. Thanks for the correction by RingDev · · Score: 1

    Interesting, it would appear that enforcement of that law would vary depending on the circumstances. My sister managed to roll her car when she was a new driver. This was before the wide spread adoption of cell phones, and it was the middle of winter in Wisconsin. She managed to flag down a passer-by and got a ride back to the house and called the cops. I know she got one heck of a tongue lashing for leaving the scene, but in the end they gave her an 'illegal right hand turn' for rolling her car 3 times into some farmer's field, and another ticket that I had thought was for leaving the scene. Thanks for the correction though.

    Out of curiosity, do you know what the average punishment for leaving the scene is? I would assume points/suspension of license would be automatic, but is there a minimum fine and/or possible jail time?

    -Rick

    --
    "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    1. Re:Thanks for the correction by hawk · · Score: 1

      From a very southwest-centric view:

      No injury, charges might well be dismissed, or a modest fine; jail unlikely without aggravating factors.

      With an injury, the victim is very likely to want the person locked up; for anything but a modest injury, completely escaping jail time is unlikely. For moderate injuries, it's likely to be county jail time (say, 30-90 days), rather than state prison ( over 365 days).

      When I was hit and run on my bicycle, the driver behind me stopped to help me, rather than pursuing the scumball. I'd been thrown 20 or 30 feet. The helmet died to save my head, my laptop screen was fractured (back when it was nearly a grand to replace a b&w screen), the diskette knocked *into* alignment, and I limped for months.

      hawk

  158. 31,000 is a big fat exagerration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I drove LA to Detroit via the southern i-40 route in 3 days. Saw at most a DOZEN highway patrol cars along the way. They are most prevalent along the north/south route starting in Tenessee. I managed 110mph across New Mexico all the way to Texas, with maybe 3 cops along the entire route. After that, they are everywhere and people seemed to drive way slower. :-/

    BTW here's a tip for avoiding getting caught speeding along the i-40 : Truck drivers have a signaling system. The first trucker who sees a cop ahead taps his brakes 3 times. The truck behind him sees that and does the same thing, etc etc. I caught on to that and knew to slow down. Sure enough, every time, severa; seconds later, there was a highway patrol on the side of the road.

  159. Race Safe by h4ck7h3p14n37 · · Score: 1

    I agree with you that people driving fast cars usually know how to drive them while that soccer mom in the SUV will gladly cut you off while yakking on her cell phone and sipping her Starbucks and not even notice she's done it.

    What happened that we are so afraid to test our boundaries?

    While I'll admit to driving 100+ in my Firebird Formula on the Chicago expressways when they're empty, doing so in the middle of the day with commuter traffic is just plain stupid. Many of the drivers on the road are in the wrong lane, don't signal before changing lanes and don't check their mirrors or blindspots. They'll eagerly pull out in front of someone doing twice their speed and get creamed. I can only hope that the driver mentioned in the article cools it around traffic.

    If you want to test your boundaries, then join the Sports Car Club of America (SCCA) or one of the other organizations. Get your physical, buy some safety gear, attend driver's school and qualify for your novice license. Get a car that can pass technical inspection and then have at it with the other drivers. If you don't have the money to burn on a car, then go out for track days in your daily driver. Some of the tracks that I frequent will let drive during lunchtime on race weekends. So long as you can handle yourself and aren't endangering other drivers, the corner workers and control typically let you go as fast as you can.

  160. Re: depth perception at night by evought · · Score: 1

    Why do you lack depth perception? I've only got one working eye and my depth perception past six feet is fine. You don't use binocular vision for depth perception past six feet. You use it for things like threading needles or leaping at prey. It is quite common for people to have problems with depth perception at night because you cannot use binocular vision at distance and you lose many of the visual cues you have during the day. In fact everyone loses most of their depth perception under certain conditions at night, particularly involving moving bright lights. This is a particular problem in archery where a traditional challenge is to shoot a candle in darkness or semi-darkness. You have to have a powerful bow to keep a very flat trajectory since you cannot adequately judge and compensate for the distance.
  161. Envy by uspsguy · · Score: 1

    I read as many of the comments as I could stomach and came to an obvious conclusion: most of the negative comments are comming form Slashdotters who are simply so envious of somebody actually pulling off the tirp that they can't even thing straight any more. Get back in your tired old Geos and let the rest of the world have some fun.

    --
    Profanity - The sign of a small mind trying to express itself.
  162. Re: depth perception at night by spun · · Score: 1

    Interesting. I can see how this would be the case, though I haven't noticed a loss of depth perception at night. Moving bright lights would throw off the occlusion and parallax cues. Color intensity changes due to depth would be nonexistent at night.

    Interestingly enough, our brains have so many specialized circuits for recognizing individual human faces that faces are one of the most important depth cues. The brain knows how big a face is, and can therefore instantly judge the distance.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  163. The world isn't your fucking playground by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    what would I do if involved in a fatal accident in a 3rd world nation?

    Quit whining, and take some responsibility for your actions? You made the stupid decision to race in the third world nation, with full knowledge that racing is a risky venture.

    The world isn't your fucking playground, rich boy.

    You want to race on a closed racetrack? Fine, that's between you and the racetrack.

    You want to race down my street? Fuck off. I'll hold you responsible for your actions.

  164. From TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At the core of his plan are his beloved spreadsheets. Roy, with help from a car-crazy former New Jersey transportation department employee named J. F. Musial, has spent months loading Excel documents with the coordinates of all-night gas stations and open stretches of highway and weather projections -- hundreds of data points arranged on an x-y axis, so that any deviation can be recalculated on the fly. Just remember 65,536 !really= 100,000 OK?
  165. Re:Wow, so many people bitching by rs79 · · Score: 1

    It's no that simple.

    First, I've hit 3 deer that came out of absolute nowhere. One at 50 one at 80. You're fucked either way. Note that 50 was *below* the speed limit where I was.

    The claim that speed kills is an appeal to amotion. There's plenty of cases where you don't need speed to be dead. I live on a busy highway and I've seen people pull away from my place without looking behind the,

    Even going the speed limit 45 mph here, a tandem traier logging truck is gonna ruin your day. He can't react, move or stop.

    If it was my mum (oh, wait, it was) I'd rather have a safe high speed driver doing 140 barrelling down on her inattentive ass than a logging truck doing under the speed limit. The beamer can go around her.

    Again, in spite of all your rhetoric the safety record of these rallies speaks for itself. There's only been one fatality when a porsche going 6 miles over the limit wiped out an old guy who ran a stop sign.

    When yoy run a stop sign onto a highway you can be killed just as easily by a civic doing the speed limit, it was just happenstance that that it was a gumballer. An frankly he'd have a better shot at going around the idiot that ignored the stop sign than you or I - having a more responsive car and faster reflexes (good racers have faster reflexces than the average person).

    --
    Need Mercedes parts ?
  166. Universal Truth by Noexit · · Score: 1

    All drivers think that all other drivers suck at driving.

    --

    Never argue with a man carrying a water buffalo

  167. 120MPH is not as fast as you think by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Even accounting for quick lane changes by fairly random drivers, even 120MPH or higher is pretty safe if you have a pretty good ability to suddenly break or swerve as needed - most of the trip would be areas without heavy traffic, where you just have one or two cars that are easy to go around even if someone changes lanes suddenly. You'd assume the person would go slower where they were held up by heavier traffic.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  168. Re:He's saying you're silly by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

    Do you worry about being struck by a meteorite, too?

    The number of people killed annually by playing Russian Roulette is vanishingly small. That doesn't mean it's a perfectly safe game to play.

    --
    sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  169. Physics exercise by tcgroat · · Score: 1

    "Assuming dry pavement, That M5 likely would stop from 100 MPH in in under 200 feet."

    a=v^2/(2d)

    v=100mph=147ft/sec

    d=200ft

    a=53.8ft/sec^2=1.68gee

    Maybe that's possible on sticky racing tires, but it's quite unlikely with any street-legal tires!

  170. Braking on hills by rs79 · · Score: 1

    Yeah you can use your tranny. But consider: brakes are a helluva lot cheaper and easier to replace than a tranny.

    Onr thing though, if you do use your brakes A LOT on a big hill and there's a stop sign at the bottom, DO NOT sit there. The (potentially) cherry red rotors will cool down at a differert rate than the part of the rotor under the pads. Keep moving, albeing slowly so they cool down evernly.

    If you've ever had warped rotors, dollars to donuts this is why they became warped.

    --
    Need Mercedes parts ?
  171. Now I know you're not all as stupid as this... by bandmassa · · Score: 1

    I know that not all Americans are stupid, just like all Australians aren't bleach-blonde surfers with Sandman panel vans, but this guy is truly doing his bit to give you yanks the reputation that most of you don't deserve. This guy deserves the epithet "loonie" though, for certain.

    Speeding on public roads is just dumb. It doesn't matter what gadgets you have to elude speed cameras, bypass traffic or pick the quickest route, speed kills. This is not pushing the boundaries of the pioneering spirit, like a speed record set on a salt pan, this is just your common or garden moving violation, endangering lives along the way.

    He's a tosser. Toss him in jail.

    --
    "I hope you like Guinness, Sir. I find it a refreshing substitute for, er... food." Col. Jack O'Neil, SG-1
  172. Re:Wow, so many people bitching by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    "If a meteroite hit him. If a Gamma ray burst wiped out all of earth. If a T. Rex crawled up out of the river in my backyard and bit me on the ass. If if if."

    No human driving the meteorite, no human can initiate (or even predict) a GR burst and unless T-Rex is wearing a saddle and rider, no human control there either. In other words these things are not under anybody's control they are "acts of god", a car crash is rarely an "act of god" they are usually caused by an act of stupidity or negligence.

    "I think it was cool."

    Yes, and back in the mid 70's I was also "young dumb and full-o-cum" and would have thought the same thing. Over here in mid-70's Australia it was common to brag how fast you could get from Melbourne to Sydney. However when you are old enough to have lost a few friends and aquaitances who claimed to be "fast safe drivers" the whole "outlaw" thing just looks like a stupid waste of life. I don't wish that misery on anyone but if anyone deserves a Darwin Award for pointless dick-swinging it is the moron in TFA and those who emulate him.

    "We glamorize the outlaw."

    As this entire thread demonstrates, one man's villan is another man's hero.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  173. Re:Wow, so many people bitching by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

    "The claim that speed kills is an appeal to amotion."

    No, it's an appeal for common sense. If you hit something doing 100mph, you are more likely to die, than if you were doing 60mph. Anyone who disputes that claim is an idiot, are you an idiot? And it takes a lot longer to brake to a standstill from 100mph than from 60mph. Again: common sense. Also, it's a lot easier to avoid hitting something if you are doing 60mph than if you were doing 100mph. Again: common sense.

    seriously: this is not common sense.

    "If it was my mum (oh, wait, it was) I'd rather have a safe high speed driver doing 140 barrelling down on her inattentive ass than a logging truck doing under the speed limit. The beamer can go around her."

    Would you rather have a head-on collision with a car that is doing 100mph, or with a similar car that is doing 60mph? Remember: speed doesn't kill", right? By comparing a BMW doing 140mph to a logging-truck driving under the speed-limit, you are comparing apples and oranges. A valid comparison would be BMW doing 140mph or BMW going under the speed-limit. How about that comparison? Which would you rather have a collision with?

    "Again, in spite of all your rhetoric the safety record of these rallies speaks for itself."

    It's just statistics. If someone drives 140mph on a public road, and doesn't cause an accident, does that mean that it's somehow "safer" than obeying the speed-limit since there are lots of accidents that take place even though participant are obeying the speed-limit? No. The "races" are quite rare in the end. When compared to everyday-traffic these races compromise maybe 0.002% of all traffic on the roads. So is it any wonder that these races cause less accidents than the other 99.998% of traffic?

    --
    Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
  174. Re:Wow, so many people bitching by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

    "seriously: this is not common sense."

    Uh, that was supposed to be "rocket science", not "common sense"...

    --
    Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
  175. Re:And yet will all those gadgets... by rs79 · · Score: 1

    " Ever been to the 24 hours of Daytona? The pits were littered with blown BMW straight sixes by the end. A 911 won. "

    What year?

    BMW won:
    1976, 1983, 1988, 1989
    http://www.usautoparts.net/bmw/racing/history/drivers.htm

    BMW has won the 24 hours of Nürburgring race 16 times.
    In fact, BMW won the event 12 out of 15 times from 1984 to 1998 in machines ranging from the BMW 6 Series Coupe to the BMW M3.
    http://www.usautoparts.net/bmw/racing/nurburgring.htm

    These are all modified race cars. In the real world BMW's seem to have a reliability edge over Porsches. At least that's what I've seen. YMMV.

    --
    Need Mercedes parts ?
  176. Re:And yet will all those gadgets... by P3NIS_CLEAVER · · Score: 1

    Yeah, and Porsche won Daytona 20 times? Thanks for proving my point. And the 24 hours of lemans, 16 for Porsche. Has BMW even won lemans? Don't know much about it but I am guessing the Nürburgring race is BMW only.

    --
    Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!

    http://financialpetition.org/
  177. Re:And yet will all those gadgets... by P3NIS_CLEAVER · · Score: 1

    These are all modified race cars. In the real world BMW's seem to have a reliability edge over Porsches. At least that's what I've seen. YMMV.

    GT2 Porsches have won Daytona.

    --
    Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!

    http://financialpetition.org/
  178. Re:Wow, so many people bitching by glittalogik · · Score: 1

    I'm going to go with the generalisation that putting innocent bystanders at risk without their consent makes you an asshole.

    That said, I've gone through the last 2 or 3 years worth of worldwide base jumper fatalities at http://www.splatula.com/bfl/ and US skydiver fatalities at http://www.dropzone.com/fatalities/ and whilst there are some unfortunate encounters with vehicles, aeroplanes, power lines, buildings etc. I can't find a single instance of a collision causing the death of anyone but a fellow airborne jumper/diver.

    Compare that to over 40 000 road deaths in the US in 2006 alone (pulled from here). I know those numbers can't be compared directly, but if it's a choice between next to the Space Needle and next to a highway, I know where I'd feel safer standing.