Slashdot Mirror


Atlanta Man Shatters Coast-to-Coast Driving Record, Averaging 98MPH

New submitter The Grim Reefer sends this quote from CNN: "[Ed] Bolian set out on a serious mission to beat the record for driving from New York to Los Angeles. The mark? Alex Roy and David Maher's cross-country record of 31 hours and 4 minutes, which they set in a modified BMW M5 in 2006. ... He went into preparation mode about 18 months ago and chose a Mercedes CL55 AMG with 115,000 miles for the journey. The Benz's gas tank was only 23 gallons, so he added two 22-gallon tanks in the trunk, upping his range to about 800 miles. ... To foil the police, he installed a switch to kill the rear lights and bought two laser jammers and three radar detectors. He commissioned a radar jammer, but it wasn't finished in time for the trek. There was also a police scanner, two GPS units and various chargers for smartphones and tablets -- not to mention snacks, iced coffee and a bedpan. ... The total time: 28 hours, 50 minutes and about 30 seconds. ... When they were moving, which, impressively, was all but 46 minutes of the trip, they were averaging around 100 mph. Their total average was 98 mph, and their top speed was 158 mph, according to an onboard tracking device."

666 comments

  1. Whoosh! by dtmos · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm pretty sure this guy passes me every day on the way to the office.

    1. Re:Whoosh! by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm pretty sure this guy passes me every day on the way to the office.

      off the road, grandpa!

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    2. Re:Whoosh! by Thud457 · · Score: 4, Funny

      pssst!... buddy... you can get Coors East of the Mississippi these days at any grocery store.

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    3. Re: Whoosh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except in NJ where its illegal for most grocery stores to sell alcohol.

    4. Re:Whoosh! by lgw · · Score: 5, Funny

      The best part of the first Cannonball Run was the team that used an ambulance for the race (wasn't that Burt Reynold's character?). Csaba Csere actually did this in the real Cannonball Run! He said it worked perfectly - they had no trouble from the law, and would have won except the ambulance blew it's transmission as they approached the west coast. (Hey guys, next time don't stop in San Francisco to blow a tranny.)

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    5. Re:Whoosh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't know it had actually been tried. I did know about the three "priests", who were none the less ticketed. But a normal van, if given enough power, would still be pretty unsafe at the speeds required to do the run in under 30 hours.

    6. Re: Whoosh! by Mitchell314 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Coors sells alcohol now? I thought they were strictly in the urea disposal business.

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    7. Re: Whoosh! by NJRoadfan · · Score: 2

      Its not illegal per say, the law just limits a corporation to two retail licenses to sell alcohol. That being said, Coors is extremely popular in NJ for some reason.

    8. Re:Whoosh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We joke about it now but I remember when I was a kid my dad would take us to Kansas City and we'd fill every available space in our van with Coors. One time we had a rear wheel come off(the guy who fixed a flat had done something waaay wrong) and we were almost discovered "bootlegging" that gawd awful stuff when the police showed up to check out the mess.

    9. Re:Whoosh! by sconeu · · Score: 1

      No, Burt Reynolds had the black Trans-Am. I think it was Dom DeLuise's character that had the ambulance.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    10. Re:Whoosh! by sconeu · · Score: 1

      He also had a still-young Sally Field.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    11. Re: Whoosh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ITYM "per se."

    12. Re:Whoosh! by pwizard2 · · Score: 1

      We can also get Yuengling east of the Mississippi and it's way better than Coors.

      --
      "It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
    13. Re:Whoosh! by Shaman · · Score: 2

      It wasn't Csaba. It was Brock Yates. I know him and Jr. personally, and the "patient" was Brock's wife Pamela.

      --
      ...Steve
    14. Re:Whoosh! by DF5JT · · Score: 1

      No, Burt Reynolds had the black Trans-Am. I think it was Dom DeLuise's character that had the ambulance.

      Nope, it was Burt Reynolds (and Farrah Fawcett) in the ambulance alright.

    15. Re:Whoosh! by DrJimbo · · Score: 1

      Nope, it was Burt Reynolds (and Farrah Fawcett) in the ambulance [...]

      ... with the lead pipe.

      --
      We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
      -- Anais Nin
    16. Re:Whoosh! by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Dammit, you're right. I was thinking of "Smokey and the Bandit".

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    17. Re:Whoosh! by Aryden · · Score: 1

      and the US versions, although less safe, carry more supplies, are capable of handling more situations and are more easily recognizable in high traffic situations than their smaller European counterparts.

    18. Re: Whoosh! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Just thing about what you're writing. How does "illegal for each speak" make any sense at all?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    19. Re:Whoosh! by bkcallahan · · Score: 1

      No, that's me in the Volvo.

    20. Re: Whoosh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Just thing about what you're writing."

      Yeah, I thought it was pretty unjust, myself. Make any sense at all? (Where have I read that before?).

    21. Re: Whoosh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being Canadian, I am a bit unsure why you wouldnt just turn right and drive until you cross the border, then pick from a whole range of beer-like beer. We all have our strengths, and I would never think about going anywhere but South to replenish my methamphetamine supplies.

  2. as a 2nd generation GT guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lemme be the 1st to say:

    "if you wanna pimp a whip to bust the cannonball in under 29 hours you're at GEORGIA TECH - _YOU_ _CAN_ _DO_ _THAT_!!!"

    1. Re:as a 2nd generation GT guy by Mike+Buddha · · Score: 1

      Actually, the kid from Georgia tech was just a passenger. He signed on less than two weeks before they left. He was just a lookout.

      --
      by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
    2. Re:as a 2nd generation GT guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, what you where saying is the guy was just a tool. *Looks at the GP* How appropriate.

  3. Insurance by dskoll · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wonder if his insurance company will be hiking his premiums? Sounds like a risk-taker...

    1. Re:Insurance by alen · · Score: 1

      more like dropping coverage for modifying his car

    2. Re:Insurance by SJHillman · · Score: 1

      Sounds to me like a guy who really goes all out to prepare for the worst. He did as much as he could to mitigate every likely risk (excepting only those that would have defeated the purpose of doing it)

    3. Re:Insurance by hawguy · · Score: 1

      Sounds to me like a guy who really goes all out to prepare for the worst. He did as much as he could to mitigate every likely risk (excepting only those that would have defeated the purpose of doing it)

      Yet he still turned the wrong way down a one-way street because the GPS told him to.

      If his difficulty finding a copilot wasn't an omen, Manhattan would deliver one. While scouting routes out of the city, a GPS unit told Bolian to take a right on red, in the wrong direction down a one-way road. He was quickly pulled over.

    4. Re:Insurance by suutar · · Score: 1

      He can worry about that once he gets out of prison, I expect.

    5. Re:Insurance by gutnor · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They don't do that - they wait until you have had a crash to then refuse to cover you. In the meanwhile they are happy to milk you for more.

    6. Re:Insurance by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      Bullshit, the car reeked of gasoline that means it was leaking. How is that mitigating risk?

    7. Re:Insurance by csnydermvpsoft · · Score: 1

      If you actually notified them of the modifications, I'm sure they would drop you in an instant.

    8. Re:Insurance by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      Or the police arresting the bastard and using his statement in court.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    9. Re:Insurance by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, they don't. I have a heavily modified vehicle. Much more done to it that what he did. I've axles from 2 different models of cars, different break booster, different engine and transmission, Disc break conversions, Modified computer, Modified transmission lines and coolers, exhaust and complete custom suspension... They inspected it and raised my rates on it slightly but other than that it's still covered.

    10. Re:Insurance by orthancstone · · Score: 1

      Typically these guys don't go public with Cannonball Run details until after all Statute of Limitations have passed.

    11. Re:Insurance by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Man, no kidding. I had the same insurance company since 1989, had one injury accident (me who got injured) in 2010 and they promptly dropped me.

      The good news is, I found I really could save money going with the lizard. Should have called them years ago.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    12. Re:Insurance by orthancstone · · Score: 1

      Although in this case, that's obviously not the case (since the time stamp is only a couple of weeks old).

    13. Re:Insurance by sconeu · · Score: 1

      I always wondered how the people who had their cars done on "Overhaulin'" or "Pimp My Ride" got insurance...

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    14. Re:Insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His fuel cells were vented to the outside.
      Illegal in plenty places? Yup.
      Pretty common anyways? Yup.
      Dangerous? No, not really.

    15. Re:Insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ... different break booster ... Disc break conversions.

      It is spelled "brake", not "break".

      Perhaps you dropped out of sixth grade so you could work on your car more.

      But I bet your Camaro is truly bitchin'

    16. Re:Insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *brake*, not break.

    17. Re: Insurance by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      It's quite possible he broke it.

    18. Re:Insurance by giltnerj0 · · Score: 1

      Is that you Elwood ?

        It's got a cop motor, a 440 cubic inch plant, it's got cop tires, cop suspensions, cop shocks. It's a model made before catalytic converters so it'll run good on regular gas...

    19. Re:Insurance by Tuidjy · · Score: 2

      No they do not. They raise your premiums. My S60R has a bigger turbo and downpipe, a second intercooler, and quite a few bigger pipes where it matters. Stuff had to go in the trunk, I had to limit my front wheels' travel... but now I get 460hps at the wheels with the AWD fuse pulled.

      I have declared it all, and the premium rose quite a bit... but then, so did the coverage. The car is still street legal.

      My last car was a heavily modified Toyota Supra. Its frame was ruined when a cop (on a cellphone, out of his jurisdiction) rear ended me. The county paid the car's stated value and even a bit over... which was still a lot lower than the sum of what I had put into it. So before I even started working on my Volvo, I decided that it will be all above board.

      --
      No good deed goes unpunished...
    20. Re:Insurance by dfn_deux · · Score: 4, Informative

      Typically you get something called a "declared value policy". Wherein you basically document what modifications/parts are on the car and how much the value is as a result. You often times are expected to keep a folder of "comparables" that help validate the market value of the vehicle and then the policy works basically the same as any other policy. They are super common for things like show cars or antiques.

      --
      -*The above statement is printed entirely on recycled electrons*-
    21. Re: Insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Geico was the most expensive option when I was young. (16-22). Talking at least 2x as much or more than the options I was going with back then. Do they have a policy to discriminate against younger drivers more heavily than premium stats justify?

    22. Re:Insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's assholes like you who give the whole community of spelling and grammar "Nazis" a bad reputation. It is possible to be kind and give someone a helpful tip without hurting their feelings, putting them down, or otherwise undermining the quality of their day in return.

    23. Re: Insurance by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Dunno. Maybe that's how they can give cheaper insurance to us old pharts.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    24. Re:Insurance by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Then it's a good thing he hid his identity and never took pictures or videos while doing this.

    25. Re:Insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but you're right, I do love my Camaro! Makes my mullet look fantastic while I'm driving through the trailer park!

    26. Re:Insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I play Gran Turismo 5 too.

    27. Re:Insurance by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      GoodThing(TM) for him, a fucking public menace to the rest of us.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    28. Re:Insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fucking BRAKES dad gummit

    29. Re:Insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Covered as in you pay them money or covered as in they've paid out one or more claims to you? You'll find the first kind of coverage much easier to get than the second.

    30. Re:Insurance by hawk · · Score: 2

      Speaking as a lawyer . . .

      "in court" is the catch.

      *which* court?

      There isn't a court in the country with jurisdiction to prosecute "he sped somewhere in some jurisdiction." A court needs to convict for a specified violation within it's own jurisdiction. An acknowledgment that means a crime was committed *somewhere* that *might* have been in that jurisdiction isn't sufficient to convict.

      hawk, esq.

    31. Re:Insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet if you'd spelled brakes correctly the rates would have actually gone down.

    32. Re:Insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe state laws require you to report any mods made, if you get into an accident I will promise you your insurance and most others are going to drop you completely, and you will find it difficult to acquire insurance. I have been building modded cars for a long time, far beyond your attempts or what you consider a "heavily modded car" (eyes rolling over). If they did raise your rates any more then normal it isn't a heavily modded car, but merely upgrades....

    33. Re:Insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on the state. Some states allow mods, some don't.

    34. Re:Insurance by toddestan · · Score: 1

      I assume we're talking liability insurance here. Show cars and antiques may be valuable, but it's unlikely that the people who own them are going to drive like a jackass.

    35. Re:Insurance by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      I am sure someone somewhere caught him on camera.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    36. Re:Insurance by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Which part of a car is the "break"?

      --
      No sig today...
    37. Re:Insurance by Thumper_SVX · · Score: 2

      Which part of a car is the "break"?

      My experience says that if it's an Jaguar, pretty much all of it.

    38. Re:Insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is a "break" booster? And what are these disc "break" conversions of which you speak?

    39. Re:Insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "His fuel cells were vented to the outside."

      A fuel cell is a device that converts the chemical energy from a fuel into electricity through a chemical reaction with oxygen or another oxidizing agent.

      You meant, "fuel tank".

    40. Re:Insurance by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      One would think if you had done all of those mods to your vehicle you would know how to spell brake correctly.

    41. Re:Insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The car reeked of gasoline because he had two 22 gallon extra tanks of the stuff in the trunk. You don't make them completely airtight because air expansion can cause pressure if the tank heats up (unless you have money for one of those sack like F1 tanks = $30k a pop)

    42. Re:Insurance by Roachie · · Score: 1

      Obviously, you have never been to Oklahoma.

      --
      This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
    43. Re:Insurance by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Indeed, the business model is to get you to join with a low premium and raise it every year. Like a frog in boiling water you will eventually be getting cooked...there is probably a sweet spot somewhere to jump out....but you have to pay attention. Probably works the same for homeowner's insurance. Everyone thinks it's normal because "everyone's" insurance is going up as well. Of course it is...everyone is getting fleeced. I realized this after changing to the lizard after being with the same insurance company for about 10 years. I got a discount at the lizard because I was with my last insurer so long. That's when this all dawned on me what was going on. The lizard isn't really cheaper...their marketing mix focuses on acquiring those who are at the boiled stage. The old insurer doesn't care that you leave either...they have your money and the risk is leaving.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    44. Re:Insurance by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1
      --
      Eat the rich.
    45. Re:Insurance by adolf · · Score: 1

      I have an old Firebird. It has no book value due to its age.

      When I got insurance for it (yes, full coverage: It's good for things other than driving like a jackass, such as when Shit Just Happens), they simply asked what value I wanted it insured at.

      I gave them a number, they drew up the paperwork, and I was on my way. No inspection necessary.

      NBD.

    46. Re:Insurance by adolf · · Score: 1

      My experience says that if it's an Jaguar, pretty much all of it.

      an Jaguar? Is that the Spanish pronunciation?

    47. Re:Insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This deserves a golf clap at the absolute minimum.

      However I would suggest the same could be said of Alpha Romeo's too.

  4. When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Clear cut case of speeding and the guy even collected his own evidence.

    1. Re:When will he be arrested? by twocows · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This. Not only that, this is a clear case where he SHOULD be, if not arrested, at least fined heavily. This is clear cut reckless driving; speed limits are posted to keep the public safe. Stunts like this should not be pulled at the potential expense of other drivers on the road. We're all beholden to the same laws, whether you're trying to break a record or not.

    2. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good luck proving whether it was him or his co-driver actually behind the wheel at any given time.

    3. Re:When will he be arrested? by kimvette · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, highway speed limits, at least federal interstates, have speed limits for the purpose of generating revenue.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    4. Re:When will he be arrested? by alen · · Score: 0

      arrest all of them since everyone drove

      and the idiot actually documented what seems to be illegal modifications to his car including the use of illegal devices to foil the police

    5. Re:When will he be arrested? by MrMickS · · Score: 0

      This. Not only that, this is a clear case where he SHOULD be, if not arrested, at least fined heavily. This is clear cut reckless driving; speed limits are posted to keep the public safe. Stunts like this should not be pulled at the potential expense of other drivers on the road. We're all beholden to the same laws, whether you're trying to break a record or not.

      The danger of speed varies dependent on the road conditions and traffic. There are ways to break limits safely, and it sounds like he took precautions with having spotters for him on the route. The greatest danger was to himself should he lose control at that speed.

      --
      You may think me a tired, old, cynic. I'd have to disagree about the tired bit.
    6. Re:When will he be arrested? by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 0

      Clear cut case of speeding and the guy even collected his own evidence.

      Only blacks and protesters mysteriously do that.

    7. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Says all those people who like to speed. As soon as you or someone you love gets killed or injured by a speeder, your tune will change.

    8. Re:When will he be arrested? by tgd · · Score: 1

      Clear cut case of speeding and the guy even collected his own evidence.

      You can't (generally speaking) be arrested for speeding.

      You can be arrested for reckless driving, though... and generally you can be even if you aren't caught in the act, like any other misdemeanor or felony.

      So, yeah, posting about it online is stupid.

    9. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only state where radar detectors are illegal is Virginia.

      Geez, what the hell, Slashdot? "illegal devices to foil the police"? You used to be smart. Next we'll have commenters saying that crypto is illegal.

    10. Re:When will he be arrested? by Nerdfest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you've ever driven an older car, at speed, you'll understand why the speed limits were set where they are. Many feel very 'floaty' at 100 MPH, their brakes suck, and they weight too much. Cars now, even cheap ones, are much more capable of being controleled at those speeds. This still leaves the human factor, but on a highway it's minimized. They really should raise some speed limits.

    11. Re:When will he be arrested? by tgd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, highway speed limits, at least federal interstates, have speed limits for the purpose of generating revenue.

      Reckless driving is a criminal offense, not something you're fined for. Speeding fines are there to provide some disincentive to doing stupid things prior to going to jail for it.

    12. Re:When will he be arrested? by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What do federal interstates have to do with anything? The 55 mph limits were proposed by Nixon as a way to conserve gas during the first big oil crisis. The actual speed limits, enforcement, and ticket revenue are all handled at the state level- for interstates and every other road.

    13. Re:When will he be arrested? by SJHillman · · Score: 5, Funny

      "We don't know when, we don't know where, but we know you did it!" doesn't hold up very well in court.

    14. Re:When will he be arrested? by tgd · · Score: 1

      Good luck proving whether it was him or his co-driver actually behind the wheel at any given time.

      To average 100mph with one person never breaking the speed limit, the average speed for the half the trip the guilty driver was driving would need to be around their top speed.

    15. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No. Look, relative speeds matter. If you're a cyclist moving at 5 MPH with traffic passing you at 70MPH, that's bad. If you're in a case at 70MPH being passed by a car at 80MPH...eh. If you're in a car at 70MPH being passed by a car at 150MPH, that's bad.

      Worse, if 99% of the traffic is moving at the same relative speed, it's unexpected to have a car closing on you at 80MPH relative to you. When you check your mirrors before pulling out, you mentally allow that the car behind you isn't going to be closing on you at those speeds: you sure as shit can't tell what speed it's doing just from a glance in your mirror.

      So no, this guy is an asshole.

    16. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true. It depends on how fast one is going. Exceeding the speed limit by more than 25mph is generally considered to be "reckless driving" and can result in an arrest.

      Hopefully the evidence that this joker has provided on himself will result in prosecution. Driving 3,000 miles at 100mph while also impaired (no sleep, trying to pee into a bedpan on the floor, etc, etc, etc) is clearly reckless and is a clear danger to others on the road. Combine that with equipping his car in a manner that I am sure is illegal should at least revoke this idiot's license, if not land him in jail for a while.

    17. Re:When will he be arrested? by hawguy · · Score: 2

      This. Not only that, this is a clear case where he SHOULD be, if not arrested, at least fined heavily. This is clear cut reckless driving; speed limits are posted to keep the public safe. Stunts like this should not be pulled at the potential expense of other drivers on the road. We're all beholden to the same laws, whether you're trying to break a record or not.

      The danger of speed varies dependent on the road conditions and traffic. There are ways to break limits safely, and it sounds like he took precautions with having spotters for him on the route. The greatest danger was to himself should he lose control at that speed.

      His spotters were 150 - 200 miles ahead of him. Even at 100mph, that's 90 - 120 minutes away. A lot can happen on the road in 90 minutes.

    18. Re:When will he be arrested? by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 2

      But he wasn't wearing Google Glass or texting, so there was really no need to pull him over.

    19. Re:When will he be arrested? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Yep, my parents 80s era Chevette was floaty at something like 60 mph. God speed if a gust of wind came up at the same time. I've literally changed lanes a few times.

      It's an interesting concept since as you say modern cars are far more capable at greater speeds. The problem with speed isn't the speed itself, it's the wild differential between you and other traffic. If *everybody* is going 100 mph, it's not a huge deal. But a range from 55 - 100? Without serious training it isn't ever going to be safe. German's pay through the nose for their driving privilege and roads because they want to speed like that - and have rigorous rules about keeping right unless you're going the 'minimum' speed for the lane you want to get into.

      US drivers trying this would be beyond hazardous. It would take most of a generation to get our driving skills up to the level necessary. (Except mine of course, *I* am a great driver! haha)

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    20. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speed matters as well as differential speed. When you are going 30-40 mph faster than other cars, the probability of an accident increases. And when you rig you vehicle to cut the lights and put gas cans in the trunk, you are driving in an incredibly dangerous manner than posses a substantial risk to other motorists. So yes, he should be arrested and put in jail for several months.

    21. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just a hunch, but I suspect the parent was talking about the radar *jammers* the guy had. And those are illegal everywhere, AFAIK.

      Cool ride though. Glad everyone was safe. Nice record to have.

    22. Re:When will he be arrested? by rhazz · · Score: 1
      I think you're being a bit pedantic. The GP's point is valid - 98 MPH is too fast given other people on the roadway were likely going much slower, and that was only the average speed of the car.

      "Apart from a FedEx truck not checking his mirrors before he tried to merge on top of me, we didn't really have any issues"

      While I really doubt the FedEx driver was at fault given the average speed of this car, this is exactly why people should drive at reasonable speeds and avoid distraction. Shit happens. People make mistakes on the road. But if you're driving like an asshole you increase the risk of accident/injury when those mistakes happen.

      We can only hope he filmed it and ends up without a license like these idiots.

    23. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Says all those people who are more influenced by emotion than reason. I'm happy to say that to the best of my knowledge, none of my views have changed based on serious harm to a loved one, even though, like most people, I have seen serious harm happen to more than a few loved ones.

    24. Re:When will he be arrested? by skatull · · Score: 0

      Radar jammers, they exist, they are effective and illegal. Also since a team could conceivably be charged with conspiracy. In most cases conspiracy to commit a crime is a felony even if the crime is a misdemeanor.

    25. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Generally, I don't know. But in NC you can be, if your speed is high enough. I witnessed a guy in his court appearance after spending an evening in jail on the charge of exceeding 100mph in the city limits (only charge).

    26. Re:When will he be arrested? by Mr+Krinkle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ermm, no. He had a "lead" spotter to get him out of the NE corridor of traffic hell, where construction can easily add 4-6 hours to your trip.

      Then he had a spotter in the car, and a co-driver that was also spotting/sleeping.
      As to the parent,
        There are definitely places out west, where with a proper car (and proper driver) a "safe and reasonable speed" could easily be well into the triple digits.
      Is that true in my lifted Jeep Wrangler? Nope. Is that true in a nice sports sedan with active suspension? yep.
      Was he breaking the law? Yeppers... Do I think he was pushing it? less than you'd think..
      Do I know people that have done similar/worse things on motorcycles? Yeppers...
      I've ridden on interstate trips and averaged 90-100 on the bike including quick fuel stops... and felt perfectly safe.

      So while he was "breaking the law" I doubt he was as wreckless as Sally the realtor hurtling along in her Infinity SUV on her cell phone, explaining stuff to clients, and looking up things on her laptop....

      I know I'm a lot more scared of the texting idiot than someone actively trying to drive...

      --
      I am 31337 or something.
    27. Re:When will he be arrested? by danbert8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why don't I have mod points? ACs can reply all they want, but no one ever cites those studies that show lower speed limits are safer... Because they don't exist.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    28. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed... And he *should* be!

    29. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Article said he didn't get the jammer done in time.

      Which is just as well, really; the naive approach for a barrage jammer will at best alert the cops that you have one, and at worst give them a reading at some illegal speed (regardless of whether or not you're going that fast).

      Nah, what you want is a radar spoofer. A police radar is generally an X or Ku band continuous-wave Doppler setup, nothing too special. You want to get the frequency that they're transmitting and shift it just enough so that when combined with your doppler shift (which presumably you know from your speed), it ends up reading 55 or whatever. Then broadcast your wave with (much) more power than the reflected wave they're supposed to get.

    30. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm hitting 155 pretty much daily.
      While passing vehicles going 50-ish.
      Legally.
      Gotta love .de

    31. Re:When will he be arrested? by hawguy · · Score: 1

      Ermm, no. He had a "lead" spotter to get him out of the NE corridor of traffic hell, where construction can easily add 4-6 hours to your trip.

      Then he had a spotter in the car, and a co-driver that was also spotting/sleeping.

      From TFA:

      In Pennsylvania, they tapped the first of many scouts, one of Bolian's acquaintances who drove the speed limit 150 to 200 miles ahead of the CL55 and warned them of any police, construction or other problems.

    32. Re:When will he be arrested? by Mitreya · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Speeding fines are there to provide some disincentive to doing stupid things prior to going to jail for it.

      Speeding fines are there to collect some money for municipalities.
      Otherwise they would be uniformly and much more strictly enforced. Currently they are enforced in a haphazard manner, often collected at locations where speedlimit rapidly changes.

      If speed limits were uniformly and strictly enforced (rather than an occasional tax on the driver), there would likely be enough outrage to repeal them.

    33. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no evidence that he was driving in a reckless manner.

      Unless, of course, you're suggesting that exceeding the speed limit necessarily implies being reckless.

      Posting anon because I'm blowing all my mod points trying to improve the driver:grandma ratio in these comments.

    34. Re:When will he be arrested? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      That's why you do more than glance before you make such a maneuver.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    35. Re:When will he be arrested? by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ah, one of those capitalists that believes that if something is related to money, that must be the one and only thing reason involved.

      Never been to the province of Ontario have you? 62mph limit, when the highway is rated for 80mph.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    36. Re:When will he be arrested? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Clear cut case of speeding and the guy even collected his own evidence.

      Not sure about the breakdown for most states, but in several states, timing a vehicle from point A to point B is NOT legally admissible evidence. This necessitates a number of workaround, like speed enforcement aircraft needing to establish their relative ground-speed, and then using that as a basis to ticket cars going faster than they are, rather than just directly measuring the ground-speed of cars between two landmarks.

      If that was allowed, every truck driver on the planet would be arrested, as they are required to keep log-books which can be used to demonstrate speeding and working more than the maximum allowable daily hours.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    37. Re:When will he be arrested? by onepoint · · Score: 1

      While all your points seem right. Most people have never driven at 100+ mph consistently for more than 20 minutes. While doing 80MPH requires a decent reaction time, at 100mph you need much faster reflexes, at 140MPH they better be sharp. ( I've see tire blow-outs from big rigs leave a huge chunk on the road).

      While on the track, doing 120 - 140 consistently, I'm at a similar speed to the others on that section of the course, but when on the highway, your speed will exceed the others by 50% to 100% which means that your on the bumper in no time.

      Personally I would have love to be chosen to be his co-pilot, would have had a blast.

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    38. Re:When will he be arrested? by bitt3n · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This. Not only that, this is a clear case where he SHOULD be, if not arrested, at least fined heavily. This is clear cut reckless driving; speed limits are posted to keep the public safe. Stunts like this should not be pulled at the potential expense of other drivers on the road. We're all beholden to the same laws, whether you're trying to break a record or not.

      Unless he posts GPS data (maybe he did), how can he be arrested? Theoretically, he could have been traveling the speed limit through any given state that might want to arrest him.

    39. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dunno how youse dunnit, but I KNOW YOUSE DUNNIT !!!!
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U_R446L7uU

    40. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no evidence that he was driving in a reckless manner.

      Other than driving constantly for over 28 hours, driving nearly three times the speed of other vehicles on the road, storing large gas cans in the trunk, and rigging the car to dim the lights to hide from police?

    41. Re:When will he be arrested? by w0mprat · · Score: 2

      No, highway speed limits, at least federal interstates, have speed limits for the purpose of generating revenue.

      Reckless driving is a criminal offense, not something you're fined for. Speeding fines are there to provide some disincentive to doing stupid things prior to going to jail for it.

      And revenue. As minor speeding isn't really much danger at all, but a lucrative cash cow authorities have become accustomed to suckling the milky teats of.

      You'll find speed cameras and cops hitting motorists hard in places where people are likely to speed, and there for generate maximum revenue. But conspicuously absent at notorious deadly accident blackspots where there isn't a high volume of traffic.

      If the primary goal was to save lives by slowing people down. Using first principals, where would you decide to put a speed camera?

      --
      After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
    42. Re:When will he be arrested? by Java+Pimp · · Score: 0

      Darwin awards are usually won by those who don't learn from other's mistakes.

      --
      Ascalante: Your bride is over 3,000 years old.
      Kull: She told me she was 19!
    43. Re:When will he be arrested? by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      Says all those people who like to speed. As soon as you or someone you love gets killed or injured by a speeder, your tune will change.

      I don't know about changing your tune once you are dead, but you certainly can't carry one.

    44. Re:When will he be arrested? by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 2

      That's why you do more than glance before you make such a maneuver.

      Uh huh. Just slow down, Flash, and everybody gets to live. Other drivers have got plenty to deal with already.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    45. Re:When will he be arrested? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Especially in this day and age, we could all stand to give a little less respect to their authoriati.

      Nobody was harmed in any way. It wasn't even all that dangerous. Indeed, their drive was wreckless :-)

      Note that this is distinct from typical day to day driving in the city. Perhaps they shouldn't have done it, but perhaps it is good for society if people do things they "shouldn't" once in a while and get (briefly) celebrated for it.

    46. Re:When will he be arrested? by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      Everything is related to money. Even if you don't believe it's to generate ticket revenue (and that is a bit of a stretch) why does the government care if you speed? Because accidents cost money, injury costs money and dead people don't spend money. It's ALWAYS about money. Unless it's about sex.

    47. Re:When will he be arrested? by stenvar · · Score: 2

      speed limits are posted to keep the public safe

      Highway speed limits were introduced to save oil, not to keep people safe. Germany doesn't have speed limits on large stretches of its highways, and much higher speed limits where it does, and yet fewer people get killed per million vehicle miles.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

      What this guy did was clearly reckless, but that's because he was driving at different speeds from the rest of traffic, not because he was going fast.

    48. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish I had mod points. Great post. The most dangerous person on the road is the idiot sitting in the left lane going 10 under the speed limit yakking away on their cell phone. Pretty much anyone that does routinely go over 100MPH on the freeway isn't the danger. They know what's going on around them. It's the oblivious idiot that just rolls over a lane or two without checking anything around them because they're too busy talking and/or texting.
      I'm usually the guy going between 80 and 100 on the freeway. Guess how many accidents I've been involved in in the last 20 years? One. Chick deliberately cut me off in traffic and slammed on the brakes. Nothing I could do. She was talking on her phone and didn't look over her shoulder before cutting me off.
      So, the person going fast isn't the real danger. It's the morons who have no clue what they're doing or what's going on around them.

    49. Re:When will he be arrested? by camperdave · · Score: 5, Informative

      Speeding fines are there to collect some money for municipalities. Otherwise they would be uniformly and much more strictly enforced.

      Um... no. Speeding fines are NOT there to collect some money for municipalities, otherwise they would be uniformly and much more strictly enforced.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    50. Re:When will he be arrested? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      So while he was "breaking the law" I doubt he was as wreckless as Sally the realtor hurtling along in her Infinity SUV on her cell phone, explaining stuff to clients, and looking up things on her laptop....

      I think he was much more "wreckless" than Sally the realtor... but not nearly as reckless.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    51. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If speeding fines were made to not just slurp up revenue, they would be done similar to Germany's system where every time one is caught, they pay the cop and go on. Eventually getting pulled over every quarter mile and paying $20-25 gets old and people start complying with the limit.

      Here in the US, speed pullovers are used for vehicle search and seizure, or as reasonable cause to get people tossed in the clink (note... a private clink that someone is making bucks from.)

      So, because the law is so corrupt, the original purpose to keep people at a safe/reasonable speed is so polluted that it is considered in contempt.

    52. Re:When will he be arrested? by krovisser · · Score: 1

      Gasoline explodes?

    53. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      speed limits are posted to keep the public safe.

      What fantasy world are you living in?

      People need to stop being pussies. What this guy did is AWESOME! He should be rewarded not punished.

    54. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't I have mod points? ACs can reply all they want, but no one ever cites those studies that show lower speed limits are safer... Because they don't exist.

      *Facepalm*

      So if I slam the brakes at 100MPH, the car will come to a complete stop at the exact same number of yards as it would if I slammed the brakes at 20MPH?

      Wow, I never knew that the law of inertia did not apply to cars. Presumably this is because they're made of magic reality defying pixie dust, yes?

    55. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When they are fast enough.

    56. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait...so, what exactly is it that you're trying to say, again? I don't think I caught it.

    57. Re:When will he be arrested? by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      And if you have a relative or loved one drown, you might be afraid of water. If you had a loved one killed by a black person, you might fear black people.

      That doesn't make your fear rational, it just means you are a human like the rest of us whose judgement can be clouded by emotion.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    58. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speed limits are directly related to the design speed of a highway. Road design parameters such as maximum slopes, minimum curve radius, minimum superelevations in curves, and many others are derived directly from a chosen design speed. These parameters ensure that cars stay on track, drivers have enough sight distance to stop the car, and operations and maintenance costs are kept in budget. Hence a speed limit is primarily there to match the road design.

    59. Re:When will he be arrested? by tranquilidad · · Score: 5, Informative

      The first study you cite isn't related to lower speeds but lower speed variances and, in the first page abstract, says, "...accident rates do not necessarily increase with an increase in average speed but do increase with an increase in speed variance."

      The third study really speaks about speed limits on urban roads, where the majority of accidents occur, rather than interstates.

      The Solomon Curve speaks more directly to the real issue of speed and accidents and relates to speed differentials. Solomon's results have been duplicated many times and the issue is that there is a higher likelihood of being in an accident as an individual's speed varies from the average speed. Interestingly, going much slower than the average speed seems to indicate a higher likelihood of being involved in an accident.

      I spend a lot of time driving across country and the worst places in my experience are the interstates in urban areas. Those areas tend to have artificially lower speed limits to deal with maximum traffic capacity for rush hour. When driving through these areas during non-rush hour times I would feel that I would be run over if I drove anywhere near the speed limit. The first study you cite specifically talks about finding the ideal speed limit related to the highway speed design point and that artificially setting the speed limit too low related to the design point increases the probability of accidents.

      Simply having a lower speed limit does not, in itself, result in lower accident rates.

    60. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd say if he was driving a sigma or more above (or below) the flow of traffic then he was being reckless and considering his average speed that's likely. For example, going above he'd be more easily missed by people changing lanes. It's probably not hard to find other issues. It's still kind of neat though. I've mod points as well.

    61. Re:When will he be arrested? by hawguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I wish I had mod points. Great post. The most dangerous person on the road is the idiot sitting in the left lane going 10 under the speed limit yakking away on their cell phone. Pretty much anyone that does routinely go over 100MPH on the freeway isn't the danger. They know what's going on around them. It's the oblivious idiot that just rolls over a lane or two without checking anything around them because they're too busy talking and/or texting.

      Given that you know there are people going 10 under the speed limit in the left lane, isn't it disingenuous to claim that going 50mph faster than them is perfectly safe? Your stopping distance at 100mph is about 4 times greater than at 50mph. And since, as you say, drivers are not always paying the best attention to their driving, you're also at risk from the driver that does a quick check out his mirror before a lane change but doesn't see you because he's not expecting someone to be driving twice his speed.

      I'm usually the guy going between 80 and 100 on the freeway. Guess how many accidents I've been involved in in the last 20 years? One. Chick deliberately cut me off in traffic and slammed on the brakes. Nothing I could do. She was talking on her phone and didn't look over her shoulder before cutting me off.

      If she was on the phone and didn't look, why do you think she did it deliberately? Sounds more like it was unintentionally, perhaps even negligently. Maybe you were going much faster than prevailing speed.

      So, the person going fast isn't the real danger. It's the morons who have no clue what they're doing or what's going on around them.

      If you just moved here from a different country and didn't realize that those morons were out there, that might be a valid argument, but to claim that you can drive faster than everyone else is not a fair argument since you *do* know what behaviors to expect.

    62. Re:When will he be arrested? by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      If speeding fines were made to not just slurp up revenue, they would be done similar to Germany's system where every time one is caught, they pay the cop and go on. Eventually getting pulled over every quarter mile and paying $20-25 gets old and people start complying with the limit.

      In Germany, you also get entries into a central register, and they will pull your license if you accrue a certain number of points. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_system_(driving)#Germany

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    63. Re:When will he be arrested? by JDG1980 · · Score: 2

      Good luck proving whether it was him or his co-driver actually behind the wheel at any given time.

      "Co-driver" is another word for "co-conspirator".

      In a normal driving situation, obviously only the person in the driver's seat is considered at fault for traffic infractions. But in this particular case, these two people conspired to perform an illegal cross-country road race. Each of them are guilty of all the infractions. The conspiracy was openly admitted in their public statements.

    64. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which, ask any German, the Autobahn has proven for half a century.

      US cities have cleverly adapted in many ways to the positive revenue flow that can be achieved by posting hidden squads at the right times of day, even by putting speed-reducing signs far, far outside of town where they make no sense, and setting the trap for people driving from experience rather than mandate.

      No need to deny it, just ask any professional driver.

    65. Re:When will he be arrested? by mark_reh · · Score: 1

      High speed limits work in the countries that have them for two reasons.

      1) people learn how to drive properly there - if you're not passing anyone you stay the hell out of the fast lane. That alone makes such high speed driving impossible in the US where people are too stubborn or stupid to stay out of the way of faster drivers. Also, trailer trucks are allowed in all the lanes. That's nuts. They should be kept in the far right lane only.

      2) Road condition on those roads with high speed limits such as the autobahn are much better than most of the roads in the US. You can't drive 150mph on a road with potholes. The freeways in the US are falling apart. That's why everyone drives trucks (which includes SUVs) here. They are the only vehicles that can stand up to the punishment of driving on our crappy roads.

      They have "floaty" old cars and slow, tiny engine cars in Europe, too. The difference is that over there they generally have sense enough not to try to take them onto the autobahn. There is no such common sense in the US. Stupidity rules here, like no where else on earth.

    66. Re:When will he be arrested? by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Will he have to sit on the Group W bench?

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    67. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I hate to sound like your joke, but I actually *am* a great driver. I know that because I have a racing license from a national sanctioning body, allowing me to compete in road-course racing (for the uninitiated, these are closed racetracks full of twists and turns like a real road - think Laguna Seca, etc). Obtaining such a license is easier than you'd think. I'm not going to say it's trivial, but if you're middle-class or above, you can afford a racing hobby for the 2-3 years it will take you to develop the skill to deserve that license.

      Given the number of hours/miles most of us spend on the road, it's a worthwhile investment in learning how to be a better driver. It will objectively make you far less likely to ever be in any kind of incident on a public road, regardless of who's "at fault". I'm still new enough to this stuff that I haven't lost my perspective from before I started the hobby, and I can frankly tell you that if you haven't taken up this hobby, you have *no idea* how little you actually know about driving, even if you think you're a "good driver". The difference between your average "good driver" and someone who trains up like this is just night and day in terms of skills and situational awareness. It's like comparing a surgeon to a 7 year old with a rusty used razor blade trying to remove a thorn from his own face.

      The thing is, we *could* teach everyone to be significantly better drivers than they are. As a matter of practicality, my hobby route is one of your best options as an individual today, but we could make it cheaper, easier, and faster and tailor it for people that have no intention of racing. We already have the state-level infrastructure for driver training and testing everywhere, it just needs to be better and more rigorous. Teenagers need to spend a month at a "driving camp" before getting their provisional license and get real instruction on being a badass driver. Tests need to test real skills related to traction and suspension dynamics, maneuvering properly on ice and snow, proper situational awareness (race drivers don't stare in front of their car - they're looking *miles* off in every direction at all times and taking in *everything*), etc.

      Sure it would cost society more to do more intensive driver training and testing, but I have to believe it would cost us substantially less than what we spend on auto collisions and traffic (yes, a good deal of traffic clogging is also just due to poor driving) in a monetary sense, not to mention whatever value we can place on the lives and limbs lost to stupidity.

    68. Re:When will he be arrested? by roc97007 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm conflicted about this. Yes, he broke the law, and as pointed out, even collected the evidence to be used against himself.

      But "reckless" is a matter of opinion, the definition being "without thinking or caring about the consequences of an action", and it wasn't clear that this was the case. One could argue (and in his position, I would, in court) that the degree of preparation involved (only some of which, undoubtedly, we have heard here) is proof positive that the participants very much were thinking and caring about the consequences of their actions.

      I recall an article back in the seventies, may have been in an auto or men's magazine (I remember the graphic was a pantera overtaking a sedan at an extremely high rate of speed) about the ethics of speeding. As I recall, the author exceeded the speed limit by large margins on a regular basis, but he had commensurate skills, a car equipped for the job, and a set of ironclad rules. I don't remember all of them, but one was: If anything you do makes another driver deviate in any fashion, by flinching, braking, swerving or anything other than jaw dropping as you go by, you have lost. Find another hobby. Another was: What you're doing is illegal. When you get pulled over, and it *will* happen, take it like a man. Don't whine, don't try to get out of it, be courteous and respectful. There were other rules that I don't recall. The gist was, if you have decided to speed, you have a duty to do so in a way that doesn't make you a menace or an asshole.

      As for "speed limits are posted to keep the public safe", yeah, that's what they always say. And back when we had a 55 mile per hour national speed limit, they said it then too. Did the populace at large suddenly become better drivers when the double nickel was repealed? Speed limits tend to be arbitrary, and at best, "safety" is measured as some government-set lowest-common-demoninator. Drug laws exist to keep us safe too, and that's working out swell.

      I have a Harley with a five speed transmission. I've heard of a six speed upgrade, but thought those were just for bragging rights, as nobody would ever really need a sixth gear. And then I visited Texas. Now I'm saving up for one.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    69. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He did not post GPS data. He has shared it with certain people, but even the GPS company's name is not public.

    70. Re:When will he be arrested? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Wow. Has the entire Slashdot community forgotten the concept of Managed Risk? Or does nobody teach that in school anymore?

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    71. Re:When will he be arrested? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Whether the first three line up with the definition of "reckless" depends on his level of preparation, and the last one, although definitely a crime, can hardly be called reckless. The cops would surely charge him with something else for dousing his taillights.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    72. Re:When will he be arrested? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      If you've ever driven an older car, at speed, you'll understand why the speed limits were set where they are. Many feel very 'floaty' at 100 MPH, their brakes suck, and they weight too much. Cars now, even cheap ones, are much more capable of being controleled at those speeds. This still leaves the human factor, but on a highway it's minimized. They really should raise some speed limits.

      Right, exactly. Speed limits tend to be weighted towards the lowest common denominator, both in equipment and skill set.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    73. Re:When will he be arrested? by mark_reh · · Score: 1

      Actually, speed limits are set based on safe driving conditions. That takes into account weather conditions, road construction/condition- curves, hills, etc., driver abilities, car condition, etc.

      It comes down to this. Americans are dumb. We don't drive properly, we don't keep our cars maintained properly, we bitch about paying taxes to keep roads maintained to say nothing of building them right in the first place. Solve these problems and we can have faster speed limits.

    74. Re:When will he be arrested? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Unless it's the desert of salt flats, 70 to 80 Mph and that's it. Even if posted, I would only drive 55 at most in rainy weather on an otherwise empty highway. There's also the problem of rush-hour speed changes. Traffic in Houston will abruptly change from 75 to 20 real quick. That's a major delta change in speed.

      I can't speak for other areas, but I would *not* recommend 80 Mph on either 290 or 10 between Houston and Austin. Too crowded, drivers are aggressive, and fucking deer love to bolt out right in front of you. That, and section of the roads are either too narrow IMHO or are not partitioned by a concrete barrier.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    75. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true. When speed limits are strictly enforced via photo radar, the photo radar is rejected by the people. The speed limits and lose method of enforcement is retained.

    76. Re:When will he be arrested? by Nimey · · Score: 1

      If only I could foe the mods who were stupid enough to vote you up.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    77. Re:When will he be arrested? by triffid_98 · · Score: 1

      That rather depends on what older car, but

      1. Undersized brakes work fine the first few times, it's under repeated aggressive braking that they start to fade badly. Your brakes don't stop the car, your tires do.

      2. Modern cars actually weigh significantly more than many older ones. There are certainly some 1970's pimp-mobiles that break the scales at 5000+ lbs (ex. a 1976 Coupe DeVille), but any of the cracker boxes (economy cars) from the 1970's and 1980's will be significantly lighter than nearly any modern one, with many weighing in between (2000-2500lbs).

      3. Floaty suspensions. OK, you've got me there. With the exception of sporty models, car makers almost universally favored ride comfort over handling. There were exceptions, but they were just that, exceptions.

      ...and yes, modern cars are without a doubt safer at high speeds assuming similar levels of driver skill (which is a large part of why they weigh more)

    78. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Germany,

      It's almost as if there is nothing else different there... except different culture, different road conditions, different people, different laws, different ....

    79. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...he installed a switch to kill the rear lights and bought two laser jammers and three radar detectors. He commissioned a radar jammer, but it wasn't finished in time for the trek."

      Sorry - two /laser/ jammers (also illegal as hell) he had. The /radar/ jammer wasn't ready.

    80. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, are you seriously going to claim you monitor your wing & rear view mirrors for 5+ seconds just in case some asshole is doing 150MPH behind you?

      How are you making sure the car in front of you isn't braking while you're taking measurements of closing speed in your mirrors, out of interest?

    81. Re:When will he be arrested? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 2

      No argument at all. The problem lies in the sizable percentage of people who will fail such training. Unlike Germany and most of Europe, public transit options in the majority of the US are minimal at best.

      It's mostly a geographic issue since we are much much more spread out and providing good public transit to rural areas isn't going to be easy.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    82. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      speed limits are posted to keep the public safe. .

      No, your stupid sheep, speed limits are not posted to keep anyone
      safe.

      Speed limits are posted because it gives the cops a way to
      give people who otherwise haven't broken any laws an expensive
      ticket.

      The cops don't care about safety. The cops care about serving
      their masters so they can keep their job.

    83. Re:When will he be arrested? by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Speeding? really?

      This guy bought and likely used equipment to block, foil, and escape from police.

      This goes so far beyond speeding, there is probably enough here to put him in jail for life.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    84. Re:When will he be arrested? by Cramer · · Score: 1

      No, the fundamental reason for speed limits is, in fact, safety. However, enforcement generates so much income that the true intent was lost long ago.

    85. Re:When will he be arrested? by clarkn0va · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not so, because then people would actually slow down, and the municipality's return on investment would plummet. The present lottery system allows people to speed and get away with it often enough that the occasional ticket isn't going to be any real deterrent for some--just enough, incidentally to provide low hanging fruit for minimal-effort enforcement.

      --
      I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
    86. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, highway speed limits, at least federal interstates, have speed limits for the purpose of generating revenue.

      Reckless driving is a criminal offense, not something you're fined for. Speeding fines are there to provide some disincentive to doing stupid things prior to going to jail for it.

      I can tell you from experience, that it carries a hefty fine as well in addition to the court hearings, etc.

    87. Re: When will he be arrested? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Ontario didn't ever raise their limits after the oil crisis in the 70s. On the other hand, the cops would even blink unless you're doing more than 20 km/h over the limit.

      On the other hand, if you manage to get out of the tiny area of southern Ontario where most of the time you can't even go that fast on the highway because of traffic, you'll realize that much of the time going faster is a dumb idea anyway because you simply don't have time to stop before that moose takes the top of your car (and the top of you) off.

    88. Re:When will he be arrested? by vux984 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      o while he was "breaking the law" I doubt he was as wreckless as Sally the realtor hurtling along in her Infinity SUV on her cell phone, explaining stuff to clients, and looking up things on her laptop....

      Driving 100 to 150mp while anywhere within sight of Sally the oblivious realtor is itself reckless. Think about it, she's not paying attention, likely to change langes without looking, and even if she does look you are coming so fast that unless she's paying real attention (and she isn't: see premise) she won't realize it.

      I've been up to 100mph and well beyond in my 911, and yeah, it handles like its on rails. But even so, the highway is not a track. There can be debris on the road, and the other drivers aren't speed matched at all.

      The few times I've wound it out on a highway, I'm off the gas pedal again if I see another car on the horizon -- because you overtake them so fast, and you can't do a sudden lane change or effectively hit the brakes at that when Sally the realtor wanders out of her lane for any reason.

      I've ridden on interstate trips and averaged 90-100 on the bike including quick fuel stops... and felt perfectly safe.

      On a bike? That's even nuttier as you won't likely survive the wreck when Sally the realtor does what Sally the realtor is going to do.

      To sum up 100-150mph on an empty highway ... sure ok. Been there done that, agree its not that bad. 100mph+ where the other cars are speed matched... sure ok, done that on the track a few times, and agree its pretty reasonable, where everyone's doing it, everyone's paying attention, etc.

      But overtaking people who are semi-conscious doing half the speed, and barely paying attention... no... that's going to be reckless.

      As for this guys stunt... its hard to say... if he was doing 60-70 when there were cars in sight, and 150mph when it was wide open than sure, he might haverage 100mph and its not as crazy as you' think. But if he was doing 100mph+ while overtaking people doing 55-60... he doesn't deserve to hold a license.

    89. Re:When will he be arrested? by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Actually, speed limits are set based on safe driving conditions. That takes into account weather conditions, road construction/condition- curves, hills, etc., driver abilities, car condition, etc.

      What part of the country is that in, so I can move there? Everywhere I've been, it's set by arbitrary zoning. Becomes noticeable when, on a single trip, you can drive through a major metro area that has higher speed limits in their construction zones than through towns with pop ~100k.

    90. Re: When will he be arrested? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      He AVERAGED 98. He says he approximately averaged 100 while moving, but if so that's more dangerous. Assuming he drove the safest way possible for the speed, slowing down for poor conditions, darkness, etc., he must have spent a good deal of time going considerably faster. Up to 150 m/h by his own admission.

    91. Re:When will he be arrested? by Grave · · Score: 1

      Who needs 5 seconds? Two glances should provide sufficient data.

    92. Re:When will he be arrested? by pspahn · · Score: 1

      I've ridden on interstate trips and averaged 90-100 on the bike including quick fuel stops... and felt perfectly safe.

      After I graduated high school, I took a solo road trip from near San Jose to Denver. There were stretches on US 50 in Nevada and Utah where it was quite easy to top 100mph and feel safe. I was in a mid-80's Buick sedan. The digital speedometer wouldn't display anything over 85mph (it would just flash 85 if you went higher) so I'm really not sure how fast I was going on that road.

      I did finish the trip in about 16 hours, though, which included nearly four hours to sleep and wait for gas station to open in Fallon, Nevada. That ends up being approximately 100mph average speed for the roughly 1200 mile trip.

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    93. Re:When will he be arrested? by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      And even forgetting about speed limits, fatigued driving is a clear danger to everybody. I hope he gets some jail time and thinks about it.

    94. Re:When will he be arrested? by fisted · · Score: 1

      I have a Harley with a five speed transmission. I've heard of a six speed upgrade, but thought those were just for bragging rights, as nobody would ever really need a sixth gear. And then I visited Texas. Now I'm saving up for one.

      In any case, a sixth gear makes sense for economical i.e. gas-saving reasons.

    95. Re:When will he be arrested? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      I have a Harley with a five speed transmission. I've heard of a six speed upgrade, but thought those were just for bragging rights, as nobody would ever really need a sixth gear. And then I visited Texas. Now I'm saving up for one.

      In any case, a sixth gear makes sense for economical i.e. gas-saving reasons.

      There is that argument as well. (Although I'm told that an "overdrive" is not as efficient and may not yield any savings -- that the more efficient track is to make 6th gear 1:1 (as is 5th currently) and change the sprocket ratio. But I can only recite what I've read -- I'm really in over my head on this.)

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    96. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First link is a Google search, not a study. Would a lmgtfy link be more over the head for you?

      Second link, discussing the rise of highway speeds -- "The results suggest that the new laws have increased fatalities on both rural interstate and rural noninterstate highways in most states..."

      Third link discusses urban roads, sure, but GP didn't specify highway or not.

    97. Re:When will he be arrested? by oreiasecaman · · Score: 1

      No, the tune would change to complete silence... change is change after all

      --
      This is a UDP joke, I don't care if you get it or not...
    98. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not everywhere, in my county they are also used to prevent people using "shortcuts" and inconvenient as possible. Want an example?

      Look at this one mile stretch of Ashton Avenue in the map. 35 MPH and the police sit there all day every day and pull people over. https://maps.google.com/maps?q=prince+william+county+map&ll=38.770698,-77.506721&spn=0.015073,0.033023&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&hnear=Prince+William,+Virginia&gl=us&t=h&z=16

      I can show numerous examples of this in my area. The road I live on is two lane a winding road twisting road through the woods with many hidden intersections and blind hills. Speed limit, 45. How is Aston Avenue 35? There was another road in the are that was 40 similar to Ashton that the police hung out on daily as well but they finally raised it to 45. That 4 lane road road connects two 4 lane roads on each end with much more traffic, red lights, businesses and they are 55. go figure.

    99. Re:When will he be arrested? by nbauman · · Score: 5, Informative

      no one ever cites those studies that show lower speed limits are safer... Because they don't exist.

      Here's a study that shows lower speeds are safer. Among people who were wearing a seat belt, nobody driving 60 mph or less died. People driving over 60 mph died, because in an accident above 60 mph, the car rolls and the passenger compartment starts to fall apart. (Unfortunately the full paper is paywalled, but it had a nice chart of fatalities increasing with speed.) This happens to be a classic paper from 1967; there have been studies coming to the same conclusion ever since. You can look them up in the Engineering Index.

      Driving fast is safe as long as you don't have an accident. When you do have an accident, the faster you're going, the more energy you have to dissipate, and the more likely the car is to crush in a rollover or tear apart and send you flying unprotected at 60 mph. It's pretty hard to hit the ground at 60 mph and survive. That's roughly equivalent to falling off a 15-story building.

      http://papers.sae.org/670925/

      A Statistical Analysis of 28,000 Accident Cases with Emphasis on Occupant Restraint Value

      Paper #: 670925

      Published: 1967-02-01

      DOI: 10.4271/670925

      Citation:

      Bohlin, N., "A Statistical Analysis of 28,000 Accident Cases with Emphasis on Occupant Restraint Value," SAE Technical Paper 670925, 1967, doi:10.4271/670925.
      Author(s): N. I. Bohlin

      Affiliated: Passenger Car Engineering Dept., AB Volvo

      Abstract: The value of the three-point safety belt has been evaluated by a statistical analysis of more than 28,000 accident cases, which concerned mainly two cars only and in which 37,511 unbelted and belted front-seat occupants were involved. The safety harness concerned is the Volvo three-point combined lap and upper torso harness with a so-called slip-joint. The average injury-reducing effect of the harness proved to vary between 0 and 90%, depending on the speed at which the accident occurred or the type of injury. Unbelted occupants sustained fatal injuries throughout the whole speed scale, whereas none of the belted occupants was fatally injured at accident speeds below 60 mph. Slight injuries only, mostly single rib cracks, bruises, etc., caused by the safety belt were reported in some cases. The three-point belt proved to be fully effective against ejection out of the car. Almost all cars involved were equipped with safety belts, of which, however, only 26% on an average were used. The frequency of use increased with the age of the occupants.

    100. Re:When will he be arrested? by hawguy · · Score: 2

      since you *do* know what behaviors to expect.

      Sounds like blaming the victim, as in "You knew there was a chance something bad would happen if you walked alone at night, therefore you deserved it."

      The driver going twice the speed limit on a public street is not the "victim" in an accident.

      If you want to use bad analogies, how about "You saw that sign that said 'No tresspassing, minefield ahead' yet you ignored the sign and proceeded anyway - you knew the danger, thought you could avoid the mines, but you didn't. Therefore you deserved it".

    101. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Virginia, speed over 90mph is automatically classified as reckless driving (and the punishment can exceed the punishment for DUI). I don't know if any of the states he did go through have similar laws.

    102. Re:When will he be arrested? by Amtrak · · Score: 1

      I spend a lot of time driving across country and the worst places in my experience are the interstates in urban areas. Those areas tend to have artificially lower speed limits to deal with maximum traffic capacity for rush hour.

      This is exactly why I wish we would just implement adjusting speed limits and enforce them.

      I understand why Lake Shore Drive in Chicago's Speed Limit is 45mph during Rush hour, that makes total sense the road is a parking lot anyway; but why can't it be 60mph or even 65mph during the middle of the night or Sunday mornings when it's mostly empty. (You know outside of the S curve at Michigan Ave. that should stay at 25mph) Also, if we had speed limits that adjusted we could have to speeds change based on road conditions. That way we can make it illigal for that idiot in the BMW to go 55mph when the road is all ice and its barely safe to go 30mph.

    103. Re:When will he be arrested? by nbauman · · Score: 2

      Here's the first study.

      Accident Analysis & Prevention
      Volume 22, Issue 2, April 1990, Pages 137–149
      The effects of the new 65 mile-per-hour speed limit on rural highway fatalities: A state-by-state analysis

      This paper examines the effects of the new 65 mile-per-hour (mph) speed limit on U.S. rural highway fatality counts. Separate analyses are conducted for each of the 40 states that had adopted the new (higher) limit by mid-1988. Using monthly Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS) data from January 1976 through November 1988, time-series regression equations—including policy variables, seasonal variables, and surrogate exposure variables—are estimated for each state. The results suggest that the new laws have increased fatalities on both rural interstate and rural noninterstate highways in most states, but also that these effects differ substantially across the states. For rural interstate fatalities the estimates suggest a median (among the 40 states) effect of the increased speed limit of roughly 15% more fatalities; the median estimates for rural noninterstates suggest a 5% increase in fatalities due to the increased speed limits. Estimates such as those reported here should be revised as more information becomes available.

    104. Re:When will he be arrested? by nbauman · · Score: 1

      The Solomon Curve speaks more directly to the real issue of speed and accidents and relates to speed differentials. Solomon's results have been duplicated many times and the issue is that there is a higher likelihood of being in an accident as an individual's speed varies from the average speed. Interestingly, going much slower than the average speed seems to indicate a higher likelihood of being involved in an accident.

      So what? Design roads so that you don't have cars next to each other traveling at widely different speeds. But whatever the distribution of speed, when you have an accident, you're much more likely to have fatalities at higher speeds than at lower speeds.

      Simply having a lower speed limit does not, in itself, result in lower accident rates.

      Other things being equal, lower speeds result in lower fatalities. That's been demonstrated from accident investigations and statistics, from crash tests, and from the physics of accidents. I used to look those studies up in the Engineering Index.

    105. Re:When will he be arrested? by LDAPMAN · · Score: 1

      Once you get out of the NE corridor NOBODY is doing 55-60 on the interstate. Average speeds will likely be 80 or better all the way to CA.

    106. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you aren't already aware of who's coming up behind and you need more than a glance to confirm that things are the way they were before, you're doing it wrong.

    107. Re:When will he be arrested? by Derec01 · · Score: 1

      You're drastically reducing someone's reaction window by presenting an unlikely situation.

      Ideally a driver should be prepared for anything, sure. That doesn't mean you're not creating danger by being that "anything".

      People should lock their doors securely at night. That doesn't mean I don't blame the burglar.

    108. Re:When will he be arrested? by Darinbob · · Score: 1, Insightful

      However driving faster than the prevailling traffic is known to be less safe. If the traffic is moving an average of 30mph and you drive the speed limit of 55mph, then you are driving dangerously as well as breaking the law.

    109. Re:When will he be arrested? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      It could hold up though, especially with documented start and stop times. The only problem is jurisdiction as there's no federal highway patrol.

    110. Re:When will he be arrested? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Also, I think this is definitely enough evidence to get a warrant to attach a GPS tracker to the automobile...

    111. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did the populace at large suddenly become better drivers when the double nickel was repealed?
       
      The cars became safer, you stupid fucking shitball.
       
      You're what's wrong with the world. Go fuck yourself.
       
        One could argue (and in his position, I would, in court) that the degree of preparation involved (only some of which, undoubtedly, we have heard here) is proof positive that the participants very much were thinking and caring about the consequences of their actions.
       
      Um, no. The preparations they engaged in were to ensure that they weren't caught. The welfare of the public around them certainly couldn't have been a concern while doing 158 mph or killing their driving lights.
       
      I bet you think you're real cool but I think you're a fucking cunt.

    112. Re:When will he be arrested? by Derec01 · · Score: 2

      You don't want to pick this champion for that cause. You could probably show ranging it from 60-80 doesn't matter much.

      This guy was AVERAGING 100mph and probably going 120mph in stretches with other cars. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he was only going 150mph on an isolated road (and even then, God help a poor guy turning onto the highway not realizing the car could possibly be going at that speed).

      From 60mph to 80mph is only a 50% increase in energy. From 60mph to 120mph is quadruple the energy that has to be dissipated. At 150mph you're hitting a factor of eight.

      And you've halved the reaction time available to anyone dealing with you.

      I have no respect for this guy.

    113. Re:When will he be arrested? by tranquilidad · · Score: 1

      Certainly physics dictates that lower levels of energy should cause lower levels of damage and, therefore, accidents that occur at lower speeds should have less damage and fewer fatalities.

      The problem, though, is human behavior. Those same studies indicate that experienced drivers will tend to drive near the design limits of the road and, therefore, those studies recommend setting the speed limit 5-10 mph below the roads design point.

      The bigger question which is also raised is at what cost are we willing to accept lower speeds. We could totally eliminate traffic fatalities by eliminating traffic. Even allowing traffic, the closer to zero the speed of the cars then the lower the fatalities.

      My personal opinion is that we are targeting the wrong issue. It's generally not speed alone that causes the accidents but speed combined with something else: unsafe lane changes, following too closely and driving aggressively. The flip side are people who have no clue about driving and do things that help promote some of those behaviors.

      I'd be very happy with variable speed limits including some areas of the country with no limit if it was combined with exceedingly heavy punishment for the other issues such as distracted driving, unsafe lane changes, etc.

      I think the 80 mph speed limit between El Paso and San Antonio is too low in many places. On the other hand, the 60 mph through Houston is often hard to reach in a reasonably safe manner.

      My greatest fear and disappointment is that we have created a driving culture in the U.S. that lacks serious responsibility amongst the individual drivers forcing all of us to drive to the lowest common denominator of safety.

    114. Re:When will he be arrested? by pbhj · · Score: 1

      In most states law enforcement only need to have a just cause to arrest people on suspicion of crime - someone making a confession and claiming to have clear evidence that they committed a crime seems like just cause to arrest the suspect here.

      It seems they must either deny it, and get out losing their record, or confess?

    115. Re:When will he be arrested? by pbhj · · Score: 1

      Why not? Doesn't the spirit of the law exist in USA?

    116. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All vehicles are comfortable to 'controlel' until you encounter the unanticipated...

      How bad things get from there is entirely related to how fast you were going.

    117. Re:When will he be arrested? by cffrost · · Score: 3

      This. Not only that, this is a clear case where he SHOULD be, if not arrested, at least fined heavily. This is clear cut reckless driving; speed limits are posted to keep the public safe. Stunts like this should not be pulled at the potential expense of other drivers on the road. We're all beholden to the same laws, whether you're trying to break a record or not.

      I don't buy into this philosophy of punishing people for "crimes" based on arbitrary risks of things that could, but did not occur — and they are most certainly arbitrary: Texting-while-driving is illegal, but adjusting-the-stereo-while-driving is not, nor are any of the following "risky" activites illegal when performed while driving: putting on makeup, talking to passengers, turning around to yell at ones' kids, solving a crossword puzzle, driving after having had poor-quality or inadequate sleep, driving while having to taking a piss, driving outside of the envelope of peak physical and mental human performance conditions, and so on. That these activities are legal while driving represents a gaping hole in the philosophy of writing and enforcing laws based on risks.

      Another example, taking risk-based vehicular "crime" close to its logical conclusion: Clearly, it would be safest for there to be only one car on the road at a time, or to enforce a half-mile vehicle-separation distance. This would eliminate nearly all multi-vehicle collisions; by driving near, or (even worse) towards me, you put my life at risk! This is unreasonable, and impossible to enforce in a consistent or productive manner. What is reasonable, is to make it a crime to cause damage to people or property by way of negligence — but, we already have that. The rest — these "risk-crimes" — are all instances of moral panics, cash-grabs, power-grabs, and authoritarianism run amok — "for our own good." No, thanks. If someone actually hurts someone else, that's something else entirely, and worth having the laws we have against.

      You wouldn't have even known this event had occurred, had he not come forward, because there were no victims. This guy hurt no one, and in my opinion deserves no penalty.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    118. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh bullshit. The only reason it's not uniform is that a lot of cops don't really like being forced to give out tickets.

    119. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, which is it? X0563511 says you shouldn't glance, now you're saying a glance is all you need. I mean, you're assuming that the asshole didn't change lanes between glances, or that another car didn't get out of the way and now the asshole is behind you on the second glance.

      What this thread goes to show is that driving styles and abilities vary drastically and therefore any assumptions from assholes doing 150MPH+ are entirely invalid. Just sayin'

    120. Re:When will he be arrested? by bitt3n · · Score: 1

      He doesn't need to deny anything. He just needs to withhold any evidence that he broke the speed limit in a particular state.

    121. Re:When will he be arrested? by bunbuntheminilop · · Score: 1

      The Solomon curve seems to show that the safest speed to travel is just slightly below the average speed. This doesn't make any sense. X isn't variation from average. shouldn't it be speed in mph, with 0 being the speed limit?

      And, in the 50's, when the data was collated, how did Solomon accurately predict the speed the cars involved in these collisions were going at? We cant do that reliably now.

    122. Re:When will he be arrested? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      >> Did the populace at large suddenly become better drivers when the double nickel was repealed?

      > The cars became safer, you stupid fucking shitball.

      Sigh. Easy to say as an anonymous coward. Ok, I'll bite -- then if cars suddenly became safer when the national speed limit was repealed in 1995, does this also mean that cars were safer before it was enacted in 1974? And are cars safer in Texas, where the maximum speed limit is 80, than in California where it's 70, or Oregon where it's 65?

      You are almost certainly too young to remember, but the purpose of the national speed limit wasn't anything to do with safety, although there were retroactive arguments along those lines. Check the wiki for "national maximum speed limit", it's illuminating.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    123. Re:When will he be arrested? by cffrost · · Score: 2

      Says all those people who like to speed. As soon as you or someone you love gets killed or injured by a speeder, your tune will change.

      If I have loved-ones accidentally killed by a person who takes Zoloft, didn't get enough sleep, was stressed by divorce proceedings, was late for work, was perhaps going a little over the speed limit, and crossed the center-line... How should I change my tune then? Which thing(s) should I go into a moral panic or rage over? What new law (preferably named after my lost loved-one) should I demand in order to restrict peoples' behavior and liberties, "so something likes this never happens to anyone else?"

      Maybe — as someone who's lost three loved-ones near-simultaneously to another driver — I should just keep in mind that about 600 people die on US roads and highways each week, and oftentimes things don't go the way I'd like them to.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    124. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      speed limits are posted to keep the public safe

      I'm not saying you're exactly wrong (though about 60% of me is thinking that) but don't you see how your statement, even if sincerely meant and even if it turns out to be correct, is the very essence of TROLL? You might as well say "emacs is the best editor."

    125. Re:When will he be arrested? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      The only risk management that is mentioned is ways of avoiding getting caught by the cops, and a redundancy in GPS. (And yet he still turned the wrong way down a one way street because (one of) the GPSs told him to.)

      It does mention doing it on a quiet weekend, with moonlight, but it's not clear that was for safety as much as being conducive to getting the quickest time.

      There's no mention of things like roll-bars, helmets, fire extinguishers etc. Or anything for safety. Just the extra gas tanks that made the car more unsafe.

      No hint whatsoever in fact that the guy isn't a Darwin award contender, that was lucky this time.

    126. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blame schmame. You're the one who had an avoidable time out (at a minimum, waiting for the tow truck) as a result for not being ready to deal with the thing that everyone else was prepared to deal with. Whether we call it "blame" or not, you saw (or worse:foolishly didn't see) what was reasonably likely to happen, and decided you were ok with taking the chance. If you weren't ok with it, then you would have succeeded in missing the fuckwit with your car, instead of failing.

    127. Re:When will he be arrested? by ildon · · Score: 1

      You can make a good argument for speed limits under 70 mph, or even as much as 80 mph, as only existing to generate revenue. But going well over 100 mph really and truly is endangering yourself and anyone else on the road around you, which is what this person did.

    128. Re:When will he be arrested? by nctritech · · Score: 1

      The laws need to be changed. Speed limits don't increase safety. They only serve to fatten the state's wallet.

    129. Re:When will he be arrested? by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      Everything in moderation. Including moderation itself. There's a reason we have feast-days.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    130. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If she was on the phone and didn't look, why do you think she did it deliberately?

      By choosing to use her cellphone while driving, she did deliberately affect her driving ability.

    131. Re:When will he be arrested? by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      Nearly three times the speed of other vehicles? 98 is 3 times 33. I didn't notice that his route was entirely within city or town business districts.

    132. Re:When will he be arrested? by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      Physics tells us that the an accident will be worse at higher speeds but for every study that says higher speeds result in more deaths or more accidents there is a study that says the opposite.

    133. Re:When will he be arrested? by Derek+Pomery · · Score: 2

      Um. A paper from 1967? Really?
      A time when cars didn't have a steel cage around the passenger compartment, no airbags of any kind, no crumple zones...

      Have you seen the youtube video of a 1959 Chevrolet crashing into a 2009 Chevrolet?

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMK1WZjP7g

      --
      -- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.
    134. Re:When will he be arrested? by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      I've driven and ridden on the autobahns in Germany and whatever they call them in Italy. Their is routinely traffic at a great variety of speeds so your example of how it is safe is also an example of why you claim it is reckless. So which one are you really claiming it to be?

      Back in the 1980's, the speed limits in Italy were based on the displacement of the engine: the larger the engine the faster you were allowed to go. At least on the freeway in the region around Milan. The posted limits varied by a factor of 3 from slowest to fastest so the law there was setting up the exact situation this guy was in.

    135. Re:When will he be arrested? by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      He doesn't need to argue that he obeyed the speed limit across the whole trip (or his half), just when he was passing through the county in which he is being prosecuted. Without the GPS data, no particular county can prove he sped there.

      That said, if only takes one county judge to demand he turn over the GPS data and then it's on the public record for all of them.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    136. Re: When will he be arrested? by TapeCutter · · Score: 2

      Yes, I've seen that happen to a car travelling in front and to the left of me in outer suburban Melbourne, except it was a black and white cow. It was surreal, at one stage the cow was momentarily "turned turtle" on the roof of the car. The car was doing about 50mph, straight road, night, no street lights. The driver received some nasty cuts and fractures but was able to get into the ambulance under his own steam. The car roof was crushed down to the window sill on the passengers side, the cow had sort of rolled across the entire length of the car, it was dead but still intact.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    137. Re:When will he be arrested? by Derek+Pomery · · Score: 1

      And then there's the risks when driving at that speed. Back then, power steering was not common, there was no ABS. Tires were not as good. In a few years we'll be adding computer assisted safety features too.

      Anyway, this reminds me of a bloom county strip.

      http://m8y.org/bloomcounty.txt

      --
      -- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.
    138. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Accident rates," however, are only a part of the picture. I find the rates of fatality and debilitating injury much more relevant.

    139. Re:When will he be arrested? by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      I fell off a 40 story building one time. Thank God I was on the second step when it happened!

    140. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Straw man. The parent post isn't about accident rates; it's about safety. The parent cited a study saying that, all else held equal, accidents are more likely to be fatal as speed increases. So if speed doesn't affect the accident rate but does affect the fatality rate, then driving faster is more dangerous.

    141. Re:When will he be arrested? by fred911 · · Score: 1

      "Clear cut case of speeding and the guy even collected his own evidence."

      Worse than that, he paid an uninterested 3rd party. How long before that data is collected with a warrant and used against him.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    142. Re:When will he be arrested? by m00sh · · Score: 1

      The first study you cite isn't related to lower speeds but lower speed variances and, in the first page abstract, says, "...accident rates do not necessarily increase with an increase in average speed but do increase with an increase in speed variance."

      The third study really speaks about speed limits on urban roads, where the majority of accidents occur, rather than interstates.

      The Solomon Curve speaks more directly to the real issue of speed and accidents and relates to speed differentials. Solomon's results have been duplicated many times and the issue is that there is a higher likelihood of being in an accident as an individual's speed varies from the average speed. Interestingly, going much slower than the average speed seems to indicate a higher likelihood of being involved in an accident.

      I spend a lot of time driving across country and the worst places in my experience are the interstates in urban areas. Those areas tend to have artificially lower speed limits to deal with maximum traffic capacity for rush hour. When driving through these areas during non-rush hour times I would feel that I would be run over if I drove anywhere near the speed limit. The first study you cite specifically talks about finding the ideal speed limit related to the highway speed design point and that artificially setting the speed limit too low related to the design point increases the probability of accidents.

      Simply having a lower speed limit does not, in itself, result in lower accident rates.

      Lower speed limits do not result in lesser accidents but does result in less fatalities and injuries when the accidents do occur.

      And, that's what the original poster said!

      Driving fast is safe as long as you don't get into accidents as the OP said. Since you said that the rate of accidents don't decrease with higher speed limits and the chance of accidents stays the same as you claim, then driving faster doesn't decrease your chance of getting into an accident but increases your chances of serious injury when you do get into an accident.

      So, overall it is safer to have lower speed limits.

      In the last paragraph, you are arguing that lower speed limits increases the chances of accidents (in urban areas).

    143. Re:When will he be arrested? by tutufan · · Score: 1

      In addition, and perhaps as important, why are his friends, relatives, and neighbors not shunning this guy? If his mission was to have unprotected sex in each state, spit in salad bars in each state, or slash tires in each state, I suspect we'd see some uproar. But for this much-more-dangerous lawbreaking, nothing. (And I *really* want to hear from the anti-immigration lobby here, who are constantly beating their drums about obeying laws...)

    144. Re:When will he be arrested? by hawguy · · Score: 1

      Your stopping distance at 100mph is about 4 times greater than at 50mph.

      Physics, you fail it

      It has been a while since I've been in a Physical class, but from what I remember, the formula for Kinetic Energy is: Ek = .5 * m * v^2. So doubling the speed increases the kinetic energy by 4 times. Plugging in 50mph and 100mph:

      Ek1=(0.5) * m * (50)^2 = m * 1250

      Ek1 = (0.5) * m * (100)^2 = m * 5000

      m is constant

      Ek2 = 4 * Ek1

      Is there a car whose brakes work exponentially better at higher speeds?

      If you don't believe me, here's a braking calculator:

      http://www.random-science-tools.com/physics/stopping-distance.htm

      Feel free to plug in some speeds and see how the braking distance is proportional to the square of the speed. Or correct my physics.

    145. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      She deliberately cut you off and slammed on the brakes, without seeing you first? Yeah that makes a lot of sense.

    146. Re:When will he be arrested? by Rich0 · · Score: 2

      Um... no. Speeding fines are NOT there to collect some money for municipalities, otherwise they would be uniformly and much more strictly enforced.

      If speed limits were uniformly enforced either the limits would be eliminated within a week, or riot police would have to shoot most of the population within that time. The only reason the current limits are tolerated is the fact that everybody can easily get away with violating them.

    147. Re:When will he be arrested? by catmistake · · Score: 1

      Thanks for posting. I find it quite annoying that those that insist on doing as they like, rationality be damned, will make up things to support their claim. It makes perfect sense that lower speed limits save lives. However, I'm almost certain that the reason for the 55/65 MPH speed limits is due to fuel efficiency. At around that speed, the drag of air friction means that there will be diminishing fuel efficency as speed increases.

    148. Re: When will he be arrested? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, if you manage to get out of the tiny area of southern Ontario where most of the time you can't even go that fast on the highway because of traffic, you'll realize that much of the time going faster is a dumb idea anyway because you simply don't have time to stop before that moose takes the top of your car (and the top of you) off.

      Tiny area of southern ontario? Well since the majority of the population of Canada lives between Windsor and Hull, I guess that's tiny. But I'm currently living in "moose country" well that and bear, and deer, and elk country too. In northern alberta, the posted limit on 2 lane highways here is 100km/h. In Ontario that would be 80.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    149. Re:When will he be arrested? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      I can't speak for other areas, but I would *not* recommend 80 Mph on either 290 or 10 between Houston and Austin

      When younger, I used to drive 90+ on that road. It's not that much a problem, since most people are going fairly fast already.

      Pretty much any interstate highway is a very easy drive at 90, I could easily see going faster very safley if you did not care about tickets.

      As for deer, I do slow down at dusk... people you can learn to avoid and anticipate, deer are too much the wildcard and often invisible to boot.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    150. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The entire purpose of lower speed limits is for fuel efficiency. Slow down, 6th gear not necessary. Also, far greater chances of surviving an accident. (Its not your skills I doubt, friend... the road is full of unattentive drivers, unfortunately.)

    151. Re:When will he be arrested? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      That's a major FUCKING EXPLOSION HAZARD

      Somebody's been watching way too many action movies.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    152. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you've ever raced across town, you realize that saving 1-3 minutes isn't worth the risk of running lights and speeding, and pissing people off. If you've ever driven this trip across country, and tried to make good time, you realize that the effort it takes and fuel cost/inefficiency vs the time savings just isn't worth it. Granted, averaging 100 MPH saved these guys about 8 hours, which is really impressive (I did it in about 37 hours solo), but what an exhausting trip that would be even with multiple drivers. Its a ridiculous exercise, even for car lovers. Flying via an airline beats this in fuel efficiency, cost and time.

    153. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prove that he was ACTUALLY reckless.

    154. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you missed the point of the parent post: accident RATES may not be greater at higher speeds, but the EFFECTS are.

    155. Re:When will he be arrested? by The+Snowman · · Score: 1

      In Virginia, speed over 90mph is automatically classified as reckless driving (and the punishment can exceed the punishment for DUI). I don't know if any of the states he did go through have similar laws.

      In Ohio, 20 over the posted limit is reckless driving, but it is up to the police officer. My last speeding ticket was 48 in a 25. While I received two points, I was not cited for reckless driving. My last ticket was "failure to control" because I hydroplaned and totaled my car, traveling 55 in a 70 in heavy rain. It also incurred two points, but was not reckless driving. Typically in Ohio, cops give reckless driving citations in conjunction with something like a DUI, running from police, hitting a pedestrian or stationary object, or a judge may tack on the charge if the law allows it and the officer did not already cite it.

      --
      24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
    156. Re:When will he be arrested? by nbauman · · Score: 5, Informative

      The crush space was the same in 1967 as it is today. I remember an article in Automotive News which reported on a lecture by a Mercedes-Benz engineer on the problem of designing a car that would let the occupants survive a front-end collision into a barrier.

      The engineer described the physical constraints. They had to decelerate the car at a maximum number of Gs. They had 50 inches of crush space between the passenger compartment and the front end. In order to decelerate to a stop through that distance, you couldn't be driving any faster than about 50 mph. It didn't have anything to do with the mechanical capabilities of the car, that was the maximum theoretical speed you survive at. The crush space increased as the square of the initial velocity, so it wasn't feasible to increase the crush space in the hood. You can't make a practical car with 16 feet of crush space.

      I used to work for the Society of Automotive Engineers, and I worked on the papers that they used to design seat belts and air bags. (That's why I know about Bohlin's paper.) The lap-and-shoulder seat belts (which Bohlin originally designed) were actually safer in a collision than the airbags. The airbags only make sense if people aren't wearing seat belts.

      There's a big difference in safety between a 1959 Chevrolet and the cars that came later. Ralph Nader published Unsafe at Any Speed in 1965. The lawsuit Larsen vs. General Motors was decided in 1965, and made auto manufacturers responsible for designing safer cars. And Volvo, which Bohlin worked for, were always designed for safety. Bohlin's study is only one of the best studies, but it was followed by many, many studies that all showed that the faster you drive, the more likely you are to die in an accident.

      It's just basic engineering physics. 60 mph is like falling off a 10- or 15-story building. The faster you go, the more kinetic energy you have, and if that car becomes unstable, as it will in an accident, that energy has to get dissipated somewhere. The higher the speed, the less likely the occupants are to survive.

      Don't take my word for it. Look up the engineering literature.

    157. Re:When will he be arrested? by nbauman · · Score: 1

      The fallacy of that is that safety vs. speed isn't a linear function. There's no benefit to having a maximum speed limit below 55 mph on a well-designed road.

      If you looked at the curves in the engineering studies (like the Bohlin study), you'd see that the death rates are pretty low below 55 mph, then they begin to increase up to 65 mph, and they start going up really steeply after 70 mph. Deaths increase at roughly the square of the velocity.

    158. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Interestingly, going much slower than the average speed seems to indicate a higher likelihood of being involved in an accident."

      Not surprising, cars on the freeway shoulder often get hit. Going 10 MPH in a 50 is going to cause obvious problems as well.

    159. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      right, but i'd say "safer" would mean fatalities not accident rates, and lower speed = lower fatalities assuming equal accident rates.

    160. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's pretty hard to hit the ground at 60 mph and survive. That's roughly equivalent to falling off a 15-story building.

      You hit the ground at an angle in an auto/bike crash, not straight down. It's not a 15 story building. I've fallen at 60-80mph before and walked away...

      Reason for shitty rollovers is most cars have no reinforced upper structure, those roof columns in your car are usually thin sheet steel, as there is very minor testing for it.. partially why convertibles are all good on the road in this perspective too.

      The convertible downstairs has a full welded in cage for a reason.. if all cars had them + standard crumple zones + improved harness/belts standard, things would be a little different on the roads and higher speeds wouldn't be so much of a problem.

    161. Re:When will he be arrested? by BringsApples · · Score: 1

      Wrong, that's the very reason some people are in court in the first place.
      It's called a conspiracy charge.

      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    162. Re:When will he be arrested? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      ..and when it was, he was doing less than 98!

      How do I know? His peak speed was 156mph. Or nearly three times the speed many people drive.

      Unless you think he did that through Manhattan?

    163. Re:When will he be arrested? by stenvar · · Score: 1

      So which one are you really claiming it to be?

      I'm claiming that the statement "speed limits are posted to keep the public safe" is wrong; that's not why speed limits were posted on US highways, and speed limits are not necessary to achieve lower death rates than the US currently has as the German example shows. Even within in the US, there is little evidence that speed limits actually have that effect.

      Their is routinely traffic at a great variety of speeds so your example of how it is safe is also an example of why you claim it is reckless.

      No, I claim that violating posted speed limits and expected behavioral norms is reckless. In the US, people going 65 MPH in the right lane don't expect others to pass them at 120 MPH. In Germany they do, and everybody behaves accordingly. But whether that explanation is right or wrong doesn't matter for my first point: Twocow's statement about the history and effect of speed limits was wrong.

    164. Re:When will he be arrested? by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      Speeding fines are there to collect some money for municipalities.

      Otherwise they would be uniformly and much more strictly enforced.

      Um... no. Speeding fines are NOT there to collect some money for municipalities, otherwise they would be uniformly and much more strictly enforced.

      Um...yes, they are there to collect money. And that money is multiplied if you happen to be foreign or, as in my case, driving on a foreign driver's license.

      As an American now driving on a French driver's license I was stopped in NH for what should have been speeding and instead was arrested for reckless driving. I was driving calmly (i.e. not weaving through traffic or anything) at less than 100Mph on the highway in the daytime with clear, dry weather with almost no traffic on the road. Speeding? Yes. Reckless driving? - Only because I was on a French license.

      The cop was chuckling when he busted me saying things like 'Oh we have a judge that loves foreigners' blah blah. Idiot cop that couldn't tell that I'm American from my passport but whatever.

      After posting 500 USD bail to avoid spending the weekend in the lockup (this was a Friday evening), and taking my flight back home to France, I faxed a request to the court to not contest in return for not having to for over maybe another 1000 USD for airplane tickets, car rental, hotel, etc that would be required to be able to return for the scheduled court date.

      The fucking judge didn't force me to come back but did hit me for a total of 900 USD for what should have been, according to the NH state website, a fine of less than 100 USD.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    165. Re:When will he be arrested? by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      Cars from 1967 are nowhere near as safe as cars built today.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    166. Re:When will he be arrested? by sociocapitalist · · Score: 0

      o while he was "breaking the law" I doubt he was as wreckless as Sally the realtor hurtling along in her Infinity SUV on her cell phone, explaining stuff to clients, and looking up things on her laptop....

      Driving 100 to 150mp while anywhere within sight of Sally the oblivious realtor is itself reckless. Think about it, she's not paying attention, likely to change langes without looking, and even if she does look you are coming so fast that unless she's paying real attention (and she isn't: see premise) she won't realize it.

      I've been up to 100mph and well beyond in my 911, and yeah, it handles like its on rails. But even so, the highway is not a track. There can be debris on the road, and the other drivers aren't speed matched at all.

      The few times I've wound it out on a highway, I'm off the gas pedal again if I see another car on the horizon -- because you overtake them so fast, and you can't do a sudden lane change or effectively hit the brakes at that when Sally the realtor wanders out of her lane for any reason.

      I've ridden on interstate trips and averaged 90-100 on the bike including quick fuel stops... and felt perfectly safe.

      On a bike? That's even nuttier as you won't likely survive the wreck when Sally the realtor does what Sally the realtor is going to do.

      To sum up 100-150mph on an empty highway ... sure ok. Been there done that, agree its not that bad. 100mph+ where the other cars are speed matched... sure ok, done that on the track a few times, and agree its pretty reasonable, where everyone's doing it, everyone's paying attention, etc.

      But overtaking people who are semi-conscious doing half the speed, and barely paying attention... no... that's going to be reckless.

      As for this guys stunt... its hard to say... if he was doing 60-70 when there were cars in sight, and 150mph when it was wide open than sure, he might haverage 100mph and its not as crazy as you' think. But if he was doing 100mph+ while overtaking people doing 55-60... he doesn't deserve to hold a license.

      Frankly you're a bit of a pussy with speed from what you write. 100Mph is nothing on a well-built highway in a modern good quality car.

      In Germany there are many highways without speed limits and if you're only driving 100Mph you're going to get passed all the time.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    167. Re:When will he be arrested? by crossmr · · Score: 1

      i drove down I95 to NY from Canada many years ago, and did 100mph a significant part of the way. Interstate is great.

    168. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citations... Or is this just your own bullshit speculation?

    169. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hall monitor.

    170. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you post your calculations on how much energy you just wasted on a troll?

    171. Re:When will he be arrested? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Currently they are enforced in a haphazard manner, often collected at locations where speedlimit rapidly changes.

      Funny, that also seems to be the locations where people take the view of "I don't need to slow down to 60 here, it'll be 80 again around the corner."

    172. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't take my word for it. Look up the engineering literature.

      Or the GP could just test this empirically.

    173. Re:When will he be arrested? by dkf · · Score: 1

      I spend a lot of time driving across country and the worst places in my experience are the interstates in urban areas. Those areas tend to have artificially lower speed limits to deal with maximum traffic capacity for rush hour.

      Round us, they use variable speed limits so that they can be set lower during rush hour and increased when traffic densities are lower. My experience with them is that during the rush, everyone does almost exactly the same speed; it's like the traffic is flowing like a liquid instead of as a gas.

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    174. Re:When will he be arrested? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      No, highway speed limits, at least federal interstates, have speed limits for the purpose of generating revenue.

      Wrong.

      Speed limits are there try to get everyone doing the same speed. Speed differential increases the likelihood of crashes significantly.

      This is why there are significantly less fatalities in counties were limits are properly enforced and not treated as a joke as they are in the US.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    175. Re:When will he be arrested? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Everything is related to money. Even if you don't believe it's to generate ticket revenue (and that is a bit of a stretch) why does the government care if you speed?

      Because it's the government that has to scrape the remains of you and your car off the road.

      Because it's the government who cops the blame when the remains of you and your car close down a major highway.

      So the government has a vested interest in you not crashing.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    176. Re:When will he be arrested? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      speed limits are posted to keep the public safe

      Highway speed limits were introduced to save oil, not to keep people safe. Germany doesn't have speed limits on large stretches of its highways, and much higher speed limits where it does, and yet fewer people get killed per million vehicle miles.

      Actually, most of the Autobahn has speed limits from 80 KPH to 130.

      What this guy did was clearly reckless, but that's because he was driving at different speeds from the rest of traffic, not because he was going fast.

      So what you're trying to say here is that speed limits are in place to keep people safe.

      Also, going fast is very often reckless because it exceeds the capabilities of the car or more often, the driver. Very few people are actually capable of handling 100 MPH+ for extended periods of time and most SUV's and econoboxes definitely aren't.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    177. Re:When will he be arrested? by hairyfish · · Score: 1

      It's just basic engineering physics. 60 mph is like falling off a 10- or 15-story building.

      To clarify, you mean decelerating from 60mph to 0 mph in less than a tenth of a second is like falling off a 10 or 15 storey building. I crashed at 60mph+ with no seat belt once. The thing that saved me was no solid objects in my path. I slid off the road and into a paddock, stopped, caught my breath and carried on. Some roads can be designed to allow higher speeds by giving sufficient run off paths in case of such incidents.

    178. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your solution to automobile accidents is ejector seats?

    179. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well on I-70 through St. Louis Missouri there are at least a couple Travel Safe zones seemingly covered by a particular municipalitiy. The only real difference in these zones than the rest of I-70 is the signs and the fact that they double all fines within them. That sounds like a revenue scam to me. The cops stake out their little slice of jurisdiction, sometimes with several trailing cars and pull over multiple people at once. Now if the fines weren't convienently doubled there, I might buy the story of it being first for public safety. It should also be noted that the speed limit on the road is 55 mph where it could easily be 70 like many other similar interstates or even I-70 elsewhere... All together I'd say that area is more for revenue generation than public safety, although to be fair public safety may have been a part of the original goal.

    180. Re:When will he be arrested? by hairyfish · · Score: 2

      But overtaking people who are semi-conscious doing half the speed, and barely paying attention... no... that's going to be reckless.

      I find it much safer on a bike because you have more road to move into should Sally start wandering (ie a bike can fully fit on the shoulder, whereas a car might not. And going much faster means you share the same amount of space for less time, and you can zip around them before they even know you're there. The biggest risk on a bike at speed is the person pulling out of a driveway or side street without looking, on a freeway this shouldn't be a problem. I saw a doco a while back on hovercrafts, and the captain of the commercial hovercraft was asked if it was dangerous because he could do 80knots in a harbour while everyone else was doing less than thirty. His opinion was that it makes it safer because he can be past any other boats before they even know what's going on. I find this similar on a fast bike on a freeway.

    181. Re:When will he be arrested? by Derek+Pomery · · Score: 1

      M'k... There seems to be some pushback on whether that has an effect in reality.

      http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Higher-Speed-Limits-Lower-Death-Rates-2981119.php

      and

      http://www.vollynet.org.nz/Speed%20Limit%20Law%20and%20Fatality%20Rates.pdf

      and

      "A study by researchers from KDOT, Kansas State University and the University of Kansas into the effect of the 1996 change to 70 mph â" the last time the state raised the speed limit â" found no statistically significant increases in crashes and fatality rates on rural or urban interstate highways as of 1998."

      All I'm saying is cars are a *lot* safer nowdays than when that study was performed, and handle a lot better.
      I'm sure 65 is more dangerous than 55, but is it a lot more dangerous... I doubt that, and it seems others do too..

      --
      -- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.
    182. Re:When will he be arrested? by stenvar · · Score: 1

      Actually, most of the Autobahn has speed limits from 80 KPH to 130.

      Actually, you're full of shit. Country roads in Germany have speed limits of 60 mph, and highways have speed limits of either 80 mph or are unlimited (about half of the total system). That means that German speed limits are always higher than American speed limits, yet fatality rates (both per capita and per vehicle mile) are significantly lower.

      Also, going fast is very often reckless because it exceeds the capabilities of the car or more often, the driver.

      And this is not a problem in Germany because... what?

      So what you're trying to say here is that speed limits are in place to keep people safe.

      No, what I am saying is that people who violate traffic rules are unsafe, and that has little to do with speed limits. I'm sorry if that concept is too complex for you to grasp.

    183. Re:When will he be arrested? by nbauman · · Score: 1

      The parent post said that there were no studies showing that speed causes more deaths.

      I posted one study. There are many others. When they correct for other factors, more people die at higher speeds.

      There are two kinds of studies:

      (1) studies by automotive engineers in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

      (2) Studies by economists, political scientists, and other non-scientists in economics and policy journals, or offhand comments by highway safety cops who have eyeballed the data.

      The first kinds of studies, which I read, are usually more accurate and reliable. The second kind of studies are not reliable. A lot of economists don't know how manage scientific data.

      For example, when you study trends for traffic fatalities, you have to correct for the weather. In a bad winter, fatality rates go up dramatically. If you have one year with bad weather and low speed limits one year, followed by good weather and high speed limits the next year, you won't see the effect of the higher speed limit. Another confounding factor is the seat belt usage rate. If you raise speed limits, and increase seat belt wearing rates, you won't see the effect of the higher speed limits.

      Most important, you have to be able to distinguish between statistically significant results and normal variation. That becomes especially difficult when you divide the data into smaller cells, for example by state. One thing I noticed in that PDF was that the author compared the fatality rates in different states with different speed limits, but he didn't give the p values for the fatality rates.

      The original discussion was about whether it's responsible for someone to drive across the country at over 100 mph. I think the evidence shows that it's not.

      I've seen graphs of death rates against speed. They start to go up above 55 mph. They go up sharply above 65 mph. Automobile accidents are a major cause of death. Most people know somebody who died in an auto accident. If you want to lower your risk of death significantly, don't drive above 65 mph.

    184. Re:When will he be arrested? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I think you do.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    185. Re:When will he be arrested? by DJ+Particle · · Score: 1

      The reverse is true too. There was a (locally) famous case in Boston about 15 years back where 2 motorists on I-93 were stopped for "endangerment". They were doing the 55 speed limit when prevailing traffic was about 15-20mph higher. They appealed their tickets and lost.

      And for the record, at least in MA, "endangerment" is a more serious offense than "speeding".

    186. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're apparently a moron, too. Sure, gasoline doesn't usually explode. It just burns pretty damn hot. However, at the speeds this guy was going, that gasoline is going to be under very high pressure at the instant of impact, and that is when it FUCKING EXPLODES. No, that's not in action movies. That's in fucking real life.

    187. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. Those signs that say "We're gonna fucking arrest your ass if you drive past this school (where children may be walking across the street) at 80 miles per hour." aren't concerned about safety at all.

    188. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      100 mph or faster is fine on a fairly crowded highway too, as long as everyone knows and expects that that can happen. (As I tested on the road to Frankfurt one fine day)

    189. Re:When will he be arrested? by biso · · Score: 1

      What is the differential speed of a car and anything standing still on the terrain? Do cars fly in free space?

    190. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Guys guys... this is waaay off topic.

      This is about the glory of driving across the country, beating the record and beating the thugs *cough* cops at thier games of meddling in your business when you're trying to have fun !

      Man, feel the glory ! not everything has to be about peoples personal ideal of how countries should have laws and how those laws are supposed to be just and all that yada yada.

    191. Re:When will he be arrested? by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Frankly you're a bit of a pussy with speed from what you write. 100Mph is nothing on a well-built highway in a modern good quality car.

      And I wrote:

      "To sum up 100-150mph on an empty highway ... sure ok. Been there done that, agree its not that bad."

      In Germany there are many highways without speed limits and if you're only driving 100Mph you're going to get passed all the time.

      And then I wrote:
      "100mph+ where the other cars are speed matched... sure ok"

      speed matching is the key. If your giong 140mph, passing cars doing 120mph that's completely different from doing 140mph passing cars doing 60mph.

      Its when you mix high speed and low speed vehicles driven by inattentive drivers that it gets dangerous. In North America highway ettiquette is not nearly as well observed, with respect to slower traffic keeping right, etc. If someone is doing 80mph in the fast lane, and someone comes up behind him doing 120mph the guy doing 80 will likely as not just sit there and force the faster car to slow down or pass on the right.

    192. Re:When will he be arrested? by The+Iso · · Score: 1

      The fact that lower speeds are safer doesn't mean that lower speed limits are safer, because speed limits have very little effect on the speed people actually drive. In the famous federal study "Effects of Raising and Lowering Speed Limits on Selected Roadway Sections" (Publication No. FHWA-RD-92-084), speed limits were raised and lowered by up to 20 mi/h, and the change in average speed was never larger than 1.5 mi/h.

      --
      "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." - Bob Dylan
    193. Re:When will he be arrested? by nbauman · · Score: 1

      The original discussion was about whether the cross-country race was responsible or safe.

      I'm familiar with the literature on lower speeds, which is about as convincing as you can get in science that higher speeds result in more fatalities. So the answer seems to be that it was not responsible or safe.

      I'm not as familiar with the literature on behavioral aspects of speed limits. It seems reasonable that if you pass laws to restrict speed, and the police and drivers ignore them, they will have no effect. It also seems reasonable that if local jurisdictions use speeding laws for the purpose of raising money rather than for reducing traffic injuries, they might not have any effect.

      It also seems reasonable that if you pass laws to restrict speed, and they're effectively enforced, they should reduce fatalities. But I don't know enough about it to find a study. It may be impossible to enforce speed laws rationally in the U.S.

    194. Re:When will he be arrested? by volmtech · · Score: 1

      You are right about most of that. My 68 Impala had a very soft suspension. It made a great dirt road car. At 130 mph it did feel "floaty" but at 75 it handled great. It weighed 3750 lbs, 100 lbs LESS than a 2014 Impala. With manual drum brakes it took forever to stop that thing.

    195. Re:When will he be arrested? by kimvette · · Score: 1

      see: autobahn statistics

      It is much more difficult to obtain a driver's license there, and keep right (or keep center when there is a travel lane)/pass left is strictly enforced, as is DUI.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    196. Re:When will he be arrested? by kimvette · · Score: 1
      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    197. Re:When will he be arrested? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The 55 was forced on us by the Socialist Republicans under Nixon, and persisted until the Libertarians abolished it under Clinton. It forced states to adopt a law the feds couldn't pass by blackmail. Taking taxes from a state, but not spending money in that state after, if they didn't adopt 55. Some states, like Texas had "temporary" laws on the books for 20+ years stating the law is whatever the feds say it is. The enforcement was up to the states, but the feds had issues with Montana's official policy of a $10 ticket for wasting fuel, and no safety-based enforcement under 100 mph. But they didn't mess with it too much because they were already obviously in unconstitutional territory.

    198. Re:When will he be arrested? by Kergan · · Score: 1

      If speed limits were uniformly and strictly enforced (rather than an occasional tax on the driver), there would likely be enough outrage to repeal them.

      In some EU countries, they're uniformly and strictly enforced by automated radars. Think France, for instance. Best I'm aware, there's little outrage -- except from a very vocal group of reckless drivers.

      Speaking for myself, I find it interesting that new generations of automated radars are becoming smart enough to reliably detect when a truck or a bus is speeding when their speed limit differs from those of automobiles, or when drivers fail to respect safety distances.

    199. Re:When will he be arrested? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      That study looks to be as valid as the one in Texas on motorcycle helmets. "For those admitted to a hospital, riders with helmets had higher medical costs."

      The push from that, as part of the repeal of the helmet laws, was that riders with helmets were more expensive to care for than riders without. The two things looked at are "how many people didn't get counted and why" and "did the helmet affect survivability".

      They study you quote is fine, but I've also seen ones that indicate that crash rates are lower as speeds increase (both same-road, and not). So, faster speeds lead to fewer crashes, but also lead to worse crashes. They also lead to lower travel times, saving more "life" than they cost

    200. Re: When will he be arrested? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1
      Cross country. I've crested a hill in Texas with 5+ miles of visibility, and you know what I saw? Nothing. Not a single car in either direction for 5+ miles. 500 mph would have been perfectly safe for anyone around me in those conditions, because there was nobody around me. You are assuming 130+ in Saint Louis or something. That's not what the driving landscape looks like.

      Up to 150 m/h by his own admission.

      OMFG, he went up to 150 meters in an hour? Snails everywhere beware!

    201. Re:When will he be arrested? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      1. Undersized brakes work fine the first few times, it's under repeated aggressive braking that they start to fade badly. Your brakes don't stop the car, your tires do.

      I've had an '87 Oldsmobile Cutlass Calais experience partial brake fade in a single stop. 100-0 will result in noticable brake fade before you are at a complete stop. Also, like most of the "unintended acceleration" cases, most people don't apply brakes properly. No engine can overpower the brakes, yet in a number of the Toyota cases, they found the brakes damaged and useless. People rode the brakes until they burned up, but didn't ever press them hard enough to stop the car.

      It's hard to engineer for stupid but with things like "brake assist" companies are trying. Not enough data to see if it's working yet.

    202. Re:When will he be arrested? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      On a bike? That's even nuttier as you won't likely survive the wreck when Sally the realtor does what Sally the realtor is going to do.

      As the bike won't hurt anyone and is a self limiting problem (you only crash like that once before you are buried), why is it an issue? Repeal the limits for motorbikes and let them go whatever they want.

    203. Re:When will he be arrested? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Given that you know there are people going 10 under the speed limit in the left lane, isn't it disingenuous to claim that going 50mph faster than them is perfectly safe?

      Nope. It takes about 1 second to slow those 50 mph to match their speed. That's not a lot of time, and it's easy to slow if "trapped" by them.

      If she was on the phone and didn't look, why do you think she did it deliberately?

      Depending on your definition of "deliberately". She deliberately changed lanes in front of someone and deliberately hit the brakes. She was also deliberately on the phone. That's enough to satisfy "mens rea" in the US. You don't have to intend to cause the harm of the action, you only need to have intended to committed the action that resulted in the harm. It wouldn't have been "deliberate" if she let go of the wheel to take a bite of her breakfast and the wind blew her to the other lane, which startled her and she stamped the brakes. But no, from the description of the act, she deliberately changed lanes, and deliberately slowed, so that's "deliberate", even if she didn't keep a proper lookout.

    204. Re:When will he be arrested? by triffid_98 · · Score: 1

      As you say, this "unintended acceleration" nonsense is simple to resolve with the pedal right next to the accelerator. Even if you put both your feet all the way to the floor, you aren't going anywhere.

      Worst case, if your brakes are completely "burned up" they'll still stop the car if you just put your foot all the way down and keep it there. They certainly won't stop it on a dime since there's no friction material left but metal to metal contact will work if that's all you have.

      Oh...and my condolence on whatever passed for engineering in a 1987 Cutlass. I've owned a number of older cars from the 60's, 70's and 80's (I still own a couple actually) and I've never had that experience.

    205. Re:When will he be arrested? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Once you burn up your brakes, it's possible you won't be able to stop the car. heating the pads up to out-gassing temperature without drilled or vented brakes will result in fade that could prevent a runaway car from stopping. The problem is that people didn't apply the brakes hard when the problem started. They pightly pressed them to hold a speed, burning out the brakes. There are many faulure modes for brakes that happen solely from applying them. I've watched a car burst into flames from failing to use engine braking descending a steep mountain. But then, brakes in good repair can take a lot, especially with proper parts. I have pictures of rotors glowing bright red, but they were slotted and drilled and operating with high-temperature pads. As for the Olds Cutlass, drum brakes suck (rears on that car).

    206. Re:When will he be arrested? by triffid_98 · · Score: 1

      Oh I see, we're talking about two different things. Pad material = gone, or Pad material = hot.

      You can certainly get aftermarket (high temperature) pads that don't do that, the problem with those is a lot of them don't work very well until they heat up.

      As for your poor Cutlass, yes drum brakes aren't ideal (due to a combination of heat retention and how awful they work when they get wet), but in your application they're also not doing much of the work stopping the car, probably no more than 30%.

    207. Re:When will he be arrested? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      People that ride the brakes until they are hot, it doesn't matter if the pad material is there or not, the brakes will not work. Either the brake fluid is boiling, or the surface of the pad (or sub-pad) is too hot to grip (with the pad material all gone, down to metal on metal, you'll get worse performance. It'll hold a car at a stop, if applied before the accelerator is pushed, or likely lock up the tires if stomped at speed while cold, but when ridden for a while, there is no force of the pedal that will stop the car. The metal on metal will be like greased metal. They will literally melt and flow past. Yes, I've seen it. And when you do stop, the'll spot-weld together, and your brakes will never work right again.

    208. Re:When will he be arrested? by mrbrown1602 · · Score: 1

      You know what the cause of most fatal accidents is? Not alcohol, not drugs, not inattentiveness, but speed. Plain old speed.

      Hence, laws against speeding. You know what we do in our county to folks who do over 90 miles per hour? They go to jail for a weekend... so, we SPEND MONEY on them (i.e. housing, food). Real revenue generator there!

    209. Re:When will he be arrested? by Derek+Pomery · · Score: 1

      So, that might be true, generically. But. Here's what I'm focusing on.
      55 was a speed that was defined when cars were death machines.
      They had no power steering, no ABS, no aerodynamics, the suspension was nonexistent, seatbelts were optional, the crash cage did not exist, there were no airbags of any kind.

      So the cars were uncontrollable at high speeds *and* incredibly dangerous if they did lose control.
      So. Yes, there was a high death rate.

      Here's the thing.
      Even if the death rate goes up, moving from 55 to 65, that is, all told, not terribly meaningful for two reasons.
      1) The death rate when driving in America has gone down a *lot*, probably due to aforementioned measures (and probably crackdowns on drunk driving and greater restrictions on young drivers. The same number of people die today as in 1950, but we drive five times as much, and significantly higher speeds.

      Right now, the death rate is 1 person for every 75 million miles driven. That's inconceivably low, and, yes, most of that highway driving is at 65mph or higher.

      Which brings us to point
      2) Even if you drive 55, everyone else is driving 65. Or 70.
      As was pointed out in that article, when they raised the speed limit from 55 to 65, driver speeds barely moved..
      If you drive at 55, and others are driving at 65 or 70 *you* are the risk on the highway.
      In fact, while I'm not digging up a source for this, I've heard that the safest speed to be going is slightly faster than the other cars on the highway. I guess in part due to avoiding people braking, swerving around you and such, but apparently most importantly, minimising your time on the highway around the other drivers.

      So, yeah. Even if going 55 instead of 65 brings that death rate down to, oh, 1 person for every 100 million miles driven (assuming it was actually enforced), it is still not exactly a big concern, and, yeah, ain't happenin'.

      --
      -- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.
    210. Re:When will he be arrested? by nbauman · · Score: 1

      It doesn't make any difference whether you're driving a 1967 Volvo or a 2013 car. 2013 cars are safer at 55 mph and safer at 65 mph. But a 2013 car is still safer at 55 mph than 65 mph.

      There's a tradeoff between safety and convenience, and in this country we're probably willing to take the risks that come with driving at 70 mph. On the straightaway, in perfect weather, under perfect conditions, the accident rate and additional death and injury rate would be relatively low. But above 70 mph the death rate increases very rapidly.

      When I've looked at the actual survival curves from large numbers of accident reports in the engineering papers, the fatality rate goes up by about 10% or 20% from 55 to 65 mph. It goes up much faster from 65 mph to 75 mph, maybe 50% or 100%. You can understand why this happens if you understand the physics of a collision.

      The forces in a collision are determined by basic laws of physics that you learn in high school. If you have 50 inches of crush space in the engine compartment, and you can tolerate a 50-g deceleration, that pretty much determines how fast a front-end collision you can survive. It's about 50 mph. It's the same for 1967 cars as 2013 cars. There is no magic foam or magic airbag that can let you survive at a higher speed.

      The death rate has gone down significantly thanks in large part to auto safety studies, which I played a small part in publishing (you're welcome). They're now down to about 30,000 deaths a year, which is still one of the major causes of preventable death. On the statistics, it's likely that you know at least one person who died in an auto accident. And on some level, that death was preventable.

      One of the worst things you can do is pass laws that everybody ignores. If the speed limit is 65 mph, and I'm driving at 65 mph, I'm following the law, and it's hard to blame me for not violating the law like everybody else. Highways should be designed with lanes for different minimum and maximum speeds, and the police should enforce them. Unfortunately, traffic laws have become a game, and they're not designed or enforced to maximize the tradeoff between safety and convenience. Still, whatever the speed limit is, whatever the speed distribution of vehicles is, the same distribution will have more fatal accidents if you increase it by 10 mph.

    211. Re:When will he be arrested? by Derek+Pomery · · Score: 1

      While I appreciate your passionate focus on this, and given it is your life's work, you clearly are both familiar and invested, I do want to focus on that 10% going from 55 to 65.
      Let's accept that. Yes, there's a convenience thing.
      When you mention someone I know dying in a traffic accident (the only person who comes to mind was a family member who died long before I was born, and was on a motorbike w/o a helmet when he hit a slick patch - I think 55 vs 65 was moot in that case) - but when you mention that. If the diff between 65 and 55 is 10%, then, the death would very likely have *not* been prevented by a 55 speed limit.

      The 50-100% increase in death rate at 70mph... won't dispute that since that wasn't what this was all about. Does seem a bit odd. In this area, 70 is not that uncommon a highway speed, and I don't think the fatality rate is double that of areas where it is 65mph.

      And, yes, I agree traffic laws are a game, and meaningless as enforced. People drive what seems to them to be safe, and usually it is around 65 on highways. Or, yes, higher. Going down 95 there are quite a few stretches of 70mph highway.
      It would be interesting to see if statistically people are in fact dying at double (or more, people are likely going 75) the rate on those sections.

      I'm interested in you bringing up the Gs of deacceleration. After all, typical highway accident is not going to be a head-on collision w/ another vehicle going 65mph. Or even w/ an immovable obstacle. The ones I've seen in my ~300k miles of driving are usually a vehicle losing control, skidding, losing speed...

      I just suspect the lab doesn't quite translate to the road, and despite the deeceleration a vehicle in the lab encounters slamming into a concrete wall, or worse, another vehicle going same speed, vast majority of accidents out there aren't along those lines.

      I have no idea what scenario you're contemplating. Plugging in 65mph deaccelerating to 0 in half a second into a handy dandy calculator yields 5.91Gs. 55, 5Gs. 70, 6.36Gs... That actually seems pretty linear to me. 18% increase in speed, 18% increase in deacceleration Gs.
      Doesn't seem to require magic air bags, just regular safety features. And actually most crashes I saw involved more time than that. Or involved 2 vehicles in motion striking each other. I guess I can imagine a car that for some insane reason didn't notice everyone stopped ahead and kept plowing into vehicles at 70mph. I suppose that deacceleration, even with the cars being shoved forward, would be over a shorter period. Still seems linear, but, eh, that has to be pretty rare out there...

      I accept you have a whole lot more experience in this, I'm just wondering if possibly the real world doesn't quite hit the lab scenarios, most of the time, and that's why we aren't actually experiencing total carnage out there.

      And, yeah, that a difference between 65 and 55 might not actually prevent that many more lives even *if* cars were watching us and enforcing the speed limit.

      And, yes, I totally agree 100MPH was ridiculously dangerous to themselves and others, and would have fallen under reckless driving regardless of the highway laws.

      --
      -- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.
    212. Re:When will he be arrested? by nbauman · · Score: 1

      Do you know anybody who died in an automobile accident? I do.

    213. Re:When will he be arrested? by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      Fair enough - I stand corrected -

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    214. Re:When will he be arrested? by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      Speeding is avoidable. Bar some weird cases speeding is a choice. To be afraid of people who choose reckless behavior is quite different from aquaphobia or racism. It's more akin to being afraid of someone holding a gun.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    215. Re:When will he be arrested? by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Sure but to think speeding is reckless behaviour is completely unwarranted and mostly the result of fear and taking the lies politicians and police tell to justify their revenue intake campaigns.

      > It's more akin to being afraid of someone holding a gun.

      Which is also irrational unless they are making threats or pointing it at you.

      If you have these problems then please, for the sake of all of us, seek professional help. You will feel better when you have dealt with your emotional issues.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    216. Re:When will he be arrested? by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      Since it is uncommon here in the Netherlands for people to have guns it is extremely uncommon for people to wave guns about without being cops or robbers. If a cop is waving a gun about (s)he is doing that because there is a reason for it. That reason is probably dangerous. If a robber is waving a gun about the danger is apparent I'd say. In both cases being scared is a natural and healthy state to be in.

      If speeding is not reckless behavior in the US then the reasons for the speed signs must be very different in the US than they are here in the Netherlands. Here speed signs are usually for safety. If they are not for safety they have an other good reason, such as particulate or noise pollution. If you want speed you should take the train, as it is allowed to (and here they usually do) go 160 km/h (100 mph). Any speed gains from speeding are lost in rounding errors here in the Netherlands (your mileage may vary). A trip is usually not long enough to gain even 10 minutes by max speeding because our highways are far to crowded.
      Speeding because it is fun should be limited to the racetrack.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    217. Re:When will he be arrested? by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      > Since it is uncommon here in the Netherlands for people to have guns it is extremely uncommon for
      > people to wave guns about without being cops or robbers.

      See exactly what I am talking about, you jump from holding a gun to waving one around? Shit people here are not forbidden from bearing arms and, its exceedingly rare to see them outside of gun shops, shooting ranges or on cops. In fact, most robbers and criminals don't even own one much less carry them...never mind waving them around.

      > If speeding is not reckless behavior in the US then the reasons for the speed signs must be very
      > different in the US than they are here in the Netherlands. Here speed signs are usually for safety.

      They make the same bullshit claim here. However, its pretty easy to show that this is seldom the concern. Hence why it is that you find states where city cops are allowed to patrol highways and their departments keep the money from tickets, speed limits get lowered when the highway passes through the city.... a situation states which have a state police force that doesn't allow city cops to patrol highways.... you don't see that.

      Must be somehow where the money goes changes how safe it is.

      > If they are not for safety they have an other good reason,

      I do not recommend ever assuming that the people in power have your best interests in mind. Generally the smart money is on the opposite.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    218. Re:When will he be arrested? by Java+Pimp · · Score: 1

      When you're on the road with other drivers you are not managing just your own risk. You are putting others at risk as well. Yeah I'm taking a risk by leaving my house every day but I don't need some jackass blowing out a tire at 100mph while passing me on the highway and taking out my entire family.

      --
      Ascalante: Your bride is over 3,000 years old.
      Kull: She told me she was 19!
    219. Re:When will he be arrested? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      "slow down" is not a universal solution. Back in the days of the double nickel, a case was made that with current technology all auto-to-auto collisions could be made survivable if we made the maximum national speed 35 miles per hour, draconically enforced. And they were probably right. But nobody wants to spend 12 hours on the road between SF and LA, not even Prius owners, which leads us to the topic of Managed Risk.

      I'd submit that the risk difference between 70 and 80 is nominal, but it's not necessary to make that argument. The speed limit on those ridiculously long, straight roads in Texas is 80, and driving significantly slower than traffic also puts one's self at risk.

      Moreover, risk is somewhat proportional merely to the time spent on the road, regardless of speed.

      And finally, my time is worth something, too.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    220. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have nerver heard of Waldo FL, right?

    221. Re: When will he be arrested? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      I grew up in northern Alberta. The posted limit on two lane paved country highways is 100 km/h and the cops won't bother you unless you're going over 110 km/h. The posted limits on divided (semi) controlled access highways is 110 km/h (often 100 km/h at night) and the cops won't bother you so long as you keep it under 120. The highways are mostly straight with long rolling hills.

      In rural Southern Ontario (which IS a tiny area by Canadian standards, regardless of population) the divided highways have posted limits of 100 km/h and the cops don't bother you unless you go over 120. The rural "highways" tend to be twisty little playgrounds that go right through towns and have houses, yards and driveways right up to their shoulders, where you really shouldn't be going more than 100 km/h, which is the cops-take-notice threshold (posted limit of 80). Northern Ontario highways are more similar to Alberta highways, with the posted two-lane limit usually at 90 and the enforcement threshold 110. I think a bit of the transcanada might be 80, but I always seem to end up driving that in February and going 100 seems quite reasonable.

      That is, the actual speed limit is the same in both places. The posted limit in Ontario is systematically 10 km/h lower but the enforced limit is not. Quebec is like Ontario, most of the western provinces are like Alberta. The exception used to be BC (they've since changed a lot of the limits) where the speed limit was usually 10 km/h lower than Alberta but still enforced at +10.

      A big difference between posted and enforced limits is dangerous because some people insist on driving the posted limit, causing a greater discrepancy in vehicle speeds in Ontario, but the effective speed limit isn't really different.

      In any case, the roads in Ontario where the limit is 80 km/h (100 enforced) or 90 (110) are definitely not places the average person should be going 80 mph (130 km/h), particularly in the country at night. In southern Ontario that's because of people crossing the "highway" to get their mail from the box or borrow sugar from the neighbour, in northern it's because of moose, deer, snow, etc. Alberta is the same, evidenced by the current carnage on the Edmonton-Fort Mac highway. I lived on the other side of the province and knew lots of people who had hit animals hard, either because they weren't smart enough to slow down at night and were over driving their headlights and not watching for glowing eyes, or were in pickups and didn't care. I had one math teacher (a city transplant) who managed to total his car on a moose on the way to Edmonton, then total the rental on the way back. If the Toronto cottage country people, used to going 130 on the 400, could go faster than 50 km/h they'd be dying in droves too.

    222. Re:When will he be arrested? by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      The driver was using tablets at 100MPH with 100 gallons of gasoline in the trunk in a high-mileage vehicle--hell bent on doing nothing but getting from one point to another as quick as possible. What could go wrong!?

      Something tells me this would have exploded (just like in the movies) had it rolled.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    223. Re:When will he be arrested? by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      Since it is uncommon here in the Netherlands for people to have guns it is extremely uncommon for people to wave guns about without being cops or robbers.

      See exactly what I am talking about, you jump from holding a gun to waving one around? Shit people here are not forbidden from bearing arms and, its exceedingly rare to see them outside of gun shops, shooting ranges or on cops. In fact, most robbers and criminals don't even own one much less carry them...never mind waving them around.

      With holding a gun I do not mean carrying it in a holster. I mean holding it in your hands. With waving it about I mean holding it in your hands. That semantical difference should not prevent us from a proper discussion.

      If speeding is not reckless behavior in the US then the reasons for the speed signs must be very different in the US than they are here in the Netherlands. Here speed signs are usually for safety.

      They make the same bullshit claim here. However, its pretty easy to show that this is seldom the concern. Hence why it is that you find states where city cops are allowed to patrol highways and their departments keep the money from tickets, speed limits get lowered when the highway passes through the city.... a situation states which have a state police force that doesn't allow city cops to patrol highways.... you don't see that. Must be somehow where the money goes changes how safe it is.

      Here highways also lower speed when near cities. That's due to noise and particulate pollution. A very good reason IMHO, because if they didn't strike that agreement with the locals the locals would usually have succeeded in preventing the highway in the first place. NIMBY and all that.

      If they are not for safety they have an other good reason,

      I do not recommend ever assuming that the people in power have your best interests in mind. Generally the smart money is on the opposite.

      I specified those reasons. Noise and particulate pollution.
      I don't assume so easily. They serve their own best interests. That means they serve the goal of themselves getting more power (and usually more money. But in politics power usually wins). To get more power they must demonstrate working FOR the people and to be sufficiently wise (yes that usually still works here in the Netherlands, Geert Wilders not withstanding). These demands mean that as long as my countrymates (on average) feel the same way about a subject as I do then it is probably going to happen my way.
      If you couple that with my (and my countrymates') love for the environment and biking you'll see things are quite different here than in the USA.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    224. Re:When will he be arrested? by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      Whenever the discussion of speed limits comes along, one word always crops up. That word is arbitrary. The other word that regularly appears is Autobahn. That highways in the US even have a speed limit (when dry) is puzzling to anyone who's ever been to Germany.

    225. Re:When will he be arrested? by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for being the only person to refer to a study on speed limits and safety (Like in my actual comment) instead of the other 90% of commenters who went on rants about speed and safety (what they read out of my comment).

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    226. Re:When will he be arrested? by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      And the original discussion had consensus. Even race car drivers would agree that street racing is stupid and dangerous. But the speeds were stupid and dangerous because of the general flow of traffic, not because of speed limits. If the speed limits posted were in excess of 100mph, it still would have been stupid and dangerous. If it were done on a theoretical American Autbahn with no speed limit, it probably still would have been stupid and dangerous. Speed limits only factor into if he is fined or jailed. Which in my opinion, forget the speed limits, charge him with reckless driving. In a perfect world, we wouldn't need speed limits because the general population of drivers know how to drive safely and it's a few bad apples that cause accidents. Get rid of the speed limit and keep reckless driving as a law and punish the real dangerous people instead of the people traveling with the flow of traffic over the arbitrary speed limit value.

      Why do we ticket speeders instead of reckless driving? It's easier for a cop to sit on the shoulder with a radar gun than it is for them to actually observe traffic and pick out the bad drivers.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    227. Re:When will he be arrested? by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      > Here highways also lower speed when near cities. That's due to noise and particulate pollution.

      You missed the point then; Here you only see this in communities where the law enforcement from the city is allowed to patrol and keep fine money from highway enforcement. In fact, in my area, where it doesn't work that way, we only have state police, speed limits do not lower just because of a city crossing, and other means are often used to deal with noise...like noise walls.

      As for particulate pollution, I call bullshit. My new car has an MFI display which allows me to monitor my gas usage. I would expect pollution to be in direct proportion to the amount of gas burned and NOTHING kills my cars gas milage like making cars constantly slow down and speed up, which is exactly what you cause when you take a major road full of trafic and needlessly lower the speed limit.

      My car easily gets better gas mileage humming along on a straight road at 70-80 MPH than it does in heavy traffic going up and down between 45 and 65.

      If particulate pollution was the concern, then traffic flow, not speed, is the clear winner.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    228. Re:When will he be arrested? by Stuarticus · · Score: 1

      If you're willing to volunteer to be hit by a car travelling at various speeds between 50 and 100 mph then we can start on a study straight away.

      --
      If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
    229. Re:When will he be arrested? by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      This. Not only that, this is a clear case where he SHOULD be, if not arrested, at least fined heavily. This is clear cut reckless driving; speed limits are posted to keep the public safe. Stunts like this should not be pulled at the potential expense of other drivers on the road. We're all beholden to the same laws, whether you're trying to break a record or not.

      Speed, by it's self, is not necessarily dangerous. It depends on the surroundings.
      After all, the space station goes a whole lot faster and hasn't hit anything in a long time...

    230. Re:When will he be arrested? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except in Hawaii, where all traffic enforcement is done by local police.

  5. Subpoena his equipment... by Microsift · · Score: 0

    He should get a speeding ticket from every state he drove through.

    --
    My other sig is extremely clever...
    1. Re:Subpoena his equipment... by trewornan · · Score: 1

      But do you have evidence he was speeding in every state - he could have been speeding in some states but not others and still averaged the same.

    2. Re:Subpoena his equipment... by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      Read the subject line.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
  6. cannonball by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm gonna take these rosary bleeds and stick them right up your nose.

    1. Re:cannonball by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      "What are you, some kind of nut? Who do you think you are?"

      Dun, dun, dunnnnn -- Captain Chaos!

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    2. Re:cannonball by fuzznutz · · Score: 1

      Dammit Victor. I don't wanna talk about HIM!

  7. Very Illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why isn't this guy in jail?

    1. Re:Very Illegal by watcher-rv4 · · Score: 1

      Cops are busy chasing corrupt politicians.

    2. Re:Very Illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What for? To have the case dismissed in court because they're friends with the judge?

    3. Re:Very Illegal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simple - as in Jersey, everything's legal unless you get caught.

    4. Re:Very Illegal by GerardAtJob · · Score: 1

      It's only to get a bribe from them...

      --
      I can't call that English ;-)
  8. Great, now arrest em. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Confiscate the car too.

    1. Re:Great, now arrest em. by TWX · · Score: 1

      Sounds like he picked something that, while impressive in its stats on paper, was worn out and close to end-of-life. If he totaled it out or got it confiscated he wasn't exactly going to cry over it.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:Great, now arrest em. by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Yeah, great he minimized the risk to himself while endangering every other road user. What a jackass.

    3. Re:Great, now arrest em. by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      Sounds like he picked something that, while impressive in its stats on paper, was worn out and close to end-of-life. If he totaled it out or got it confiscated he wasn't exactly going to cry over it.

      It was a CL55 AMG with 115,000 miles on it. That's barely broken in. It doesn't specify what he did to it, but said he spent $9K to "trick it out". The picture of him standing in front of it shows it is a 2nd generation. So it is no older than 1999. Not exactly a worn out beater.

    4. Re:Great, now arrest em. by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 1

      115000 Miles is only about half what that car should be able to run. Even more if well maintained.

      --
      If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
    5. Re:Great, now arrest em. by SethJohnson · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely right. He picked a junker of a supercar. According to this article, the AMG CL55 is one of the fastest-depreciating automobiles available. Its starting price tag is $120,000, but with 115,000 miles on the clock, it probably cost less than $10,000 for the initial purchase.

    6. Re:Great, now arrest em. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't know how much of that is Mercedes markup/parts cost straight away, then?

  9. So, in court .. by arisvega · · Score: 1

    .. will he plead guilty?

    --
    The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
    1. Re:So, in court .. by jxander · · Score: 1

      Nope. 5th Amendment.

      He doesn't have to testify against himself, and the cops have no way to actually prove that he was behind the wheel at any given time

      --
      This signature is false.
    2. Re:So, in court .. by luckymutt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except that he's already made a public confession and documented publicly as well. They may not be able to compel him to testify against himself, but everything he's publicly said and displayed is freely admissible.

    3. Re:So, in court .. by arisvega · · Score: 1

      Nope. 5th Amendment.

      ..but everything he's publicly said and displayed is freely admissible.

      I am at a loss- which one is it?

      --
      The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
    4. Re:So, in court .. by SethJohnson · · Score: 1

      everything he's publicly said and displayed is freely admissible.

      It's also all recantable.

      There are many crimes for which a person may not be charged unless a police officer witnesses the act. Speeding is probably one of them.

    5. Re:So, in court .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both, but his public comments get tossed as hearsay by any half-competent lawyer.

    6. Re:So, in court .. by deadweight · · Score: 1

      I went 200 MPH every single place but YOUR TOWN. Case dismissed, seeing as there is no proof otherwise. Repeat for the 1535 other towns he drove through. OR The other guy was driving ;)

    7. Re:So, in court .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, in the US it is both. You cannot be compelled to testify against yourself. That doesn't automatically mean that anything you say must be ignored.

    8. Re:So, in court .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hearsay. You can't prove that he was being truthful when he made those public statements. He wasn't under oath. Could be bluffing, documentation could be a hoax.

      Better way to do it would be to find someone who will testify that he saw the car on one side of Nebraska at X o'clock, and another guy to say he saw him at the other side of Nebraska X hours later. These witnesses could be either accurate or highly confused, at the prosecution's pleasure.

    9. Re:So, in court .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simply, it's not his own testimony if it's a matter of the public record already, so they can admit his public statements as evidence if they wish.

      However, he can just claim (Under Oath, mind you) to the court that he lied and made the whole thing up. And if he does that, and if the prosecutor doesn't have anything else, he should be found Not Guilty as it's Hearsay (his public bragging not made Under Oath) vs. Sworn Testimony (his testimony to the court, made Under Oath), which is far from sufficient to prove a case Beyond A Reasonable Doubt.

      However, if his accomplices can be identified, it'll require a lot of lying...

    10. Re:So, in court .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So charge the other guy and call the first as a witness
      repeat

    11. Re:So, in court .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't matter if the other guy was driving . . . criminal conspiracy charges were developed for precisely this purpose.

    12. Re:So, in court .. by steviesteveo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, just as the Fifth Amendment doesn't protect you if you stand up in court and voluntarily admit to things.

  10. yeah, thanks by Speare · · Score: 1
    As the "dept" byline heading says, thanks for endangering so many people.

    My grandfather was a leadfoot, and crossed from NC to AZ a couple times a year under 48 hours. My dad was to follow him in a second vehicle once, and ended up slowing down and going his own pace, when he saw just how irresponsibly granddad was rushing things just for the sake of rushing. Grandpa never killed anyone but I'm sure it's been very close a couple of times.

    --
    [ .sig file not found ]
    1. Re:yeah, thanks by Nerdfest · · Score: 1

      Out of curiosity, what was the time difference, if you happen to remember?

    2. Re:yeah, thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moonshine?

    3. Re:yeah, thanks by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Three hours, Eastern to Pacific.

    4. Re:yeah, thanks by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Rats, AZ is mountain.

    5. Re:yeah, thanks by mythosaz · · Score: 2

      We're Mountain STANDARD. Daylight Savings is mostly for the birds. Half of the year, we're (functionally) on Pacific time.

    6. Re:yeah, thanks by hermitdev · · Score: 1

      Trick question: depends on time of year. AZ doesn't adjust for DST.

    7. Re:yeah, thanks by njnnja · · Score: 1

      Your grandfather's trip probably averaged about 60 mph. Although he probably wasn't putting illegal gasoline tanks in the backseat, so stops were more frequent, I would guess that the "typical" driving of your grandfather on those trips was a lot slower that this guy. And your dad thought it was irresponsible, so imagine how crazy this guy must have been driving most of the time. I personally can't believe that anyone can find 3,000 contiguous miles of highway in America where you can safely drive an average of 100 mph.

    8. Re:yeah, thanks by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      Rats, AZ is mountain.

      Except when it's not. . . . Or am I jumping the gun with this annual flamefest topic by a few days? Nevermind, forget I wrote that.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    9. Re:yeah, thanks by Brianwa · · Score: 1

      Supposedly when my grandad got a 3-day weekend, he would "visit" Texas -- starting in Seattle, passing through California for the heck of it, and making it home in time for work. He had a massive Cadillac that got 13mpg at any speed, so he'd set cruise control for 110 and drive until he had to pull over and take a nap.

      I don't know how much of the story is true, but I guess roads were way more open back in the 70's, gas was cheaper, and we have pictures of the Cadillac...

  11. Irresponsible jerk. by nurb432 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Driving like a fool puts everyone on the road near him in danger. He should be sitting in jail, and lose his license.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Irresponsible jerk. by TWX · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's possible to go fast and not be terribly dangerous. In an urban area where the freeway speed limits are 65MPH, traffic flows at 75-80MPH normally. On rural Interstate highways, the speed limit is commonly 75MPH and traffic definitely bumps up against 85MPH, and some states have speed limits in the 85MPH range.

      If he was driving 100MPH in a 75MPH zones, then he was only 33% above the speed limit. He also picked a vehicle designed for high-speed, Autobahn driving, meant to handle at those speeds, and I expect that his route intentionally avoided metro areas as much as possible to avoid both extra law enforcement and extra traffic. I can attest to my part of the country, it would not be that hard to go 150MPH in some areas without particularly endangering anyone but one's self, as there are long stretches of straight road with little to no usage. I wouldn't recommend it from a personal safety standpoint, but if one were to wreck in those areas it'd probably be a one-car accident.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:Irresponsible jerk. by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      That car was not designed to have more fuel tanks, nor are those roads designed for those speeds. The autobahn is not the US interstate.

    3. Re:Irresponsible jerk. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, where in the article did it say anything to imply he was 'driving like a fool'...people who drive like fools are those that don't check their rear-view mirrors before changing lanes, driving TOO slow for traffic, cutting people off haphazardly etc. Speed ain't got nothing to do with it! In other words HIS speed wasn't an issue, it's the fools who don't know how to drive in the first place that would be an issue to him.

    4. Re:Irresponsible jerk. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're saying if you're not driving an SUV or truck, driving significantly higher speeds above the law of the land for extended periods while not having slept is fine, just as long as your car does 0-60 better than most? He didn't do this speed on a fucking runway or drag strip, he did it across the country on public roads.

      15 years jail time might slow him down.

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

      100mph is 33% above 75mph limit... 150mph is 100% above 75mph limit... approximately twice as fast as any other traffic would be going.

    6. Re:Irresponsible jerk. by nurb432 · · Score: 0

      Apparently you are a fool too, and should also lose your license.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    7. Re:Irresponsible jerk. by bob_super · · Score: 1

      I've logged enough miles on US highways to know that a random tire-blowing pothole can happen anywhere anytime, and does at a much higher frequency than on the Autobahn... How much gas in your trunck when you veer out of control into someone who was at the legal speed?

      Hint: he had to drive at night. At over 100MPH, your headlights won't give you enough time to react. I know that for a fact.

    8. Re:Irresponsible jerk. by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      You seem to miss that his average speed was 100Mph. His top speed was 158Mph. That is over twice the 75mph limit. Had he kept his top speed to around 100 it would not be so bad but he didn't.

      as there are long stretches of straight road with little to no usage. I wouldn't recommend it from a personal safety standpoint, but if one were to wreck in those areas it'd probably be a one-car accident.

      I noticed that you use relative term like "little to no usage" and "probably a one car incident". Put it this way, I would not want to be part of the "little" traffic that is "probably" killed by someone trying to beat a record by doing something unsafe. That he endangered few lives is irrelevant; he endangered some lives other than his own is relevant. I think the biggest issue is fatigue. I don't care who you are but driving for 28 hours on catnaps totaling 40 minutes is unsafe in itself. He endangered everyone on the road during the last five hours of the trip.

    9. Re: Irresponsible jerk. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Frumty frump grump!

      He probably wasn't thinking of the children either.

    10. Re: Irresponsible jerk. by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      What the hell does that have to do with this?
      He endangered everyone else for his little record. If he wanted to go the fastest over that distance he could have done it on a track.

    11. Re:Irresponsible jerk. by TWX · · Score: 1

      The car was designed for luggage for four people. The weight of the fuel should not, in of itself, pose a problem, unless the car crashes and the fuel tanks rupture, given that they're probably mounted in the trunk or where the rear seat would normally go, so not isolated from the passengers by a bulkhead like a normal under-car fuel tank is.

      The Autobahn has intentionally gentler grades, slightly higher banking on turns that warrant it, and some better safety features for when there are crashes. The Autobahn is also better-maintained and from what I've read, is constructed of more durable materials, a different multilayer approach to what the Interstate is comprised of.

      Thing is, they probably scouted their route well enough to know how well the roads are maintained and how conducive they are to high-speed driving, they probably used at least race-approved fuel tanks making a rupture less likely than if Bubba simply welded six sides together to make a metal box, and they probably timed their crossing to make it as traffic-free as possible. I'm not condoning what they did, but I'm not condemning it on the surface of it either, as it sounds like they did their homework to make this as not-dangerous as possible. Kind of like how a skydiver checks his gear and jumps in less populated places so that he doesn't kill anyone if his gear does fail and he hard-impacts.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    12. Re:Irresponsible jerk. by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      The car reeked of gas, that meant it had a leek.

      I have no trouble condemning it, they could have closed the roads or used a track. Kind of like how a sky diver does not jump over my house.

    13. Re:Irresponsible jerk. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, but that is horseshit. I know you can't expect everyone to drive 100% perfectly safe, but it is reasonable to expect that everyone is not deliberately driving under what constitutes "reckless driving" on purpose. If the average, well mannered driver is passing someone going 71 on a 65, this is absolutely reasonable. However, if someone out of fucking nowhere gets up on their ass approaching 90, you can panic the driver and who knows what the hell could happen. You can't argue that he should "be prepared for anything", because this is just an elitists mentality of "I can handle it. If you can't get off the road". You are breaking the law for you own entitlement. There are other people on the road and you have NO IDEA how your driving out-of-reasonable-parameters maneuvering will affect any of them, or what the consequences will be.

    14. Re:Irresponsible jerk. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please drive the interstate highways through Nebraska or Kansas sometime, then come back here and say that with a straight face.

    15. Re:Irresponsible jerk. by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      I have. The roads are simply not well enough maintained nor were they made to handle that. Just because a state is flat, boring and you want to get out of it quickly does not mean it is safe to drive on roads at those speeds.

    16. Re:Irresponsible jerk. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having driven cars like these (and better) at speeds like those (and higher) on both closed race tracks and public highways myself, I can lend an opinion here. 100 in a 75 is manageable, yes. The 25mph differential is enough for reaction time assuming a high-quality car with well-maintained tires and brakes and an alert and skilled driver. I'd even go so far as to say that's relatively safe even in moderate traffic where only his fast lane may be open enough for the speed and he's whizzing by a medium-density pack of slower cars.

      However, two factors make this stunt fairly stupid:

      1) In order to get his average, given the unavoidable slowdowns (traffic spots, small towns, intersections, trucks passing trucks, etc), he had to spend a large number of his hours out in the 130-150 range. Driving at those speeds on the open road is pretty questionable. At 150mph in nominally 75mph traffic, one's ability to react to unpredictable circumstances is compromised greatly. There's only so much you can do in the small window of time you have to realize that some slow idiot just changed lanes two car lengths in front of you without checking his mirror. There's also no way he found enough "solo" time on that long of a route over a 24-hour period to get in the amount of high speed he did: he was definitely whizzing past other cars at these speeds a good chunk of the time. Risk is a sliding scale, but to me, even given the fact that I'm a trained race driver, I wouldn't feel comfortable at that risk level in public traffic for any more than a brief sprint.

      2) The time scale: awareness and alertness are *critical* to high-performance driving. The LeMans race is the pinnacle of endurance road-racing (on closed circuits!) and even those teams only go about the same length of time he did. They're in a controlled and monitored environment: a closed race track full of other professionals, a whole crew backing them up with radio support, a *team* of professional drivers to swap duties with, safety workers periodically along the track to flag down dangerous situations, helicopters covering the area, medical and fire crews on standby, etc. There's no way this guy is a LeMans-level driver, and he certainly didn't have LeMans-level support or training, much less the environmental control. The first several hours might have been reasonable safe, but as his alertness wore done and mental health became less optimal, I'm quite sure I can assert that the latter half of his drive went safely mostly due to good luck.

    17. Re:Irresponsible jerk. by ApplePy · · Score: 1

      The internet was not designed for pointing out the obvious... ...nevertheless, I must point out that you've completely missed the point. :)

      --
      That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
    18. Re:Irresponsible jerk. by umghhh · · Score: 1

      if driving like a fool was a jailable offence then big part of adult population in any western country would deserve jail time or have had a jail time already served.

    19. Re:Irresponsible jerk. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One word: Vent.
      Another three words: No charcoal filter.

    20. Re:Irresponsible jerk. by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      That is fine with me. And yes, it is a jailable offence.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    21. Re:Irresponsible jerk. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's also no way he found enough "solo" time on that long of a route over a 24-hour period to get in the amount of high speed he did: he was definitely whizzing past other cars at these speeds a good chunk of the time.

      I've driven stretches of his probable route at about the times he would have. The timing of his start says he would have been crossing "flyover country" at night. The straight, flat roads in Oklahoma, the Texas panhandle, and New Mexico are prime territory for high-speed driving, and after midnight, you're probably only passing one or two cars an hour even going as fast as he was.

    22. Re:Irresponsible jerk. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I still think it's a stupid thing to do, but having ridden in a car across Germany, US Interstate highways are generally superior in design. Most sections of the autobahn (even parts of those with no speed limit) are not up to modern Interstate standards (narrower lanes and shoulders, short merge zones, etc) and are way below the quality of Interstates in the big, empty states in the western US. The quality of the road surfaces was generally top notch on the autobahn, but US Interstates are also quite good in general, except for in many major urban areas.

      Also 44 gallons of gas shouldn't affect the handling to a significant degree in a car like that. Gas weighs 6 pounds per gallon, so that's only 264 extra pounds, less than if there were two average size people in the backseat. The CL55 probably weighs nearly 4000 lb and may have self leveling suspension to further reduce the handling penalty.

      On the other hand German drivers are far superior to American drivers in virtually every way, which is what really makes this kind of thing a bad idea. Even if the drivers were equal, US drivers aren't used to people driving such high speeds while German drivers are used to a huge speed disparity on the autobahn.

    23. Re:Irresponsible jerk. by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      The car reeked of gas, that meant it had a leek.

      Or the tanks had air vents. Which most do.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    24. Re:Irresponsible jerk. by hairyfish · · Score: 2

      The car reeked of gas, that meant it had a leek.

      I'm not sure how his choice of lunch is relevant here.

    25. Re:Irresponsible jerk. by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Most have filters.
      This was illegal and dangerous to people around it.

  12. Rail? by intermodal · · Score: 2

    It seems like if you can do this with a car, where there are traffic laws and speed limits, there's no good reason why a NY-LA bullet train wouldn't work.

    --
    In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    1. Re:Rail? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Except cost (and profitability, if you're a Republican and think it should be less subsidized than the roads).

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    2. Re:Rail? by nogginthenog · · Score: 1

      You wouldn't even need a bullet train. Regular Diesel-electric trains have been doing 120+ mph since the 60s.

    3. Re:Rail? by intermodal · · Score: 1

      My subtle jab at the inability of the US to build and sustain high speed passenger rail seems to have been lost in the text format. There was nothing this trip accomplished that was cheaper than flying. Even on a fairly plush ticket. Mildly interesting, sure, but this trip was largely just stupid.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    4. Re:Rail? by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

      Except cost (and profitability, if you're a Republican and think it should be less subsidized than the roads).

      A 29-hour coast-to-coast bullet train isn't competing with roads. It's competing with 5-hour coast-to-coast air travel. The unpleasantness and other limitations and subsidies of air travel notwithstanding, a bullet train which takes ~6x as long will also need to have a price-per-trip that's at least somewhat competitive with coast-to-coast air travel for most people to bother considering it.

      Notably, the extant US passenger rail system is not very competitive with air travel on most routes outside of the Boston-Washington corridor.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    5. Re:Rail? by Z_A_Commando · · Score: 2

      It's not that it wouldn't work, it's that it's too expensive to build new rail lines, especially out of the east coast. If you want to use existing rail lines, those are all owned by a hodgepodge of different companies who (rightly or wrongly) give their freight trains priority. This is why Amtrak is so slow, because they don't have priority on the main line (along with stopping at every station between here and their destination). None of those rail lines are permitted by law to offer intra-city passenger service (commuter rail excepted). This is why everyone in the US either drives or flies to their destination.

    6. Re:Rail? by intermodal · · Score: 1

      I understand the realities of it, I'm just saying that as soon as we took to the skies, we essentially ditched what in today's TSA-riddled travel experiences would be a great alternative if we'd simply hung onto it.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    7. Re:Rail? by DriveDog · · Score: 1

      Notably, in most other parts of the country, passenger trains have to wait for slow freights. Give them passenger-only tracks like the Northeast Corridor and see how much better they do.

    8. Re:Rail? by intermodal · · Score: 1

      True, but 120+ won't compete with Boeing and Airbus.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    9. Re:Rail? by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      Notably, the extant US passenger rail system is not very competitive with air travel on most routes outside of the Boston-Washington corridor.

      I always wondered why people promoted trains myself once I started pricing Amtrak tickets. I'm typically patient and not in that big of a hurry, so I figured I'd look into taking the train on some trips.

      Turned out that it wasn't that much faster than driving, and cost about 95% what a plane ticket would cost. Basically anywhere on the same coast I'm ahead to drive and anywhere further out plane is a better option.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    10. Re:Rail? by jodosh · · Score: 1

      I would be willing to pay a premium to travel by modern rail if it meant not dealing with: 1) the TSA and 2)seats designed for a person 5'4" 98 lbs

    11. Re:Rail? by orthancstone · · Score: 1

      It's competing with 5-hour coast-to-coast air travel.

      Not to mention right-of-way on available land. I'll leave it as an exercise to readers to find out how annoying that would be across the vast number of states, counties, and cities involved in such planning.

    12. Re:Rail? by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

      If you really wanted to build a high-speed rail system in a hurry and not deal with land issues, you'd piggyback on the right-of-way of (and possibly even steal some lanes from) a convenient interstate highway. (Not that this is zero-side-effect, of course.)

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
  13. Too bad there wasn't a legal route. by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In the Land of the Free and the Home of the brave, They needed to add a lot of cowardly countermeasures to make sure the were not caught and imprisoned, for what was in essence a joy ride.

    If there was a way to go, I am going to do this stunt, I am expected to be at these locations between these times, and make sure the police give us enough room and clear out traffic. Sure it may require a little extra money say an traditional $10k to pay for the expense of blocking off the roads for the time.
    But Risk taking should be rewarded, not punished, especially if you are willing to work with the system.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:Too bad there wasn't a legal route. by rhazz · · Score: 4, Informative

      Do you think $10k will really cover the planning/cost/hassle of shutting down 2,803 miles of road?

    2. Re:Too bad there wasn't a legal route. by Erikderzweite · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm sure Red Bull would be eager to sponsor such a thing.

    3. Re:Too bad there wasn't a legal route. by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      Well they were going so fast, they wouldn't need to do it for long. That is $344 an hour.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    4. Re:Too bad there wasn't a legal route. by NeverWorker1 · · Score: 2

      Traditional $10K? I'm not a traffic cop, but this tradition of paying $10K to shut down 2,200 miles of interstate is new to me. Also, why should we encourage people to take risks just to take risks? Having a bankruptcy system encourages the risk taking involved in entrepreneurship, which is generally a good thing. This, however, is just taking risks to look cool while shutting down roads for his stunt would inconvenience many others.

    5. Re:Too bad there wasn't a legal route. by Richy_T · · Score: 2

      That wouldn't even cover the donuts.

    6. Re:Too bad there wasn't a legal route. by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      In the Land of the Free and the Home of the brave, They needed to add a lot of cowardly countermeasures to make sure the were not caught and imprisoned, for what was in essence a joy ride. ...
      But Risk taking should be rewarded, not punished, especially if you are willing to work with the system.

      It was a ride at higher speeds than are considered safe and legal across a very far distance with no sleep for the driver. "Risk-taking" should not be praised when the risks taken are with other people's lives for nothing more than one person's selfish pleasure.

      If there was a way to go, I am going to do this stunt, I am expected to be at these locations between these times, and make sure the police give us enough room and clear out traffic. Sure it may require a little extra money say an traditional $10k to pay for the expense of blocking off the roads for the time.

      You know, other people might have a valid use for the road -- perhaps even ones more important than just a joyride. Why should one rich jerk be able to buy off the roads so that no one else can use them just so he can beat some record that no one else cares about?

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    7. Re:Too bad there wasn't a legal route. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Cowardly"? Why do people always resort to this cheap and incorrect label when somebody does something they don't like? Your attempt to demonize this person is pathetic and ineffective.

    8. Re:Too bad there wasn't a legal route. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So they need Dunkin to sponsor as well.

    9. Re:Too bad there wasn't a legal route. by deadweight · · Score: 1

      There is no challenge on a closed road. Having BTDT, route planning and dealing with traffic is a huge part of success.

    10. Re:Too bad there wasn't a legal route. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have the right to take risks for yourself.

      You do NOT have the right to place everybody else at risk to go on a "joy ride".

      Think about someone other than yourself, you selfish twat.

    11. Re:Too bad there wasn't a legal route. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Red Bull branded bedpans for the racers.

  14. there was a bit of a mixup by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 5, Funny

    He was really just trying to get some groceries but he used Apple Maps.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:there was a bit of a mixup by watcher-rv4 · · Score: 0

      When he arrived there, wasn't a grocery but a laundry.

    2. Re:there was a bit of a mixup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Awesome joke. Well done.

  15. As a Georgia Tech Alumnus by EmagGeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This guy ought to be ashamed of himself. IMHO he does not represent the character, integrity, or mission of Georgia Tech, it's students, alumni, faculty, staff, or administration.

    There are right ways and wrong ways to do things, and this most certainly was the wrong way.

    1. Re:As a Georgia Tech Alumnus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IMHO he does not represent the character, integrity, or mission of Georgia Tech, it's students, alumni, faculty, staff, or administration.

      You are taking the college way too seriously.

    2. Re:As a Georgia Tech Alumnus by FatAlb3rt · · Score: 1

      So that's what you took from the story?

    3. Re:As a Georgia Tech Alumnus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many technical colleges teach their students the difference between its and it's.

    4. Re:As a Georgia Tech Alumnus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There's no right way to do this, so there.

      Pussy generation. Banning running around the town naked and banning doing stupid cool things, but approving double tap killing of civilians by guys sitting before computers as long as they obey the speed limit when driving back home from the airbase.

      That's what we have - The Pussy Generation.

    5. Re:As a Georgia Tech Alumnus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, a minute of TRUCE here--I'm a UGA alum, and I agree with you completely. This guy is a douche for doing this. While I love the idea of the world being a playground, there are still rules. This kid needs to go sit with the teacher for the rest of recess, like I had to my junior year in Athens.
       
      --See, I even saved you from having to make up your own Dawg joke.
       
      But seriously, I love tinkering and hacking machines, and seeing just what you can wring out of them. But there are places to do that--the drag strip, autocross, Bonneville, El Mirage--there are a million places to safely tinker and tune and thrash and make some smoke. The street ain't where to do it.

    6. Re:As a Georgia Tech Alumnus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do they teach punctuation in Georgia Tech?

    7. Re:As a Georgia Tech Alumnus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do they teach when to use "its" as opposed to "it's" at Georgia Tech?

    8. Re:As a Georgia Tech Alumnus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes and if men were meant to fly, we would have wings dammit!!!

      The future is created and new things discovered by breaking rules, not by following tradition or looking for social acceptance.

      I'd think that people from a technical school should know that.

    9. Re:As a Georgia Tech Alumnus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should you even feel the need to say that? Stop judging a group by the actions of one individual, and stop judging an individual by the groups they belong to. That's called prejudice.

      The actions of this one person does not and should not have any reflection on the college he attended anymore than the color of his skin, and the actions of a college should not have any reflection on its alumni, unless of course the college sponsored this and its alumni supported the sponsorship.

    10. Re:As a Georgia Tech Alumnus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Among other things, how scary is it that someone thinks everyone who went to their school has pretty much the same of character and morality as them?

    11. Re:As a Georgia Tech Alumnus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are right ways and wrong ways to do things, and this most certainly was the wrong way.

      Nah, this was the only way to do it.

      Whether it was a right or wrong thing to attempt to do is another discussion entirely.

  16. Is this really something we want to celebrate? by JDG1980 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Look, we all know everyone speeds. 5-10 MPH over the speed limit is socially acceptable and tacitly condoned (it's rare to get pulled over by the cops for that, unless they want to bust you for some unrelated reason). But this is entirely different – it seems to be a clear case of reckless driving. On most interstates, you can do 75 MPH no problem, and on the better ones, 85 MPH is reasonable during the daytime if there is no inclement weather. There are a few interstates where you can safely do 90-100 MPH, but these are not all that common, and even then, extreme caution is required. I don't see any possible way that someone could safely average nearly 100 MPH on a cross-country road trip. Safety comes by going with the flow of traffic, and this driver must have been blowing past the majority of other cars during most of his trip. It's amazing that he made it there in one piece.

    1. Re:Is this really something we want to celebrate? by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't know where YOU live, but I'm in Kansas and you can do 100+ easily out here, even on the state highways because roads are so straight. I ride my motorcycle out in the country and the only real limitation is the mental fatigue of high speeds. I can only maintain them for a while before slowing down to make the ride more relaxing.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    2. Re:Is this really something we want to celebrate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, how fucking dare this guy drive at speeds that are completely commonplace on the autobahns in Germany after getting his car completely serviced with brand-new brakes, shocks, and tires.

    3. Re:Is this really something we want to celebrate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And with all the fully documented-and-acknowledged illegal things done (laser jammers, likely radar detectors in states those are illegal, etc,) plus using real names, this is just *INVITING* arrest/book-thrown-at-them.

    4. Re:Is this really something we want to celebrate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He should have balled himself up into a corner and sucked his thumb.

    5. Re:Is this really something we want to celebrate? by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      Those roads are built for that and they have very comprehensive vehicle inspections. His modified car would likely not have passed. I do not believe they allow adding fuel tanks like this. They also ban kit cars.

    6. Re:Is this really something we want to celebrate? by james_shoemaker · · Score: 1

      Have you ever driven across kansas or western nebraska? I drive a section of interstate (not in kansas or nebraska) every day that if I drove at the proper time I could easily and comfortably do 100+. The route was carefully planned and timed to avoid construction and heavy traffic, he had rabbits running ahead him to make spot issues. The car was comfortble and safe at those speeds. Illegal, yes, but not as unsafe as people are saying.
            I would hope one could do 75 no problem on the interstate, the one I drive the speed limit is 70 and when you hit nebraska it jumps to 75.
            Personally my commute is short enough that the risk of expensive tickets isn't worth the short decrease in commute so I don't speed, but if limits were higher I'd comfortably drive them.

    7. Re:Is this really something we want to celebrate? by Virtucon · · Score: 2

      There's no relationship to how fast you go vs. safety. The Germans prove it every day.

      As a comparison from the link above, for 2010 we averaged 6.87 fatalities for all roads per billion km (Bkm) of travel in the US, Germany 5.18. That's 24.6% less.
      for highways, US: 3.62 fatalities/Bkm, Germany: 1.98 or 45.3% less.

      On Urban areas the Germans do limit the speed limits (down to 75MPH in some areas) but the biggest problems in the US in prohibiting us to go faster are:

      1) Our Roads aren't up to their standards and we do a crappy job of maintaining them.
      2) We don't have adequate training of drivers to handle high speed driving.
      3) Vehicle maintenance requirements vary from state to state while the Germans have some of the strictest vehicle maintenance requirements in the world. How many rusted out, smoking, cancer ridden cars have you seen on the road lately here?
      4) The Germans are sticklers for enforcement of the laws of the road. Aggressive drivers, tailgaters etc. are dealt with severely. In the US you can go a long way on the highway before you ever see a trooper. Think about how many times you've nearly been hit by some idiot on his cell phone.
      5) Suzie Safety nuts who like to enforce the speed limits by hogging the left lane and having a holier than thou attitude about the roads. They usually have the "CoExist" bumper sticker attached to the back of their Subaru.
      6) Tree Huggers who all want us to abandon our cars and drive around in communal VW busses from the 60s. These are the ones who enjoy the smell of their own farts.

      So, I do celebrate this because it's an achievement despite all the billions of dollars we've spent in this country on jack booted law enforcement, new laws, nudeo scans and spying on all of our private communications all in the hopes of "protecting us." Ask the folks at LAX how that's working out for them today!

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    8. Re:Is this really something we want to celebrate? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Safety comes by going with the flow of traffic, and this driver must have been blowing past the majority of other cars during most of his trip. It's amazing that he made it there in one piece.

      You'd feel differently if you'd ever driven through the South Western US at 2AM.

      Of course that's not remotely the only locale with so little traffic that you can break the needle off your speedometer safely. Montana didn't have speed-limits on its roads for decades until the Fed stepped in, and still don't put much effort into enforcing them. Plenty of places throughout the midwest are NOT used as major thoroughfares and have almost no cars on them after 10pm.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    9. Re:Is this really something we want to celebrate? by JDG1980 · · Score: 1

      I don't know where YOU live, but I'm in Kansas and you can do 100+ easily out here, even on the state highways because roads are so straight.

      Sure, there are some areas of the country where you can safely do 100+ MPH on the highway (assuming you don't blow out a tire). But there's no way someone can average that speed the whole distance between NY and LA without compromising road safety.

    10. Re:Is this really something we want to celebrate? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      We don't even have enough training of drivers at low speed.

    11. Re:Is this really something we want to celebrate? by trewornan · · Score: 1

      These are the ones who enjoy the smell of their own farts.

      I thought everyone enjoyed that.

    12. Re:Is this really something we want to celebrate? by DriveDog · · Score: 1

      All this talk of roads... have people forgotten that the vehicle itself matters? What's safe for a high performance car isn't necessarily safe for an Excursion, much less a semi, both of which are pretty unstable long before they reach 100mph.

    13. Re:Is this really something we want to celebrate? by bitt3n · · Score: 1

      Look, we all know everyone speeds. 5-10 MPH over the speed limit is socially acceptable and tacitly condoned (it's rare to get pulled over by the cops for that, unless they want to bust you for some unrelated reason). But this is entirely different – it seems to be a clear case of reckless driving. On most interstates, you can do 75 MPH no problem, and on the better ones, 85 MPH is reasonable during the daytime if there is no inclement weather. There are a few interstates where you can safely do 90-100 MPH, but these are not all that common, and even then, extreme caution is required. I don't see any possible way that someone could safely average nearly 100 MPH on a cross-country road trip. Safety comes by going with the flow of traffic, and this driver must have been blowing past the majority of other cars during most of his trip. It's amazing that he made it there in one piece.

      I know, right? What we really need is to be impressed by how safely someone drives across country. Like if he never failed to use his signal blinker a single time, never ran a yellow light, and stopped at every single stop sign no matter what. He could video the whole thing and make a two-hundred hour documentary that people could watch in lieu of getting their license revoked after their third speeding ticket.

    14. Re:Is this really something we want to celebrate? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      6) Tree Huggers who all want us to abandon our cars and drive around in communal VW busses from the 60s. These are the ones who enjoy the smell of their own farts.

      Not to mention the un-catalyzed exhaust fumes from those aforementioned buses...

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    15. Re:Is this really something we want to celebrate? by jfalcon · · Score: 1

      I've driven both... alot. And I would consider the Autobahn *marginally* better in terms of condition. And he was driving a vehicle that passed those same vehicle inspections (save for the extra fuel tanks). The reality is that most drivers in America don't drive well. Typically they're way too distracted.

      In Europe, there's nothing all that special about the roads except that people have learned to drive in the right lane. When you take away the speed limit, people just go the speed they feel is comfortable. And if everyone is in the right lane, there isn't the issue of having to do erratic maneuvers to avoid other drivers. Certainly there are speed limited areas and some places have speed cameras. But in Germany, to me it was no different than driving in the midwest until you got to the cities... then it was like any other city.

      Italy on the otherhand was both awesome to speed... er.. drive and freaky to drive in the cities (pedestrians walk into the streets even on major throughfares without second thought).

      --
      boom goes the dynamite....
    16. Re:Is this really something we want to celebrate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure that straight road is awesome when a deer jumps out in front of you at 100+ mph.

    17. Re:Is this really something we want to celebrate? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Marginally? Have you ever seen how they repair it?
      I have driven both as well. The grades are gentler, the roads are banked in places, etc. The design is for much higher speeds.

      That car passed when it was built not on the day it was driven. Meaning it may well have failed for age related reasons, like rust in the unibody. I have seen german inspectors hit the bottom of a car with a ballpeen hammer to look for weak spots.

      They actually enforce that right lane driving, we don't. Nor do we have decent driver testing or training.

    18. Re:Is this really something we want to celebrate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone does it ...

      This sounds a bit self serving and immature. Kinda like the jerks who go speeding around putting other people at risk on US highways.

      Seriously, speeding is reckless driving and it is not socially acceptable.

      Gun nuts and speeders imagine that the world agrees with them when the world is mostly in fear for their lives at their anti-social behavior.

    19. Re:Is this really something we want to celebrate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is.
      Because on a straight road "keep straight, brake hard and just go through the fucker" is a lot easier.
      Which, btw, is what you should you do no matter if you're going 55 or 155.

    20. Re:Is this really something we want to celebrate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>1) Our Roads aren't up to their standards and we do a crappy job of maintaining them.

      as of 2002- US has - 4,148,395 km
      as of 1990 - Germany had - 230,735 km

      Not even a close comparison, we have almost 20 times the about of paved highways as germany does, the other points I can agree.

    21. Re:Is this really something we want to celebrate? by jamesh · · Score: 1

      Look, we all know everyone speeds. 5-10 MPH over the speed limit is socially acceptable and tacitly condoned (it's rare to get pulled over by the cops for that, unless they want to bust you for some unrelated reason). But this is entirely different – it seems to be a clear case of reckless driving. On most interstates, you can do 75 MPH no problem, and on the better ones, 85 MPH is reasonable during the daytime if there is no inclement weather. There are a few interstates where you can safely do 90-100 MPH, but these are not all that common, and even then, extreme caution is required. I don't see any possible way that someone could safely average nearly 100 MPH on a cross-country road trip. Safety comes by going with the flow of traffic, and this driver must have been blowing past the majority of other cars during most of his trip. It's amazing that he made it there in one piece.

      I'm somewhat conflicted about this.

      There was nothing safe about it. He might be the best driver in the world, but no amount of being the best drive in the world can save you from the other idiots on the road, especially when you are doing an _average_ speed of 98MPH. This was reckless and put others at risk and if they catch him he probably shouldn't be allowed to drive again for a long time.

      That said, I'm more than a little bit in awe of the fact that he pulled this off. That part of the equation is kind of awesome. The police had 28 hours to figure out that there was someone speeding across the country and bring out the helicopters etc and catch him, but he made it. In fact it all seems so unlikely in a country like the US that i'm almost a little dubious that it happened at all.

    22. Re:Is this really something we want to celebrate? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      The Germans have lanes for the highest speeds, and you will get tickets for speeding in some cases. You find quite a lot of Germans driving in the slower lanes and cursing at the idiots who are driving unsafely by weaving around the slower cars.

    23. Re:Is this really something we want to celebrate? by pbhj · · Score: 1

      >*There's no relationship to how fast you go vs. safety.* //

      So as many people die in porsches travelling 5mph as do at 105mph?

    24. Re:Is this really something we want to celebrate? by jamesh · · Score: 1

      There's no relationship to how fast you go vs. safety. The Germans prove it every day.

      As a comparison from the link above, for 2010 we averaged 6.87 fatalities for all roads per billion km (Bkm) of travel in the US, Germany 5.18.

      There is a very well established relationship between speed and safety.

      If you are doing 30mph down a suburban street and something jumps out in front of you, or some moron brakes for no apparent reason, you have way more time to react than if you are doing 100mph. At 30mph someone might get hurt. At 100mph someone is going to die.

      I think we'd both agree that doing 100mph down a suburban street is just me playing reductio ad absurdum, but it's easy to prove that the slower everyone goes the safer we all are. We just have to find a point between "everyone does 5mph and nobody dies, won't somebody _PLEASE_ think of the children!" and "everyone does 200MPH, i'm in a hurry dammit!" that balances safety and reasonable travel times

      And I think we'd both agree that averaging 98MPH from coast to coast is too fast. Your German autobahn's are designed for those sort of speeds, and that's great, but i bet the roads this guy was travelling on aren't nearly that safe, especially if the other traffic is going 30-60MPH.

    25. Re:Is this really something we want to celebrate? by v1 · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that straight road is awesome when a deer jumps out in front of you at 100+ mph.

      I'm just glad the deer over here in Iowa aren't jet-propelled yet.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    26. Re:Is this really something we want to celebrate? by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      it seems to be a clear case of reckless driving.

      Given the preparation involved, this seems to be quite deliberate and thoughtful driving.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    27. Re:Is this really something we want to celebrate? by Virtucon · · Score: 2

      There is a very well established relationship between speed and safety.

      If you are doing 30mph down a suburban street and something jumps out in front of you, or some moron brakes for no apparent reason, you have way more time to react than if you are doing 100mph. At 30mph someone might get hurt. At 100mph someone is going to die.

      Lots of people get hit and killed on City Streets where the speed limit is substantially restricted.

      Speed doesn't kill, dumb drivers who are a) Drunk, Distracted (Texting, blah blahing on Cell phone) or are driving a car that's unsafe for multiple reasons kill people. So no, If there was a correlation to speed killing I think we'd see a lot more commercial airline crashes.

      I think we'd both agree that doing 100mph down a suburban street is just me playing reductio ad absurdum, but it's easy to prove that the slower everyone goes the safer we all are.

      Nobody is advocating going down residential streets and high speed. Even the Germans have speed limits but they enforce their laws and also punish drivers who
      violate the law by doing things that are overly aggressive or represent a threat to public safety. Driving fast on well maintained roads with trained drivers who know the consequences of being a jerk is much safer than a bunch of twits on cell phones, cutting people off without signalling, tailgating or under the effects of booze or drugs.

      We just have to find a point between "everyone does 5mph and nobody dies, won't somebody _PLEASE_ think of the children!" and "everyone does 200MPH, i'm in a hurry dammit!" that balances safety and reasonable travel times

      And I think we'd both agree that averaging 98MPH from coast to coast is too fast. Your German autobahn's are designed for those sort of speeds, and that's great, but i bet the roads this guy was travelling on aren't nearly that safe, especially if the other traffic is going 30-60MPH.

      For all you know they were on the Interstates so if you have video of them careening at 100MPH in a school zone, that's something that I wouldn't advocate. Without some proof of that, your statement is speculation.

      Again, there's a lot of factors and would I have an autobahn in the US? Not with the problems already mentioned because you can't fix stupid. If they were ever to be fixed, then hell yes I'd even sign up for a toll road that has fences around it to keep pedestrians off of it (people get killed trying to cross the interstates) but that will probably never be in my lifetime.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    28. Re:Is this really something we want to celebrate? by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      Only in Panameras from embarrassment.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    29. Re:Is this really something we want to celebrate? by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      cursing at the idiots who are driving unsafely by weaving around the slower cars.

      That's because in Germany you're supposed to move over, if the guy is weaving in and out of traffic, he's creating an unsafe situation and will get arrested.
      If these guys are so unsafe, why then do the Germans have fewer highway fatalities? If people are truly concerned with safety, start by addressing all of the other problems and not just speed limits.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    30. Re:Is this really something we want to celebrate? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      But there's no way someone can average that speed the whole distance between NY and LA without compromising road safety.

      I drove coast to coast last year, sometimes on interstates and sometimes on back roads. You can easily drive around 100+ out east because traffic is so fast already (especially if you did so when traffic was gone) and once you get into the middle of the country or the west you can go faster still...

      Really the only reason interstate traffic itself is not going an average of 90+ everywhere is because of fear of tickets. But many drivers in all states are going consistantly 85.

      Driving really fast is actually much easier on the driver that driving slightly faster than cars - if you are just driving slightly faster people will cut you off, take a long time to pass, and so on. If you are going 15+ MPH faster than you many people will wait for you to go around them and there's less time in which they can get in front of you anyway.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    31. Re:Is this really something we want to celebrate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speed doesn't kill, dumb drivers who are a) Drunk, Distracted (Texting, blah blahing on Cell phone) or are driving a car that's unsafe for multiple reasons kill people. So no, If there was a correlation to speed killing I think we'd see a lot more commercial airline crashes.

      You're right. Speed doesn't kill. Sudden stillness kills.

      Neither you nor anybody else, despite your asinine egotistical dumbass claims, has the reaction time necessary to control a vehicle if somebody jumps out on the road in front of you (whether that's somebody changing lanes, a deer, a piece of solid tire falling off a truck, or a cow falling out of a cargo plane). You probably also don't have a vehicle with the handling necessary for such control even if you did have such inhuman reaction time.

      Lots of people get hit and killed on City Streets where the speed limit is substantially restricted

      Yes, they do. That's because fuckwads like you ignore those restrictions because you think you're Superman. Get it through your fucking thick skull. You are NOT Superman, and you never will be. You're a sad little egotistical asshole with no care for your fellow humans.

  17. Obligatory Comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have yet to see a more patently obvious display of envy.

  18. Why bother with a radar / laser jammer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just feed the receiver with the right frequency to tell it how fast you want it to read. Imagine the look on the cop's face when you scream by at 100+ and the gun reads "55".

    1. Re:Why bother with a radar / laser jammer? by Subgenius · · Score: 1

      Hell, bust him at the federal level for use of an uncertified intentional radiator (jammers).

      --
      Toil is Stupid. Don't be Stupid.
    2. Re:Why bother with a radar / laser jammer? by hawguy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Just feed the receiver with the right frequency to tell it how fast you want it to read. Imagine the look on the cop's face when you scream by at 100+ and the gun reads "55".

      They don't need the radar gun reading to ticket you for speeding - if you ever go to court, you'll find that all police claim to be "trained in visual speed observation", and will back up the radar evidence with their professional judgement of how fast you were going. And the judge will accept their estimate because they have the training to show that they can make accurate estimates.

    3. Re:Why bother with a radar / laser jammer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Each of us is wearing an unlicensed nuclear accelerator on his back."

    4. Re:Why bother with a radar / laser jammer? by citylivin · · Score: 1

      " all police claim to be "trained in visual speed observation", and will back up the radar evidence with their professional judgement of how fast you were going."

      Its more than that. In canada, they cant just sit there speed gunning everyone (dragnet style). They have to say they made a sight check first, and judged you to be speeding, before they deployed their gun as a confirmation. The law is written in such a way as the police must visually estimate your speed before deploying the gun.

      I am not sure how exactly the AC would defeat a radar gun, as the way I understand that they work, they take several distance measurements milliseconds apart and then deduce what speed you are going based on the change.

      --
      As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
    5. Re:Why bother with a radar / laser jammer? by jhumkey · · Score: 2

      My father (gone now, former KY state police) always said . . . "I could see he was going 10 miles over the limit . . ." never stood up in court.

      But even a farmer out in a field can look up and say about distant driver "he was just going too fast to make that turn" (placing blame for an accident squarely on the driver) . . . usually was upheld.

      This guy . . . will never be convicted. Without explicitly being caught . . . he'll pass under the same reasoning drug dealers do. (If 1 in 100 that take cocaine die from it, and you've just sold 100lbs . . . then . . . you're "defacto" guilty of murder. Its that "defacto" and not "nameable person" that makes all the difference.)

      So, its an impressive feat . . . but still incredibly careless and stupid.

      --
      No, I don't remember your name. But the memory mapped screen on a TRS80 from 1977 is from 15360 to 16383 if that helps.
    6. Re:Why bother with a radar / laser jammer? by sjames · · Score: 2

      Because the jammers were for infrared. That band isn't regulated.

    7. Re:Why bother with a radar / laser jammer? by JDG1980 · · Score: 1

      Just feed the receiver with the right frequency to tell it how fast you want it to read. Imagine the look on the cop's face when you scream by at 100+ and the gun reads "55".

      I think they did that on Knight Rider once.

    8. Re:Why bother with a radar / laser jammer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And, the fact is, the cop can say whatever he wants to and it will stand up in court.

    9. Re:Why bother with a radar / laser jammer? by DriveDog · · Score: 1

      Except he didn't have the radar jammer, it wasn't ready in time. I suspect it would be a lot more difficult to enforce such rules against light emitting devices (a LIDAR jammer).

    10. Re:Why bother with a radar / laser jammer? by evilviper · · Score: 1

      if you ever go to court, you'll find that all police claim to be "trained in visual speed observation", and will back up the radar evidence with their professional judgement of how fast you were going. And the judge will accept their estimate because they have the training to show that they can make accurate estimates.

      At least Pennsylvania and Nebraska courts require more than just a visual speed estimate. A quick search hasn't turned up a comprehensive list.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    11. Re:Why bother with a radar / laser jammer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's how a laser gun works, not a radar gun.

      Radar works by measuring your blue-shift. It's about as real an instantaneous speed reading you can get whereas laser, which measures a few hundred times per second, gives an average over the time measured.

      Radar has the disadvantage of not being able to precisely pinpoint your target. The gun looks at the red/blue shifts over the whole field and tries to figure out which "thing" is the object being measured. It can be wrong because it picks up the car next to you instead of you. It can be wrong because it picks up a little rotational object that's got a much higher speed at the moment.

      Laser allows the officer to ensure he's pinpointing your vehicle (some models let you see the red laser dot on the vehicle you're trying to get a reading on). Sampling is fast enough that the averaging of your speed is probably still more precise than your glance at your speedometer.

    12. Re:Why bother with a radar / laser jammer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not sure how exactly the AC would defeat a radar gun, as the way I understand that they work, they take several distance measurements milliseconds apart and then deduce what speed you are going based on the change.

      Radar guns measure speed by detecting the degree of doppler shift in the reflected radar wave. They don't take multiple independent distance measurements. They can be jammed by transmitting radar frequencies that either provide a false shifting, or simply outright confuse the radar gun.

    13. Re:Why bother with a radar / laser jammer? by hawguy · · Score: 1

      if you ever go to court, you'll find that all police claim to be "trained in visual speed observation", and will back up the radar evidence with their professional judgement of how fast you were going. And the judge will accept their estimate because they have the training to show that they can make accurate estimates.

      At least Pennsylvania and Nebraska courts require more than just a visual speed estimate. A quick search hasn't turned up a comprehensive list.

      It's been upheld in Ohio:

      http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2010/06/police_officers_visual_estimat.html

      But even in PA and NE:

      http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/06/visual_speed_estimates_by_poli.html

      The number of states that use that standard could not be determined Wednesday. Pennsylvania and Nebraska require more than just a visual speed estimate, though officers in those states have leeway to say a vehicle was traveling at an unsafe speed.

      So they may not get you for "speeding", but instead "traveling at an unsafe speed".

    14. Re:Why bother with a radar / laser jammer? by dale.furno · · Score: 0

      Just feed the receiver with the right frequency to tell it how fast you want it to read. Imagine the look on the cop's face when you scream by at 100+ and the gun reads "55".

      They don't need the radar gun reading to ticket you for speeding - if you ever go to court, you'll find that all police claim to be "trained in visual speed observation", and will back up the radar evidence with their professional judgement of how fast you were going. And the judge will accept their estimate because they have the training to show that they can make accurate estimates.

      absolutely not true.

    15. Re:Why bother with a radar / laser jammer? by hawguy · · Score: 1

      Just feed the receiver with the right frequency to tell it how fast you want it to read. Imagine the look on the cop's face when you scream by at 100+ and the gun reads "55".

      They don't need the radar gun reading to ticket you for speeding - if you ever go to court, you'll find that all police claim to be "trained in visual speed observation", and will back up the radar evidence with their professional judgement of how fast you were going. And the judge will accept their estimate because they have the training to show that they can make accurate estimates.

      absolutely not true.

      The courts (at least some courts) disagree:

      http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2010/06/police_officers_visual_estimat.html

      I learned this from first hand experience when I tried to fight my first ticket. I read all of the books (this predated the modern internet) and came up with a perfect defense to impinge the accuracy of the radar unit in heavy traffic, along with pictures and other visual aids to show how the radar gun likely picked up the much bigger target of the car in the other lane rather than my motorcycle.

      The somewhat bemused judge listened to my whole spiel and he congratulated me on putting together such a fine defense, but said "The officer testified that he visually ascertained your speed to be 65mph, so even if the radar's 67mph reading was inaccurate, I accept the officer's sworn testimony". But he ended up charging me 64mph to save me some money and points.

      The most amusing thing about it now is that this was in a small southern town and the judge was exactly like the judge portrayed by Fred Gwynne (aka Herman Munster) in My Cousin Vinny

    16. Re:Why bother with a radar / laser jammer? by kevmatic · · Score: 1

      Hah, I remember that happening around Pittsburgh. It was on the news. They eventually ticketed a lawyer and that put an end to it- Appeals court said no.

      I believe they ended up refunding the ticket monies.

      I've seen people drive that fast around here. I've driven past them as they lay at the side of the road upside down (never actually seen one flip in person, though).

    17. Re:Why bother with a radar / laser jammer? by Hobadee · · Score: 1

      You don't have to be "trained in visual speed observation" to tell someone is speeding when they are doing 90+ in a 65.

      Judge/lawyer: How fast was he going?
      You: F***ING!!!

      --
      ...Had this been an actual emergency, we would have fled in terror, and you would not have been informed.
    18. Re:Why bother with a radar / laser jammer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of squads doing highway patrol also have a certified calibrated spedometer. On most new ones, this data is recorded along with the video from the dash cam. Radar gun or not, the officer would only have to pace the person speeding while their dashboard camera is turned on and they'd have all the evidence they need in court.

    19. Re:Why bother with a radar / laser jammer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whats with all the . . . ellipses ?

    20. Re:Why bother with a radar / laser jammer? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      They don't need the radar gun reading to ticket you for speeding - if you ever go to court, you'll find that all police claim to be "trained in visual speed observation", and will back up the radar evidence with their professional judgement of how fast you were going.

      This is where you need to bring in some basic scientific facts about physics, about measurement errors, about the unlikelihood of highly accurate estimates, and in particular, the likelihood of high estimation errors as well, even by experts.

      And the psychological issue of an erroneous radar reading affecting human judgement about the actual speed, AND affecting human memory regarding their recollection of what their estimate was.

      For example: their undocumented estimate suddenly increases by 20% after looking at the radar reading, because they had not committed it to paper yet, before looking at the radar, they are subject to a post-estimate correction bias; where their recollection of what their estimate was changes, as soon as they see the radar reading, but before the details are committed in writing.

  19. Youtube speedometer arrests by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

    What I don't understand is the difference between someone being ticketed after posting a YouTube videos of their speeding rampages thru town and this?

    Even if you don't get caught in the act when you tell the world what you did how does this not at the very least translate into a big fat fine?

    What about all of your "lookouts" complicit in enabling your activities what is their risk of being held liable by some overzealous prosecutor?

    If you want to do something like this I'm reckless enough not to care... going around and talking about your exploits in my opinion is crossing the line.

    1. Re:Youtube speedometer arrests by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      What about all of your "lookouts" complicit in enabling your activities what is their risk of being held liable by some overzealous prosecutor?

      "Conspiracy to commit traffic violation"? You can only be charged with things that are actually listed as crimes. (Well, usually.)

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
  20. Saw this yesterday; was shocked by the detail by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 3, Interesting

    OK, this guy plotted and planned in excrutiating detail for 18 months, works in the automobile industry, yet seems utterly fearless about the legal ramifications about admitting average speeds in excess of all posted limits in the country? The article I saw had a damning amount detail, including what sound like many admissions that he knows what he's doing is illegal (e.g. the comment about the vented trunk fumes while stopped by a cop).

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  21. Statue of limitations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder what the statue of limitations is as he just confessed to violating the law.

    1. Re:Statue of limitations? by Quila · · Score: 1

      Recently photos were taken of Billy Ray Cyrus letting his 13 year-old drive on public roads. The police said they couldn't do anything since the police themselves didn't see it. Maybe that applies here.

    2. Re:Statue of limitations? by orthancstone · · Score: 1

      I believe when I read the story about the 2006 run that six months was the longest statute at that time. Not sure if it is the same now, although I'd imagine it isn't longer based on this tone of this story.

  22. Interesting data point by quax · · Score: 5, Interesting

    To get an idea how much faster you could get around if the US had proper no speed limit highways like the German Autobahn.

    (That said I don't condone reckless driving on roads that aren't built for that speed.)

    1. Re:Interesting data point by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      American drivers are not good for that speed either. Go ask a german about their drivers education vs ours. Ask them about their testing.

      If you take your road test in an automatic you get a restricted license. Can you imagine how americans would react to that?

    2. Re:Interesting data point by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1

      Except parts of the Autobahn that have no limit posted are getting rarer and rarer. Construction, urban encroachment, etc.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    3. Re:Interesting data point by SpaceManFlip · · Score: 1

      I have said for years that we should have a tiered system of drivers' licenses, allowing for more advanced drivers to drive faster or use a better lane or similar benefit

    4. Re:Interesting data point by nschubach · · Score: 1

      I'd love it. It'd be one step close to recognizing that people are all capable of different things and setting a blanket rule of "this is how fast you can drive" is not always applicable.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    5. Re:Interesting data point by DaveAtFraud · · Score: 1

      I almost moved to Montana when they reverted to their ''reasonable and proper'' speed limit. Too bad they decided that it was to vague to be enforceable and went back to a numeric limit (75 mph on the interstates, 70 mph on state roads). Even if it's not stringently enforced, I hate the idea of turning lots of otherwise law-abiding people into law breakers.

      The goofy thing is that nothing has changed. It's up to the police to decide whether or not to enforce the limit just like when it was up to the cop to deicde what was ''reasonable and proper''.

      Cheers,
      Dave

      --
      They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
      Ben
    6. Re:Interesting data point by Bigbutt · · Score: 1

      I thought about that but how would you prove it? If you're caught driving as if you were an 'A' driver but with a 'B' license you go to jail?

      [John]

      --
      Shit better not happen!
    7. Re:Interesting data point by ApplePy · · Score: 1

      Can I get an amen?!

      Pilot's licenses are tiered, and all share the same airspace (except class A). We accept that greater levels of skill, training, and experience allow a pilot to go bigger and faster.

      This should be a no-brainer, but the primary obstacle is political correctness.

      --
      That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
    8. Re:Interesting data point by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      (That said I don't condone reckless driving on roads that aren't built for that speed.)

      Except, American highways were designed for this speed. Specifically, the original design spec was 100 MPH (over highways, not on/off ramps) with cars at the time. The engineers were forward thinking enough not to want to start the biggest construction project (in the world/the us/their careers?) without making it future proof. They assumed the speed limit would be increased in the future.

      With better vehicle tech (brakes, traction control) the safe highway speed absent other people would be higher than that.

      Not that I advocate speeding now, but good to know in the zombie apocalypse.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    9. Re:Interesting data point by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Well, that and a bedpan installed in your driver's seat.

    10. Re:Interesting data point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that's true of the entire EU but the restricted license only restricts you to automatics...

      I actually don't think it is a factor of training as much as 'driving culture' most of us europeans are not fantastic drivers as soon as we pass our tests but we get a more varied experience at higher speeds. In my experience the typical (not all) US drivers are not good drivers at speed and spend way too much time focused on anything other than the job at hand (driving). Probably because the US driving culture had so many years of an absurdly low rigidly enforced speed limit. Everyone got used to doing other things while waiting to get somewhere so now nobody focuses as much as they should at the speeds they are doing...

    11. Re:Interesting data point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For one thing the Germans are very strict about no passing on the right. It is NOT done. They are also amazingly good compared to Americans for passing and then getting over to the right lane.
      The cops even go out and ticket drivers for failing to return to the left lane if they just sit in the middle lane slower than the flow of traffic

      America needs a large driving culture change before they can get German Autobahns.

      Also German no speed limit Autobahns are disappearing.

    12. Re:Interesting data point by Man+Eating+Duck · · Score: 1

      American drivers are not good for that speed either. Go ask a german about their drivers education vs ours. Ask them about their testing.

      If you take your road test in an automatic you get a restricted license. Can you imagine how americans would react to that?

      My brother got his licence in Nebraska, and it was ridiculously easy. It was in no way stringent enough to judge if you were actually able to drive on public roads in his opinion. I'm from Norway, and we have a strict practical test lasting one hour, during which you can only make two non-serious mistakes (like switching on your turn signal a bit late) and still pass. Forget your turn signal altogether and you fail, no matter how well you drove otherwise. This is a good thing.

      About restricted licences: In Norway you get an "automatic" licence if you do the practical test in an automatic, and you're not allowed to drive a manual. Most people who take the test on an automatic do it because they're not physically able to drive a manual due to disabilities.

      In my experience stick shifts are few and far between in the US. My brother was an exchange student in Nebraska. We both knew how to drive manuals (they were certainly the most common option in Norway in the nineties, and are probably still in the majority), and when I visited him many of the locals were impressed by that fact, as generally only classic muscle-car owners knew how to use a stick. Putting someone who has only driven an automatic behind the wheel of a manual is asking for trouble, though, if you ask me it makes perfect sense to restrict those people to automatics :)

      --
      Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors! :)
  23. One missing detail by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I just want to know how he got past all those idiots plodding along in the left lane.

    1. Re:One missing detail by DaveAtFraud · · Score: 1

      That makes at least two of us. Most of my commute is on a rural Intersate where the posted speed is 75 mph. It never fails that there is always some idiot driving a vehicle that might be able to do 65 mph going downhill with a tailwind trying to pass some other idiot in a vehicle that can't do 55 mph going downhill and with a tailwind. And then they stay in the fast lane until at least 20 cars have passed them on the right and it eventually dawns on them that they should be in the slow lane.

      *S*I*G*H*

      Cheers,
      Dave

      --
      They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
      Ben
    2. Re:One missing detail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Passing on the shoulder, of course. The same way the last guy broke this record. You invent an extra passing lane!

    3. Re:One missing detail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with the main point, but for 99% of vehicles the only component preventing the vehicle from reaching the posted speed is the driver. Mainly most drivers are confused about what the rightmost pedal does, it isn't a speed pedal that makes you go X speed for Y depression, but an accelerator pedal that needs to be pressed harder when you're below speed and softer if you're above speed. I drive a vehicle that has awful acceleration, yet most of the time I'm running up the tailpipe of other vehicles on on-ramps because I'm willing to fully depress the accelerator pedal to get to speed before merges.

    4. Re:One missing detail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm willing to fully depress the accelerator pedal to get to speed before merges.

      Ditto, and I'm also willing to drive slowly on the first part of the ramp then floor it. The guy behind me thinks I'm a slow-poke, then two seconds later I'm gone like money at South Park Bank. This works out all the better because guy behind me now has plenty of merge room.

      I can't believe the idiots who leave very little space coming up the ramp, especially when there are 5 or 6 in a row like that. They're just going to have a trickier merge, especially when there are idiots in the right lane. When I'm in the right lane and see that shit coming up the ramp, I don't even think about merging with it, I try to get left.

    5. Re:One missing detail by BringsApples · · Score: 1

      He didn't drive through Florida.

      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    6. Re:One missing detail by number17 · · Score: 1

      By using the right lane. Its often left wide open.

  24. Re: chasing corrupt politicians by SpaceManFlip · · Score: 1
    Very nice troll there, and I surely wish it was the truth. +100 Internets to you watcher

    fuckin' politicians - worst enemy causing the most harm to our country in existence. I believe at least 3/5 of congress is on the take (taking bribes for their votes, in case you don't understand)

  25. Re:Americans CAN NOT DRIVE!! by paiute · · Score: 2

    I visualized his arm automatically going up in a palm out salute towards the end of his rant.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  26. Bust the jerk by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Moving at those kinds of speeds, people don't have time to accurately judge merging time, lane changes, etc. You can be 1/4 mile away and be on someone traveling the speed limit before they've even finished changing lanes. Record or not "top-gun" dick moves belong on the race track, not public highways.

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    1. Re:Bust the jerk by CaptainLard · · Score: 1

      "top-gun" dick moves belong on the race track, not public highways.

      Actually they don't belong on the racetrack* either. From public driving events up through LeMans and F1, if you drive recklessly there are repercussions. Either a penalty or a wall. You still get to drive as fast as you want, just as long as you're in control.

      *excluding oval tracks so NASCAR is an exception.

    2. Re:Bust the jerk by ApplePy · · Score: 1

      Moving at those kinds of speeds, people don't have time to accurately judge merging time, lane changes, etc.

      Some people are better at this than others. Plus, I'll suggest that this guy was probably not distracted by fiddling with his cell phone while doing 100+, whereas he probably blew by a lot of slower idiots who were.

      --
      That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
    3. Re:Bust the jerk by Derec01 · · Score: 1

      And as a driver, he's supposed to be driving responsibly and not create a hazard. Even more so if he *knows* that people aren't expecting him at that speed.

      You must be awfully disappointed with the frail humans around you that don't have a 0% error rate. Losers.

    4. Re:Bust the jerk by ApplePy · · Score: 1

      You must be awfully disappointed with the frail humans around you that don't have a 0% error rate.

      If you're one of them, stay out of my way! ;-)

      --
      That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
  27. Re: "Driving like a fool" by SpaceManFlip · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sounds to me like he "drove like a genius" instead of a fool, because he made it _literally_ from one end of our vast nation to the other at top speed without hurting himself or anyone else AND he didn't get caught while obviously breaking the law. Not exactly the kind of "fool" you hear of on those Dumb Crook News segments in the media

  28. Ya Danged Whipper-Snappers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whaaa? 'older' cars; pre-'76 were designed for 120mph as were the Interstates; my old LTD would drive comfortable at 110 all day long; and carry six passengers AND a trunk full of Coor's

    1. Re:Ya Danged Whipper-Snappers by Nerdfest · · Score: 1

      I was actually thinking even older, although that era's Ford LTD and the like were generally not very save through any kind of twisty roads. Soft, sloppy suspension and way too much roll. The brakes were pretty sad for a car that heavy as well.

  29. Re:Americans CAN NOT DRIVE!! by Quila · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Do you drive dangerously, or just speed? Autobahnpolizei are known to ignore the guy going fast but safe in favor of catching the guys passing on the right, tailgating, weaving through traffic, and camping out in the middle lane.

    In the US we ticket for speed, since it's the easiest to prove and carries the highest fines. The cops don't care so much about actual unsafe driving. Yes, it's screwed up.

  30. Wait a minute.... by mark-t · · Score: 1

    Can't the person be cited for speeding since they specifically have an upper bound on how much time it took the person to travel a known distance? It would seem that if he is going to claim that he really did this, he necessarily needs to admit to speeding, and the amount should be based on the average amount he would have needed to go over the speed limit to have travelled that distance in the specified time. Of course, if he says that he didn't really do this, and is just bragging about something he didn't really do, then he can't really claim to have broken a record either... Or do speeding tickets not work that way in the USA, and they must be either clocked specifically by radar or paced manually with a police vehicle, instead of using clocks at start and end points?

    1. Re:Wait a minute.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no federal (national) speed limit in the US, which means the US can't fine him. Any state he passed through could try, but he could always lie to that state and say he went through that state at the speed limit and sped up on either side of it... I'm not sure he'd be able to get away with that completely, but he could certainly try.

    2. Re:Wait a minute.... by ponraul · · Score: 1

      He hired a GPS tracking firm to independently document his time. They can get subpoenaed. Assuming, they could get a grand jury to indict him and they are willing to extradite him for a moving vehicle violation.

    3. Re:Wait a minute.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's say all you have was the timestamped endpoints of his trip.

      How do you know he was speeding in New York? Is it not possible that he was going the speed limit in NY and excessively speeding in the other states he passed through?
      How do you know he was speeding in California? Is it not possible that he was going the speed limit in CA and excessively speeding in the other states he passed through?
      How do you know he was speeding in any given state? Is it not possible that he was going the speed limit in that state and excessively speeding in the other states he passed through?

      So which state do you ticket him in?

      Of course, you've got more than timestamped endpoints, in this particular case. I'm merely addressing why speeding tickets do "not work that way in the USA".

      Posting anon because I'm blowing all my mod points improving the driver:grandma ratio in these comments.

    4. Re:Wait a minute.... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      So you ask him how fast he was going and where... if he claims to not know, then you take an average (98kph) and fine him in all of them. If he claims that he wasn't speeding in some states, then ask him in which states that he knows he was not speeding. You then determine the average speed he would need to travel in the remaining states, and fine him in the remainder of the states.

      Basically, any admission that he makes to claiming to have not sped in any one state increases the fine that he would necessarily have to pay in others that he went through in which he cannot deny he was speeding without denying that he broke the record in the first place.

    5. Re:Wait a minute.... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Ask him... under legal consequences for lying. He can't deny all of them.

      Any states that he claims to be uncertain of, take the average speed he would need to be going in all of those states to have achieved the time that he did, and fine him in those.

      Done.

    6. Re:Wait a minute.... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      if he claims to not know, then you take an average (98kph) and fine him in all of them. If he claims that he wasn't speeding in some states, then ask him in which states that he knows he was not speeding. You then determine the average speed he would need to travel in the remaining states, and fine him in the remainder of the states.

      It does not work that way in the US. He could state "I did not speed in at least 1 state. I refuse to tell you which because it would imply I sped in others.. 5th amendment." IANAL, so I'd imagine it would be rephrased. But the principle that I cannot be compelled to testify against myself is strong.

      And then each state has to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that it was not the state he obeyed the law within.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    7. Re:Wait a minute.... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      The "implication" that he sped in states is not an issue... it is an already known fact that he sped in several already. What is not known is exactly which ones. Personally, I'd suggest that he should pay a fine for speeding in all of them... and that he is perfectly free to contest each charge individually, although doing so will increase the charges in the others, since that would mean that he was driving even faster in them.

      We're talking here about somebody who genuinely did break the law here. The fact that they don't know exactly where the law was really broken is a technicality that doesn't change the fact that the law was still broken. Saying which places he broke the law in isn't incriminating himself of breaking the law any further than he already has done by claiming to have cross the entire USA in a time that requires him to have been speeding excessively already.

    8. Re:Wait a minute.... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      t is an already known fact that he sped in several already. What is not known is exactly which ones

      That's meaningless then. Some state or states need to charge him. It doesn't matter what he did in other states. If NY wants to charge him, then it has to assert he sped specifically in NY. And probably on what highway at what speed.

      Personally, I'd suggest that he should pay a fine for speeding in all of them... and that he is perfectly free to contest each charge individually, although doing so will increase the charges in the others, since that would mean that he was driving even faster in them.

      Three issues.

      1) States have maximums on speeding, so the fine would likely not go higher once you hit 75 over. And some states in the midwest have no speed limit, so he could claim he made up 100% of the time there.

      2) You have burden of proof backwards. The state has to prove he sped in their state, not him having to prove that he didn't. Innocent until proven guilty and all that

      3) IANAL, but... you can deny speeding in a state without admitting where you did speed.

      We're talking here about somebody who genuinely did break the law here. The fact that they don't know exactly where the law was really broken is a technicality that doesn't change the fact that the law was still broken

      Actually, you don't know what laws he broke at all. You can calculate that he broke at least one law. But NY's speeding law is not Penn's speeding law, and speeding by 15 MPH over is a different crime from 25 MPH over. But you have to claim he broke some law or another. And you cannot state which.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    9. Re:Wait a minute.... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      1) In such states,it might be reasonable to assume that he simply travelled the highest speed the vehicle was capable of, which might make up a lot of the time if he were to claim to be going the speed limit everywhere else, but would it make up all of it? If so, then there's no reason to charge him at all. I don't know if that's the case, however.

      2) I'm not suggesting he prove that he didn't speed... his claim that he didn't speed in a particular state should certainly be enough, but if is claiming that he didn't speed in a state then he is also capable of saying which state it was that he didn't speed in. This isn't asking him to incriminate himself of the charge of speeding in that state, it's asking him to dispute the charge in the first place, and he wouldn't even need to do anything at all to prove it other than say that he didn't speed there. The fact that doing so may incriminate him further in other states is a natural consequence of the way time, distance, and velocity are all related to each other mathematically, and not purely a direct result of his admission. Bending what we understand as the laws of time and space, for example, would make his journey possible without breaking any state laws whatsoever. What incriminates him in spite of this, however, is the fact that this cannot actually be accomplished technologically by any known means. If he's going to maintain that he did so, however... then the speeding charges might be irrelevant, although he may need serious psychiatric help.

      3) Of course... but as I said, he could be charged with speeding in every state that we was not willing to deny speeding in... and if he denies speeding in too many of them that he would not have been able to make up the difference in those remaining, then you know, beyond any shadow of a doubt that he's been lying about not speeding somewhere, and you start right back at the beginning.

      Actually, you don't know what laws he broke at all. You can calculate that he broke at least one law

      So you charge him with speeding in all of them based on average velocity necessary to accomplish the trip in the time taken, and leave him perfectly free to dispute each state charge individually, although doing so may impact the remaining speeding charges... which again, he is also free to dispute for as long as he can continue to do so without being provably lying (mathematically) about at least one of his denials.

    10. Re:Wait a minute.... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      This isn't asking him to incriminate himself of the charge of speeding in that state, it's asking him to dispute the charge in the first place, and he wouldn't even need to do anything at all to prove it other than say that he didn't speed there. The fact that doing so may incriminate him further in other states is a natural consequence of the way time, distance, and velocity are all related to each other mathematically, and not purely a direct result of his admission.

      It doesn't incriminate him in other states at all. He pleas "not guilty" to all charges. And, what are you going to do? You know he's lying at least once, but.... that turns out not to matter.

      Look, IANAL, but the law doesn't work the way you seem to think it does.

      if he denies speeding in too many of them that he would not have been able to make up the difference in those remaining, then you know, beyond any shadow of a doubt that he's been lying about not speeding somewhere, and you start right back at the beginning.

      True and irrelevent. He's lying. You have to prove where he's lying about.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    11. Re:Wait a minute.... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      It doesn't incriminate him in other states at all

      Actually, the mathematics does. If he didn't speed in any given state, it is mathematically provable that he had an even higher average velocity in other states. Which precise ones is entirely irrelevant until it is reduced to a small enough subset that he can no longer plausibly continue to deny speeding in any given one of them (that is, the subset of remaining states is small enough that it would be have been physically impossible to have accomplished the feat in the time that he did if the number of states in which he claims to have not sped were any larger).

      I don't have to prove what he's lying about when there aren't enough states left that he hasn't disputed for him to continue to deny that he sped in them... if he was, presumably, telling the truth when he disputed any of the other states, then further denail automatically means he was lying.

      Of course, I think that the whole thing should be done under oath, and penalty of perjury... so that there are actual real consequences for lying in the first place, which would probably carry a bigger penalty than just paying the darn speeding tickets and being done with it. The guy made it into the Guiness record books... some people spend millions trying to do that. What's a couple thousand dollars in speeding fines?

    12. Re:Wait a minute.... by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      Cited in what jurisdiction?

      Let's stipulate that the time stamps are accurate, and therefore he had to exceed some speed limit somewhere. However, there are no federal traffic cops who can cite him based on his his average speed. State police in NY and California only have the time on one end of the path their their state, and others have neither end, so there's no way to show that in any specific jurisdiction the speed limit was definitely violated.

    13. Re:Wait a minute.... by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      There are no federal traffic police so speeding can only be charged at most at state-level granularity. The fact that they don't know exactly where the law was really broken means the state has not presented evidence that proves that the accused actually broke the law in their jurisdiction. The defendant doesn't have to tell any prosecutors anything about where he was and was not speeding.

      The only question is whether it would rally be worth someone's time to pursue a constitutional law appeal over some traffic tickets.

    14. Re:Wait a minute.... by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      "Ask him... under legal consequences for lying. He can't deny all of them. "

      He doesn't have to say a damn thing. Silence is not lying.

    15. Re:Wait a minute.... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      A not-guilty plea is not subject to perjury. You would still have to prove which statements were perjurous, since it would also be a state crime, you'd have the same problem. The pleas could not be admissible as evidence without violating the 5th amendment.

      I get what you are saying, but you cannot prove which state's laws he broke.

      I don't have to prove what he's lying about when there aren't enough states left that he hasn't disputed for him to continue to deny that he sped in them... if he was, presumably, telling the truth when he disputed any of the other states, then further denail automatically means he was lying.

      Yeah, you have to prove what he's lying about. Lying somewhere is not a ffederal crime. You shouuld look into juristiction.

      Something can be known, and unprovable in a court of law. Some things are inadmssible. Some are indeterminate. This is both

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    16. Re:Wait a minute.... by mark-t · · Score: 1
      Again... not asking whether he's guilty or not. It's already known that he is guilty of speeding *SOMEWHERE*... the question to ask him is simply "did you speed in state X"? If not, then that means he went faster elsewhere... eventually, there will not be enough states that he has not yet denied speeding in for him to continue to plausibly deny speeding there.

      The plea of "guilty" vs "non guilty" is completely irrellevant, and take his word for whether he sped or not in a given state only for as long as the mathematics of doing so means that it was still physically plausible within the speed limits that the car is capable of.

    17. Re:Wait a minute.... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      The plea of "guilty" vs "non guilty" is completely irrellevant, and take his word for whether he sped or not in a given state only for as long as the mathematics of doing so means that it was still physically plausible within the speed limits that the car is capable of.

      You really seem to think there is some unified legal system. Look up jurisdictions. He'll deny speeding in any given state when charged in that state. Yes, he's lying. And? His denials are not admissible in any other court.

      Look, I get what you're saying. It's logical. It's just not legal.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  31. Re:What an asshole by Richy_T · · Score: 1

    It could have been much worse. He could have invented an annoying dance to a mindless-yet-catchy pop tune.

  32. Speed doesn't kill by w0mprat · · Score: 3, Funny

    Speed doesn't kill it's suddenly becoming stationery that's the problem.

    --
    After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
    1. Re:Speed doesn't kill by 6Yankee · · Score: 2

      Falling into a paper mill will do that.

    2. Re:Speed doesn't kill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate becoming paper too.

    3. Re:Speed doesn't kill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...it's suddenly becoming stationery that's the problem."

      Yeah, that would be dangerous. OMG, you've suddenly turned into a piece of paper!!

      The word you want is stationary.

    4. Re:Speed doesn't kill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It *is* a problem to suddenly become a stack of paper!

    5. Re:Speed doesn't kill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, you can totally get reamed.

  33. Nice job guy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is something these slash-pussies would never attempt - especially out of their mother's basement. A bunch of scared cowards these slash-pussies are. Keep coming with this legal commentary you little vaginas

  34. Richard Rawlings will be pissed by Virtucon · · Score: 1

    He'll have to get a new tattoo... "Second Best..."

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  35. The Canonball Run by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What, no one-eye priest in a Ferrari?

  36. Statute of Limitations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Alex Roy, per his book, stated he waited an ENTIRE YEAR, before publishing his exploit, when he broke the record. WHY? He hired a lawyer, to look at all the jurisdictions, specifically to when the law con no longer come after him for punishment.

    Mr. Ed Bolian here, clearly did not.

    Can Mr. Bolian care to comment as to why no wait?
    -what about ensuring the hired company is now expunged of the incriminating evidence, so as a law subpeona, will turn up nothing?

  37. Re:Americans CAN NOT DRIVE!! by ponraul · · Score: 1

    American drivers are unsafe at any speed. They don't understand concepts like the passing lane, only passing on the left, traffic flow speed, shoulder checks and turn signals. They also have unsafe cars; safety inspection is up to the state and it's not mandatory.

  38. Arrogant quote of the article! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Apart from a FedEx truck not checking his mirrors before he tried to merge on top of me, we didn't really have any issues," Bolian said.

    AKA: "Apart from a FedEx truck doing a reasonable speed, expecting all the other vehicles on the road to be doing a reasonable speed, not realizing that I was going like a bat out of hell before he merged, we didn't really have any issues."

  39. I think you'll find that in Germany... by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    ... journeys are probably on average considerably shorter. Plus germany has decent public transport so I suspect - I have no proof - that incompetants who would be tempted behind the wheel if they had no choice tend to use the train instead.

    1. Re:I think you'll find that in Germany... by orthancstone · · Score: 1

      All I'm seeing that statement advocate for is the idea that we need better public transportation in America for those incompetents :P

  40. seriously, fuck this guy by ffflala · · Score: 2

    Who gives a shit about this "speed record"?? This asshole Ed Bolian was willing to risk the lives of everyone else on the road for some silly high score bullshit. There's no difference between this careless fuck and the asshole who killed a mother and her three children while street racing in Philly. http://articles.philly.com/2013-10-31/news/43530258_1_roosevelt-boulevard-khusen-akhmedov-ahmen-holloman

    This is not a fucking game. If you want to break speed records, use a track where you'll only risk the lives of those who knowingly expose themselves to this level of danger, rather than innocent people who are just trying to go about their lives. Fuck every last fucking one of these coast to coast 'racers'.

    1. Re:seriously, fuck this guy by punkr0x · · Score: 0

      I'd rather have a team of racers in a car specially designed for racing whizz by me, as opposed to the typical SUV, with a coffee in one hand and a cell phone in the other, who has no reason at all to be travelling 90mph in the first place. Ed Bolian was probably being as careful as he could be, a crash would definitely ruin his shot at the record.

    2. Re:seriously, fuck this guy by ffflala · · Score: 1

      My concern is not how careful Bolian was, rather it's that he made the decision to place the lives and well being of thousands of other people at risk for something as insignificant as a fleeting bit of attention.

      If he had only been risking his own life, I'd have no qualms whatsoever. If he had only been risking the lives of himself and fellow racers who knew that people would be traveling as such speeds, again I'd have no qualms.

      Yes I am similarly bothered by typical careless drivers as well, because I think the attitude is similar -- an irresponsible lack of concern for the safety of others while engaging in the very activity that, even when following the rules, presents the highest risk for death and injury.

    3. Re:seriously, fuck this guy by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Street racing in a city is risking others lives.

      Driving really fast on the interstate is generally not.

      World of difference.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  41. Re:Americans CAN NOT DRIVE!! by ponraul · · Score: 1

    Calling someone a nazi for telling the truth. lol never change america.

  42. Re: "Driving like a fool" by Ioldanach · · Score: 1

    Not exactly the kind of "fool" you hear of on those Dumb Crook News segments in the media

    Except for the segments where the Dumb Crook was found out because he admitted his crime.

  43. Just before he whent to vietnam by ralphaostrander · · Score: 1

    A man named Elbert Ostrander drove Long Beach Ca. to Midland Mi in 28 hours just no way to prove it. Big Bad Bert USN is no more for this world.

  44. Re: Stereotypes by SpaceManFlip · · Score: 1
    Don't bring your Nazi stereotypes down to cover us all, freund von mir. See what I did there? You are all Nazis. Just kidding, I know it's a terrible thing to say but this is the Internet and it's funny to say such things with no repercussion.

    Some of us can drive, is my real point. My vehicles are not in good enough shape for daily 100+MPH speeds, but I do maintain above 75 regularly and all the while obeying the important road rules like use of turn signals, minimum safe braking distance, proper lane usage (keep right unless passing and no faster cars are approaching in the left etc).

    It is true that an unfortunate amount of people don't obey the basic road rules because there are no license re-tests and they forgot how all the important details work with regard to the symbols and orders years ago. But that's just a symptom of general ignorance. A lot of these same ignorant people also drive too slow.

  45. We don't need roads... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've always been afraid to go 88mph :/

  46. What's with all the old geezers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    who obviously drive ford fiestas in this post and want to whine about someone in a real car driving fast? Traffic laws were put in place to conserve resources and generate revenue. It's not that unsafe to drive over 100mph. I have chosen an Audi A4 as my daily driven family car. This isn't anything over the top. It does has quattro awd and I maintain the heck out of it. There is rarely a day when traffic isn't in my way that I don't feel safe enough to go 100mph with my 1 year old sleeping in the back seat. Technology has changed since the 40's guys. Your average car will go from 100-0 in just a few seconds and anything even remotely modified or designed for speed will do it even faster.

    Our highway system is unsafe because slow drivers don't move out of the left lane, people are occupied by their phones/tablets/gps, and/or they were just never taught how to drive. If we really took the time to make people learn to drive, made distractions while driving illegal, and adjusted the laws to punish those that are blocking traffic instead of people trying to get somewhere we could easily increase the speed limits nationwide. This guy proves that point.

  47. Obligatory Jalopnik links by Megane · · Score: 1

    http://jalopnik.com/meet-the-guy-who-drove-across-the-u-s-in-a-record-28-h-1454092837
    Yeah, NINETY-EIGHT MPH average speed. With two extra fuel tanks in the trunk for 800 miles range (the thing reeked of gasoline), and the spare tire was on the back seat next to the third guy (spotter/navigator). They didn't just break the previous record, they shattered it.

    http://kinja.roadandtrack.com/new-cross-country-record-forget-the-glamor-bring-the-1456737864/@matthardigree
    One word: bedpans.

    http://jalopnik.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-afroducks-fastest-ma-1256425384
    Afroduck is a perfect example of why most people who do this stuff wait a year for statute of limitations reasons. These guys may have been foolish to announce so soon; we shall see what kind of heat they get for it.

    --
    #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  48. Seems logical. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because it's so much worse for the bodies inside a car getting hit by another traveling 105 MPH than 55.

    1. Re:Seems logical. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it *is* nearly 4x as much energy that needs to be dissipated, and that energy has to go *somewhere*.

    2. Re:Seems logical. by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 2

      Because it's so much worse for the bodies inside a car getting hit by another traveling 105 MPH than 55.

      No, it's that when the American driving at 55 puts down his cheeseburger, big gulp & cell phone and notices something he has more time to stop than the American does who is driving 105 while eating Doritos and changing tracks on his iPod.

    3. Re:Seems logical. by Derec01 · · Score: 1

      Because it's so much worse for the bodies inside a car getting hit by another traveling 105 MPH than 55.

      Yes. Yes it is. It's quadruple the energy for starters.

      For another you've immediately given everyone else less reaction time, since they are logically expecting cars at a maximum of 10 mph over the speed limit.

      And don't give me that crap about how "they should be ready for anything." That doesn't give you license to be the anything and generate the risky situation.

  49. I like how they black taped ... by itsme1234 · · Score: 1

    the stupid (probably blue) LEDs on the chargers.

  50. Re:What an asshole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess that would depend on how many people were in the wrong lane, chatting on their cell phones about some very important matters (like the color of the shirt they will wear tomorrow) or intentionally pulled in front of them because they think they are somehow righteous law enforcers.

  51. No chance to do that in Europe by Opportunist · · Score: 0

    100 mph is no speed for any German driver (who is accustomed to driving closer to 150-200), but the various construction spots will slow you down too much.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:No chance to do that in Europe by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      German drivers are accustomed to driving 241.402~321.869 Km/h?

    2. Re:No chance to do that in Europe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No True German.
      On a more serious note, 250kph is really nothing special in .de, my work A6 can (and does) do that.
      On top, plenty people get their limiters removed (the 250kph limit is mostly because higher speed rated tires are niche and bloody expensive). You take it to the dealer, they check that you have the proper tires, have you sign a warranty waiver and a thing saying that you understand that you need to have a sticker with the tire speed limit on the dash if you ever mount lower speed rated tires. They hook it to the diag unit, done. Usually even free of charge.

    3. Re:No chance to do that in Europe by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Judging from what I get to experience pretty much every time I have to drive over a German Autobahn, I'd say yes.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  52. Jet lag by jonyen · · Score: 1

    29 hours over 4 time zones... that's another way to get jet lagged.

  53. Re:What an asshole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd mod you up if i could.

    Few things worse them some degenerate racing along on a public highway at high speeds just for some stupid "5 minutes of fame".

    He ever consider other people on the road (family's and all that) or just his car full of electronic crap and his stupid goal?

  54. Re:Americans CAN NOT DRIVE!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Depends, the guys in the video cars prefer taking out unsafe drivers. Mobile speed traps are the main thing to worry about.
    Btw, camping out in the middle lane is legal as long as there's *any* traffic on the right lane that's more than 8kph slower than you. So as long as there's always a semi in view in the right lane, you can bumble along at 100kph in the middle lane all day.

  55. Iced coffee FUIC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Speaking of Iced Coffee, if you ever visit (South) Australia, you need to try this "nectar of the gods" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmers_Union_Iced_Coffee

    1. Re:Iced coffee FUIC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for this tip, it is very much appreciated. I hope that you and your family have a very happy holiday season!

  56. Re: "Driving like a fool" by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Funny

    I presume that you also consider 5 out of 6 people who play Russian roulette to be "geniuses" as well.

  57. Re:Americans CAN NOT DRIVE!! by Quila · · Score: 1

    On an autobahnpolizei cop show they pulled over and ticketed a few girls cruising in the middle lane on an empty road. There wasn't a truck in sight.

  58. Speed limits.... by David_Hart · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Speed limits on interstates are set to road conditions and what is safe for the average, or below average, driver driving an average car based on a formula from 20 or more years ago and includes a formula to reduce gas consumption. While driver skills haven't changed all that much, cars have become much safer due to technology. In addition, you can drive safely at higher speeds in a car with race car engineering due to the added down-force, braking, less weight, etc. There is also a big difference between driving fast and driving dangerously, though most people equate one with the other.

    I'm willing to bet that the first image that most have in their mind when they read this is the guy weaving in and out of heavy traffic at high rates of speed and cutting everyone off. However, there is no way that he could achieve this speed with any amount of traffic on the road.

    The article says that they left NY at 9:55pm on a Saturday night. My guess is that the majority of their driving in urban areas (i.e. NY, etc.) was late at night and into the early morning hours, a time when the Interstates are largely empty. He spent Sunday morning crossing Missouri, Oklahoma, New Mexico etc. Net exactly major transportation hubs. He had a co-driver to switch off when they got tired and he had a pilot car running in front of him keeping eyes on the road conditions, traffic, etc.

    I'm not saying that I agree with what he did. It was illegal and relatively unsafe. But, in my opinion, it wasn't quite as reckless as people make it out to be. For my money, I prefer people who know how to drive and drive fast to people who drive drunk, while texting, while taking on the phone without a hands-free device, tailgate, switch lanes without looking or using a signal light, weave in and out of traffic, etc....

    1. Re:Speed limits.... by PPH · · Score: 1

      I'm willing to bet that the first image that most have in their mind when they read this is the guy weaving in and out of heavy traffic

      No. Its Adrienne Barbeau in Cannonball Run.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Speed limits.... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Safe isn't a binary thing. It's a continuous probability function. So if a highway was designed for cars of the 60's and you are driving a safer car of the 21st century you are not safe. You are safer.

  59. Never. by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

    I don't think he can be arrested for this. He has plenty of evidence that he broke many laws, but if he was arrested, he could plead the 5th if the court asked him to turn over evidence incriminating himself. Additionally, he could call the veracity of the evidence into question, and plead the 5th again if the DA attempted to directly ask him if the data was fabricated.

    Mind you, I think that he should probably be arrested and lose his license forever. This sort of stunt seems cool, but one screw up on his part around other people, and a family out on a Sunday drive is dead. This guy just effectively preformed 1st degree reckless endangerment for 30 hours. He knew what he was doing, and just didn't care. Fuck him.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  60. Sometimes... by slew · · Score: 1

    "We don't know when, we don't know where, but we know you did it!" doesn't hold up very well in court.

    A collegue of mine in the UK got a speeding ticking on the motorway (A4 or M4) on-ramp, and got another speeding ticket near London 1 hour later. Because of the speed he was going (about 30mph over the limit), he got a summons to appear in traffic court. In court, they looked at the two tickets and he was issued another citation based on the time difference between the two stops and the distance between the two cities (~100 miles). Being the UK, I think all he had to do was pay a fine (apparently he didn't have too many penalty points on his licence at that time).

    The joke he always liked to tell was he probably should have told them he stopped for quick lunch along the way (as anyone will tell you there is no such thing as a quick lunch in any town between Bristol and London so this would be a perfect alibi).

  61. Three radar detectors? by Larry_Dillon · · Score: 1

    Superheterodyne radar detectors would interfere with each other and lessen the sensitivity.

    --
    Competition Good, Monopoly Bad.
  62. What About Those 46 Wasted Minutes? by Toad-san · · Score: 1

    Inquiring minds want to know!

  63. Re:Americans CAN NOT DRIVE!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What do you expect when most of the cars are automatic?

  64. Re:Americans CAN NOT DRIVE!! by Bigbutt · · Score: 1

    That's humorous that you associate a single post on Slashdot with all of America. Not to mention the handle is 'paiute' which is an Indian tribe :)

    [John]

    --
    Shit better not happen!
  65. Re: "Driving like a fool" by SpaceManFlip · · Score: 1

    in that case you would presume incorrectly. Gun safety is not a gray area of risk, like speeding is.

  66. Re: chasing corrupt politicians by ApplePy · · Score: 1

    I believe at least 3/5 of congress is on the take

    Well, aren't you quite the optimist...!

    --
    That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
  67. This reminds me by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    I need to see "vanishing point" again.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  68. 180km/h should be fine? by Mirar · · Score: 2

    I don't really know what cars (and roads) you're talking about, but most Europeean cars are perfectly fine at Autobahn speeds, 180km/h... (Legal.)

    Even the old Opel Astra 1.4 liter diesel was fine at 170km/h, even if it took a while to get there.

    The Mercedes he used would be very, very fine at much, much higher speeds than that. It's *built* to overtake anything on the Autobahn. It's basically the idea of that model... (Mind, last time I were anywhere near the Mercedes plant in Stuttgart, that Autobahn was jammed most of the time, so I presume they do their testing somewhere else.)

  69. Also consider equilibrium. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I understand that, but suppose an average person driving is an average car down the highway at highway speeds. Imagine two scenarios. One, that average driver is hit by someone traveling 10-15 MPH faster. Two, that same average driver is hit by someone traveling 50 MPH faster. Let's speculate. Both vehicles will suffer some kind of adverse effects (e.g., tire damage, suspension, drivers position causing incorrect input, drivers reacting incorrectly and creating incorrect input) on their attitudes. Losing attitude control at highway speeds is almost always catastrophic. Either way, the drivers are fucked. On the bright, the higher speed collision is more likely to result in death rather than agonizing and debilitating disfigurement.

    1. Re:Also consider equilibrium. by The+Snowman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I understand that, but suppose an average person driving is an average car down the highway at highway speeds. Imagine two scenarios. One, that average driver is hit by someone traveling 10-15 MPH faster. Two, that same average driver is hit by someone traveling 50 MPH faster. Let's speculate. Both vehicles will suffer some kind of adverse effects (e.g., tire damage, suspension, drivers position causing incorrect input, drivers reacting incorrectly and creating incorrect input) on their attitudes. Losing attitude control at highway speeds is almost always catastrophic. Either way, the drivers are fucked. On the bright, the higher speed collision is more likely to result in death rather than agonizing and debilitating disfigurement.

      I learned this physics lesson quite well when I hyrdroplaned at 55 MPH in July 2013 and hit the leading edge of a guardrail rear first. Thankfully the impact pushed me INTO my seat, and I was alone in the car (an hour earlier I had my children with me). The sheer force of spinning and rapidly decelerating knocked me the fuck out. I remember a loud "metal grinding" sound that was my rear bumper folding up and demolishing 20 feet of guardrail, and I remember spinning. Then I woke up at the bottom of a ditch.

      Ever since I have been more careful (not not a pussy) while driving in the rain. I measure my tires' tread depth on a regular basis. That is one experience I never want to repeat again. And that was at 55 MPH (in a 70 zone). If I were hit by an assclown going twice my speed even on dry pavement? That is four times the force. Four times the pain, four times the brain scrambling in a spin. I may write software for a living, but I respect physics.

      --
      24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
    2. Re:Also consider equilibrium. by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      I may write software for a living, but I respect physics.

      But do you actually know math? IF you were in a head on collision with someone doing twice your speed (assuming you are doing 55) things will be bad, but things would be bad if you were in a head on collision with someone doing the same speed as you.
      But it is difficult to get into a head on collision on a freeway. So someone hitting you at twice your speed would be much like you hitting that guardrail at 55... In fact it would be better, as the impact would be spread over more of the vehicle, than when you hit the guard rail.
      I wouldn't want to get into an accident, but if I had a choice I'd choose hitting another vehicle, going in the same direction, if if they were going faster, than hitting a stationary object.

  70. Re: by srichard25 · · Score: 1

    I agree. And furthermore, I find it disturbing that a major news outlet seems to be celebrating this criminal. What happens if someone else attempts to break this record and hits a child on a bike because they were going too fast around a curve? Will that just be an "accident"? This is no different than someone running around in public with a loaded shotgun. Would CNN be celebrating that action?

  71. Re: "Driving like a fool" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If those people were able to rig the game in their favour, sure. But I guess you're too simple to think of issues like that.

  72. Re: "Driving like a fool" by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2

    Driving 150 MPH in a 75 MPH zone in not a goddamned "gray area", Einstein.

  73. Re: "Driving like a fool" by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

    If those people were able to rig the game in their favour, sure. But I guess you're too simple to think of issues like that.

    Oh I see. If you find a revolver with seven chambers, then you're a genius!

  74. Re:Americans CAN NOT DRIVE!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I do that (i.e. visualizing ... not saluting) every time I speak with my project leader.

  75. Reckless driving by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually reckless driving is a matter of law, not opinion. You don't look in a simple dictionary for legal definitions. For example, in my state the traffic code specifically declares that three acts which constitute moving violations during a single continuous act of driving is an act of reckless driving.

    1. Re:Reckless driving by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Actually reckless driving is a matter of law, not opinion. You don't look in a simple dictionary for legal definitions. For example, in my state the traffic code specifically declares that three acts which constitute moving violations during a single continuous act of driving is an act of reckless driving.

      Legally, you're probably right. I have a dim memory that in California (or was it Arizona?) any speeding over a certain speed (100 mph?) was automatically considered reckless by law, for instance.

      Previous poster had followed "this is clear cut reckless driving" with the ridiculous homily "speed limits are posted to keep the public safe", which led me to believe that "this is clear cut reckless driving" is a personal, emotional judgement and not speaking directly to the law. That being the premise, I was trying to address "reckless" from the standpoint of whether this could emotionally be judged to be reckless, or not. I'd still make the argument in court, especially were it a jury trial.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  76. Something to look forward to by Dan+East · · Score: 1

    This is what we can look forward to with autonomous vehicles. In fact they should be able to average even faster speeds than that, en masse.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
  77. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  78. Re:What an asshole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you ask that about every driver? Or do you have reason to suspect this guy was driving particularly unsafely?

  79. Re: "Driving like a fool" by SpinyNorman · · Score: 1

    Presumably you're assuming a 6 chamber gun with one bullet and "therefore" a 1-in-6 chance of getting shot.

    However... due to the weight of the bullet, when you spin the chamber prior to firing, the bullet will tend (due to gravity) to end up in one of the lower vs the highest (firing) positions, so the average chance of getting shot should actually be somewhat less than 1-in-6.

  80. Dumb fuck detected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now that he has completely chronicled it, can he now get arrested and prosecuted already? We don't need useless fuckbags like this on the road.

  81. Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .. Is this on /.?

  82. storage tanks by goodmanj · · Score: 1

    The summary talks a lot about gas tanks in the trunk, but If they were driving for all but 46 minutes of the trip, I'm guessing they had some storage tanks for other fluids up in the passenger compartment...

  83. Wow, you really hate them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So instead of recognizing the technical accomplishment of a graduate, you decide instead to irrationally insult the institution and all of their graduates. Just because you hate them doesn't give you the right to twist beating a record into something so irrational that it borders the insane. Please seek help.

  84. Hey Slashdot, your cognitive dissonance is showing by FuzzNugget · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Once again, Slashdot demonstrates that they are largely the same as every other group of wingnuts with their pet interest (Slashdot's being Internet/tech and often intersecting topics). You'll defend it to the hills, hypothesize about chilling effects on liberty, have Internet arguments until your fingers bleed and claim that it's important to everybody (or that it should be) Yet, when taken outside of your box, suddenly you become the same as every other idiot group demanding to sell your liberty to buy some safety.

    "But it's illegal!"

    Yeah, so? I thought most of us were above such petulant arguments. The CFAA practically makes surfing the web illegal and you already commit three felonies a day.

    Look: just because you're a clumsy, uncoordinated, risk-averting, thrill-fearing nerd doesn't mean everyone else is. I like you guys, but when it comes to any story involving cars or driving, you show your true colors and disappoint me.

    Because you most definitely did not read the article (on Slashdot? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!), I'll give you the cliff's notes. This wasn't just some unskilled lunatic pushing down the "go faster" pedal in a pickup truck, this guy is a dedicated enthusiast who spent a year and a half preparing, installing additional equipment to ensure his high-performance vehicle would be up the task, finding co and lead drivers to avoid traffic and construction zones and spending almost ten grand on maintenance. I doubt many of us have spent much more than that on an entire car.

    Since Slashdot is a mainly US site, you could be forgiven for thinking that all cars are shitbuckets that spontaneously explode the second they breach 70mph. Car manufacturers from places that aren't 'Muricuh actually rework an entire vehicle -- chassis, suspension, brakes, anything that's necessary to handle additional power, and more -- when they soup up an engine because they're not for redneck motor "sports."

    The car he was driving is a very German, very expensive and very performance-oriented Mercedes Benz. This is a vehicle designed to be very stable and manageable at much higher speeds than anything you've likely driven. Since I have, let me tell you what it's like: highway speed feels like walking pace. Cars like this barely need to make an effort to reach and maintain it. Even at double the speed, it's still hardly trying -- it hardly needs to. By comparison, a Ford Mustang, for example, feels pretty damn scary at half of highway speed because it's chassis, suspension and brakes are shit. Same factor, different hardware. Think of how a low-grade ARM processor would perform benchmarking AES calculation versus an i7 with an AES instruction set. Same factor, different hardware.

    To everyone calling for extreme traffic laws and enforcement, try coming to Canada and see how you like it. BC is downright condescending and oppressive, Manitoba is not far behind, Ontario... I don't even want to know. In many places here, they take away your license, pile on debt for decades and destroy your life for the horrific act of ... uh, your tires chirped. I shit you not, this happens.

    Oh, and I haven't even told you how many provinces have government-run insurance monopolies ("crown corporations") who are in bed with the cops. Just the other day, there was story in the paper praising how my province's auto insurance provider paid for the local police department's overtime to nail drivers doing barely over the limit. This is not an expenditure for the company, this is an investment: pay some overtime wages now, get the kickbacks in ticket amounts, obscene licensing costs and insurance rates for years to come. Yet, no one will write in to point out this blatant corruption because OMG!! Safety!!

    Still not convinced? Look up "MPI VIU." This is the (government-run) insurance company colluding with the cops to

  85. Re: "Driving like a fool" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Joking aside, that's not exactly a fair comparison since he was playing the driving version of Russian roulette for over a day straight with a few thousand miles worth of chances to get caught, wreck, or otherwise. This wasn't 5 out of 6 chances. This was thousands of pulls at the trigger, all of which were survived.

  86. Re: "Driving like a fool" by FuzzNugget · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure if you were going for the funny mod or just being obtuse, because that is in no way a comparison.

    Russian roulette is purely chance. By definition, you don't know which chamber contains the bullet and you have no way of gaming it or improving your odds.

    This guy did not achieve this feat by chance; he took immense precautions. If you actually read TFA (yeah, right), you'll see that he spent a year and half, a ton of money and a huge effort in preparation. Yes, chance obviously still plays a part, but he made every possible effort to mitigate it.

  87. Wrong gear! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After reading the previous article, about the SR-72 hypersonic plane, it is obvious this guy needs to rethink his propulsion systems! :-)

  88. Re: "Driving like a fool" by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

    There is no way in hell that he could control for a grandpa driving a minivan full of grandkids from pulling into the left lane from ahead of an 18-wheeler, while this joker is bearing down at 130 mph.

    But I'd bet you'd blame the grandpa because he wasn't expecting the car 100 feet behind him in the mirror was a reckless jackass trying to pull off some idiotic stunt.

  89. As good as it gets? by TapeCutter · · Score: 2

    Speed limits have virtually nothing to do with the quality of the road surface. It's about hidden driveways, pedestrians, wildlife, oversized vehicles, bends, trees, sun glare, ect. These problems are summarised in statistics about accidents that are used to set rules aimed at lowering the road toll. This is not to say everywhere works like it does here in Oz, but for the most places around the world the rules are enforced for good reason, not just revenue raising.

    As part of your registration here in Oz you have to also pay for third party insurance, the insurance company is a monopoly owned by the state. It is responsible for paying for anyone who is injured, it's also responsible for public awareness campaigns to cut the road toll. It is in their interest to reduce the road toll, a low road toll is their "profit". In my state the toll has dropped from around 600yr to 250yr in the 20yrs the scheme has been operating, random booze buses and seat belts had previously halved the toll from around 1200/yr in the early 70's. All that while the number of cars in my state has increase 10 fold since the early 70's.

    So while the authorities may be "unfairly" force drivers slow down in specific circumstances, it's certainly not because they are short of a dime. There will never be a zero road toll as long as there are humans, the question is, and always will be - what is an acceptable toll, where do we stop and say that's as good as it gets?

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    1. Re:As good as it gets? by Firethorn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Speed limits have virtually nothing to do with the quality of the road surface. It's about hidden driveways, pedestrians, wildlife, oversized vehicles, bends, trees, sun glare, ect.

      Given that the Op specified "federal interstates", I can state that at least in the USA the designed safe speed for a highway takes far more into account than just the 'quality of the road surface'. For example, above 55mph driveways are outright forbidden, and 65+ you have to have on/off entry merges that allow entering vehicles to speed up to the posted limit before merging and conversely slow before exiting. Pedestrians are typically forbidden from being on the road - if there's significant need for them to be able to cross, they'll put in a under/overpass for them to cross on. Even controlled intersections are forbidden - again, roads go over/under. When you hit 75 mph, 'oversize vehicles' are handled more by the road being at least 4 lanes - and while you don't really see it at those speeds, but the lanes themselves are wider, thus 'oversize' isn't quite so oversize anymore. I've seen plenty of oversize vehicles that fit comfortably between the lines on the highway.

      I'm not a highway designer, but there are additional considerations like maximum curve, slope, and such, all of which becomes much gentler as design speed increases. Then you get some areas like Texas that imposes a different speed limit at night than they do during the day - when sight limit to avoid unexpected obstacles like wildlife is really the only limit to how fast you can go.

      So while the authorities may be "unfairly" force drivers slow down in specific circumstances, it's certainly not because they are short of a dime. There will never be a zero road toll as long as there are humans, the question is, and always will be - what is an acceptable toll, where do we stop and say that's as good as it gets?

      Come to the states. Unfairly lowered speed limits around specific towns with more than 80% of their police force dedicated to writing speeding tickets in a couple spots, 99% to those passing through, are known. It might be mostly a US phenonemon, but it's very well known here.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    2. Re:As good as it gets? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Pity, it works rather well here, I think the difference is that over here it's set up in such a way that a lower road toll equates to a profit for the state. The idea of a quantitative approach started here in the late 80's and has been widely copied around the world. The statutory injury payouts, compulsory government insurance, the whole thing would probably smell too much like socialism for your average American to stomach, but the results speak for themselves.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    3. Re:As good as it gets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should point out that the compulsory third party insurance is injury/death only. Third party property is not covered.
      Also, a major difference to the USA is that all moving violation fines go into consolidated state revenue. A small town cannot make a living ticketing people passing through. (Parking fines can be local though)

    4. Re:As good as it gets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a town in NW Tennessee called Troy that is famous for it's speed trap. It is 65 mph highway, then within the span of two miles it decreases to 35, then to 25 (and a school zone, so 15 mph during school loading times and double to triple fines depending on the speed discrepancy). Then the city limit ends and it's back up to 65 mph. The town is not ashamed to publicly admit that all of its law enforcement revenue is generated by that convenient setup.

    5. Re:As good as it gets? by kimvette · · Score: 1

      > Speed limits have virtually nothing to do with the quality of the road surface. It's about hidden driveways, pedestrians,

      Almost 100% nonexistent on the Federal Interstate system, which is modeled after the autobahn

      > wildlife,

      which is why there are fences along almost 100% of the Federal Interstate freeways and many/most limited-access state highways as well, again, modeled after autobahn

      > oversized vehicles,

      Hmm, Germany seems to handle this just fine with unlimited speed in rural areas.

      > bends, trees, sun glare, ect.

      Again, Federal Interstate system, modeled after autobahn, and again, rural areas. You never see decreasing radius turns on Interstates - bends are constant and ones in rural areas are very easily traversed at 2-3 times the posted limit even in sedans.

      Hell, the system was designed for safe 120-130mph travel in the 1960s, based on average suspension, brake, and tire designs of the time. Even a lowly sedan will outhandle a Ferrari or Corvette from that era.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    6. Re:As good as it gets? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Also, a major difference to the USA is that all moving violation fines go into consolidated state revenue.

      Not entirely accurate; in some states they still belong to the issuing county/department, in some states the money is split, and in some cases it goes to state revenue. The whole 'go to the state' thing was passed mostly due to the vagrancies of various towns trying to fund themselves via a 'road tax', rigorous enforcement of speed limits with unusually high fines targeted specifically at passers-through.

      As a result the problem isn't as bad as it used to be, but it's still there, especially in a few states.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    7. Re:As good as it gets? by Firethorn · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Pity, it works rather well here, I think the difference is that over here it's set up in such a way that a lower road toll equates to a profit for the state.

      I'll point out that while there are unfairly lowered speed limits, as well as speed limits lowered not to meet safety standards but to make neighbors happy*, but for the most part if you follow NTSB recommendations you'll be very safe, and 'most' local traffic authorities are fixated on being safe. We've had some incidents where yellows have been shortened to generate more revenue from red light cameras, but for the most part judges have been very unsympathetic to red light cameras when this is discovered - and they're unsympathetic even when it's found that they didn't shorten them, but deliberately selected lights that weren't following NTSB standards for whatever reason.

      There are constant improvements in the states safety wise, including demanding safer vehicles. As a result we've managed to get our annual fatalities down to just over 30k/year from a high of over 50k/year despite ever more vehicles on the road. One of the more interesting aspects is the psychology of driving that they consider today - most people drive at what they 'feel' is a safe speed, thus there's various psychological tricks you can use to make sure their 'feeling' matches up with reality. Remember, not an expert, just read some articles on it.

      Additionally, remember that the USA is generally much more concerned with 'internal affairs' than other countries and we're a lot more fragmented legal wise. We're more like the EU than the UK between our 50 states. As a result we 'air our dirty laundry' a lot more.

      I think that the difference in the end is more flavor than substantiative. Liability coverage is also mandatory here in the states, though the details vary.

      *One interstate corridor was put in over protest, and part of the deal cut was lower speed limits in an effort to limit noise. Later studies have shown that not only do lower speeds not significantly limit noise, people aren't following them anyways.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    8. Re:As good as it gets? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, I was unclear. In Australia all fines issued by police go into consolidated revenue. (Parking fines are about the only exception, and only if the council (not the police) issues them. )
      Localities funding themselves as speedtraps was never a problem here.

    9. Re:As good as it gets? by frootcakeuk · · Score: 1

      Not that I disagree with you, but where did you read that it was directly modelled on the Autobahn?

      I found this in wiki.

      "Eisenhower gained an appreciation of the Reichsautobahn system, the first "national" implementation of modern Germany's Autobahn network as a necessary component of a national defense system while he was serving as Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Europe during World War II.[9] He recognized that the proposed system would also provide key ground transport routes for military supplies and troop deployments in case of an emergency or foreign invasion."

      Nothing in there says that anything to do with the Federal Insterstate system was modelled on the Autobahn, simply that it was recognised as a good thing by Eisenhower. This would indicate that the Interstate system, on which everyone drives in the right, has absolutely nothing to do with the Autobahn, on which everyone drives on the left.

      --
      Remember kids: What's right isn't as important as what's profitable.
    10. Re:As good as it gets? by frootcakeuk · · Score: 1

      Sorry, of course german traffic is on the right too! Not sure how I didn't realise what I was typing. But my original question and point still remain.

      --
      Remember kids: What's right isn't as important as what's profitable.
  90. How do you know it was reckless? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    "Reckless" means you are endangering other drivers. You had no proof that he did so.

    Driving over 100MPH in many high-end modern cars is not at all inherently dangerous, only so if very slow drivers are present.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:How do you know it was reckless? by kimvette · · Score: 1

      In some jurisdictions the legal definition of reckless requires that other drivers have to react in an evasive measure.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    2. Re:How do you know it was reckless? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      In some jurisdictions the legal definition of reckless requires that other drivers have to react in an evasive measure.

      Which would also mean he wasn't reckless, since no other driver had to change what they were doing as he went past.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    3. Re:How do you know it was reckless? by kimvette · · Score: 1

      BINGO - that is, if he was driving in a safe (note: "speeding" is not inherently unsafe since the Federal lnterstate system is designed for unlimited speeds) manner.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  91. Not likley by SuperKendall · · Score: 0

    Driving 100 to 150mp while anywhere within sight of Sally the oblivious realtor is itself reckless. Think about it, she's not paying attention, likely to change langes without looking,

    No she will not.

    Terrible, slow drivers invariably obey the law of inertia. Whatever lane they are in, they will stay in unless some major event forces a move.

    So as long as you are not too near an exit there is pretty much zero chance Sally will go anywhere except for where she is. And even if she did move a skilled driver could avoid her - yes even at 100+ MPH.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  92. It's a Hoax. by tutufan · · Score: 1

    A more parsimonious explanation would be that these guys simply made the whole thing up. Someone willing to break the law to that degree certainly wouldn't have any qualms about lying.

  93. Yes you can control for that by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    There is no way in hell that he could control for a grandpa driving a minivan full of grandkids from pulling into the left lane from ahead of an 18-wheeler

    Yes there is. It's called anticipation. If you see a car behind an 18-wheeler you assume it will pull out and drive slow enough that you can easily break if they do that, yet still maintain as much speed as you can.

    In a modern performance sedan on a 75MPH highway, 100MPH is slow enough that you can easily break in time if Grandpa suddenly shifts.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Yes you can control for that by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 3, Informative

      I said *in front of* the 18 wheeler. You can't see around a big truck. This idiot also averaged 100 mph. that means that he had to move far faster than that for a large fraction of the time.

      The highways are filled with trucks, even in the boondocks and at odd hours. That means he had to pass countless trucks while going at speeds like 130 mph, not 100.

      For Christ sake, I can't believe the replies I'm getting from people who try to justify this idiotic behavior. The amount of ignorance and stupidity out there is just mind boggling.

    2. Re:Yes you can control for that by FuzzNugget · · Score: 1

      For Christ sake, I can't believe the replies I'm getting from people who try to justify this idiotic behavior. The amount of ignorance and stupidity out there is just mind boggling.

      Indeed.

      You should try living in a country with oppressive, malevolent and profiteering traffic laws that will ruin your life for one accidental chirp of your tires. Trust me, you have it better.

    3. Re:Yes you can control for that by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      I said *in front of* the 18 wheeler. You can't see around a big truck.

      In the left lane, from a fair distance behind the semi you can easily see what is in front of the semi. But if he's in front why would he get over? And if you are talking about the semi moving over, they are very experienced drivers and will signal, and move over slowly giving plenty of time to react.

      This idiot also averaged 100 mph. that means that he had to move far faster than that for a large fraction of the time.

      Yes, I said you need to slow down to 100 MPH if you see something that may be a problem. But most of the time driving the interstate at off hours you can go a long ways before other cars are even close, easily driving 130+ and making up the average.

      For Christ sake, I can't believe the replies I'm getting from people who try to justify this idiotic behavior.

      It's because apparently a lot of people know way more about driving than you do from a practical standpoint. You must be one scary bastard on the road if you can't even grasp what I am saying here. Your "ignorance/stupidity" comment comes off as more than a little ironic...

      I'll let you have the last response since I've tried to help, but you obviously just cannot understand how safe driving really works.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    4. Re:Yes you can control for that by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      But if he's in front why would he get over?

      Why? Because in the real world, SHIT HAPPENS. Maybe he's wedged between the truck and a slow RV. Maybe there's a piece of loose tire tread in the lane. Maybe a deer is starting to cross the road. Maybe there's a pothole. Maybe the driver just dozed off. Behind the semi, you CAN'T see any of that, especially not at a "fair distance".

      Driving that fast depends on shit NOT happening, which is pure luck.

      but you obviously just cannot understand how safe driving really works.

      I know one thing: Safe driving on public highways in the USA means not driving at 150mph. If you somehow feel that isn't the case, then you are deluded.

    5. Re:Yes you can control for that by FuzzNugget · · Score: 1

      Y'know, we're having this argument based on the complete assumption that he was blasting through traffic. For all we know, he slowed down to near the speed limit and put the pedal to the metal only on wide open, arrow straight sections of highway (of which there are a lot in North America)

      And even if he didn't, reaction time matters a lot less when you have brakes that really work. If you've never driven a high performance car with proper brakes, you're just not going to be able to grasp this.

    6. Re:Yes you can control for that by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      Y'know, we're having this argument based on the complete assumption that he was blasting through traffic.

      It's not an assumption. It's a statistical certainty. Do the math.

      Interstate highways in this country connect major cities. There is no way to avoid urban areas. The whole country isn't Montana. Even if it were, there are trucks *everywhere*.

      The total range of braking distances for 60-0 from the best cars to the crappiest varies by well under 2X. The laws of physics say that going twice the speed limit makes your braking distance increase by 4X. And that's *after* reaction time, which is impacted by little things like having almost no sleep in 24 fucking hours.

      Just give it up already. Stop defending this narcissistic asshole.

    7. Re:Yes you can control for that by msim · · Score: 1

      Welcome to Australia.

      Ten years ago I could get away with saying "thank Fuck I don't live in Victoria". Now New South Wales is equally as bad.

      --

      Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know when your gonna get food poisoning.
  94. Which driver? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Except that he's already made a public confession and documented publicly as well.

    He also said he had a co-driver. So in any given state how can you prove who was driving? You can't.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  95. Psycho by msobkow · · Score: 1

    Warning: Psychotic asshole on the road.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  96. The Movie is already out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Cannonball Run / The Gumball Rally

    1. Re:The Movie is already out. by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · · Score: 1

      Roger Zelazny wrote a novella about hauling ass cross country too. Dunno about its film adaptation. Did read somewhere it was supposed to be the blockbuster SF flick of 1977.

  97. Re: "Driving like a fool" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yeah it's not a game of chance to drive coast to coast at these speeds. A skilled driver in a car that handles well at these speeds, with spotters, I'd wager he's infinitely more safe than the idiots who cause wrecks by not using turn signals, braking on the on ramp, texting, phoning, or turning around to fiddle with their kids. Road rules are developed for the lowest common denominator, you know those people who dress up to go to wal-mart... they get there by driving.

  98. Re:Hey Slashdot, your cognitive dissonance is show by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Goddammit FuzzNugget. I fucking hate you....but this was actually a gem for once. I modded you up. Grats.

  99. Re: "Driving like a fool" by BringsApples · · Score: 1

    Yeah, well, had he wrecked or hurt anyone else, I seriously doubt we'd hear about the attempt at all.

    --
    Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
  100. My whole family was killed by an ass like him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would someone do this and knowingly endanger the lives of other drivers on the road? My whole family including my wife, my five year old daughter and 9 month old son were murdered by an ass like this piece of shit, who thought speed limits and no passing zones were a fun challenge. Sick!

  101. My whole family was killed by an ass like him by BryanAtinsky · · Score: 1

    Why would someone do this and knowingly endanger the lives of other drivers on the road? My whole family including my wife, my five year old daughter and 9 month old son were murdered by an ass like this piece of shit, who thought speed limits and no passing zones were a fun challenge. Sick!

  102. Retroactive speeding tickets by mysidia · · Score: 1

    upping his range to about 800 miles. ... To foil the police, he installed a switch to kill the rear lights and bought two laser jammers and three radar detectors. He commissioned a radar jammer, but it wasn't finished in time for the trek. There was also a police scanner,

    Tickets coming in the mail from many states; with article cited as evidence..... be prepared for huge fines!

  103. Really? by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    Criminal does dozens of car-related crimes while doing some stupid illegal race and putting people in danger.
    And this is news for nerds how exactly? Because he uses a radio or escapes a laser?

    Shouldn't this not be in the 'Redneck Rodeo News' or something like that?

  104. MPH not MPG by dwater · · Score: 1

    I was impressed, but then I realised I had mis-read MPH as MPG...that *would* be impressive.

    --
    Max.
  105. Re: "Driving like a fool" by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

    Road rules are developed for the lowest common denominator

    That's correct, the road is filled with behaviors like you mentioned.

    And those things were all there to deal with during this stunt. Except this idiot had to deal with those things using half the reaction time, four times the kinetic energy, a car full of bootleg gas tanks, and no sleep for more than 24 hours.

    If you can't see what's wrong with that, you're not qualified to drive on public roads yourself.

  106. Re: "Driving like a fool" by doesnothingwell · · Score: 1

    consider 5 out of 6 people who play Russian roulette

    After driving for 12 years over a 40,000 sq mi territory doing hardware tech, I would often speed without any accidents. It's a result of planning, equipment, and keeping sharp behind the wheel. Limited access highways are perfectly safe to around 90 mph traffic permitting. I would only attempt speeds over 100 mph on clear sunny days with little traffic and between cities. Although night or early dawn bambi might jump a fence and surprise you.

    I cannot be that lucky.

    --
    They can have my command prompt when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
  107. Stuck in 2nd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like the guy was stuck in 2nd year. Average speed 98mph?
    LOL

  108. Sponsored by Ninnle! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've seen pix of his car. Ninnle Linux stickers everywhere.

  109. Idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just another idiot putting others at risk to stoke his ego.

  110. their were three in the car. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I saw the article. In another publication. It was three guys switching on and off. Did a great job I must say.

  111. Re: "Driving like a fool" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I presume that you also consider 5 out of 6 people who play Russian roulette to be "geniuses" as well.

    So long as the first guy spun and went boom, the other five are pretty safe.

  112. why not do it legally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure if he asked for the police's help and with a bit of red tape he could have just done this legally and safely. What a douche.

  113. Oil Crisis by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    It was my understanding that the Federally mandated US 55 mph speed limit had very little to do with safety margins, and was more to do with the national consumption of Oil, and the dependence on foreign sources. This came about during the big oil crisis in the 70's when OPEC put the squeeze on everyone. On the fuel consumption curve driving faster than 90km/h significantly increases the amount consumed.

    It has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with trying to curtail personal fuel consumption of individuals at a national level.

    I could be wrong, but somehow I doubt I am just making this stuff up...

    1. Re:Oil Crisis by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      It was my understanding that the Federally mandated US 55 mph speed limit had very little to do with safety margins, and was more to do with the national consumption of Oil, and the dependence on foreign sources.

      You are correct on this. However, note that I mention speed limits above 55 - The 55 speed limit went away in the '80s after the relaxation of the oil embargo, eventually leading to the median speed limit on interstate highways rising to 75. There are lower ones where states haven't raised the max to it(one state is 70 max), some where it's higher(85 in Texas?), not to mention the substantial areas where the limit is lower for legitimate safety reasons ranging from construction to terrain issues, but the average is 75.

      One of the quirks is that due to enhanced streamlining speeds above 55 don't impose quite the penalty it used to in gas mileage.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  114. golly, just take the National High Speed Rail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At 200MPH! Save gas! Travel faster! Oh wait.

  115. Re:Hey Slashdot, your cognitive dissonance is show by neminem · · Score: 1

    We are not a hive mind. We have different opinions on things.

    I think there are a lot of things that are currently illegal, that shouldn't be (owning items that might conceivably be used in a crime, but not actually using them in a crime). There are other things that are currently illegal across the board, that should be more nuanced (like speed limits). Then there are things that are currently illegal and certainly should be, too.

    Driving a hundred miles an hour on standard highways should probably be illegal. Driving 150 miles an hour definitely should be. Yes, even in a car specifically designed for it. Leave that for the speedway.

    Driving 70 should definitely be legal on the freeway. Driving 80 probably should still be. 90? Maybe not. 150? No way.

    Yes, we all know police use tickets as revenue generators rather than to increase safety, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be *any* safety measures.

  116. Re: "Driving like a fool" by msim · · Score: 1

    Only those whom use a gun with a cylinder as opposed to a clip.

    --

    Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know when your gonna get food poisoning.