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."

108 of 805 comments (clear)

  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 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
    3. 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.
    4. 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!
    5. 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.

    6. 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!
    7. 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.

    8. 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.
  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 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

  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. 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 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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

    5. 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
    6. 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 ?
    7. 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.

    8. 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"

    9. 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.

    10. 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.

  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 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.

    4. 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.
    5. 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.

    6. 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});
    7. 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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.

    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
  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 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
    3. 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.

    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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."
  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 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
  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 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.

    2. 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
    3. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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 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.

    2. 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.
    3. 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
    4. 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.

    5. 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.
  11. 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
  12. Re:Traveling Cross Country by belmolis · · Score: 2

    He can't go down very much if he has to average 90mph.

  13. 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.
  14. 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.

  15. 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.
  16. 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.

  17. nice by m2943 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's nice. Now, can we take away his driver's license and impound his car, please?

  18. 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.

  19. 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 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...
    2. 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
    3. 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!"

    4. 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
    5. 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
    6. 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
    7. 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
    8. 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!
  20. 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 ?
  21. 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.

  22. 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.

  23. 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.
  24. 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!
  25. 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 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.

  26. 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.

  27. 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.

  28. 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

  29. 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

  30. 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.

  31. 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.
  32. 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"

  33. 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.

  34. 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
  35. 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

  36. 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.
  37. 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!
  38. 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.
  39. 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.
  40. 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
  41. 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.
  42. 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.