Speed Limit Enforcement: Setting an Example for Adherence to Laws

[JasonRox]

My dad is a lead-foot and at 82 years of age, he just bought a 1997 Park Avenue Ultra with a 232ci V-6 that is supercharged and develops 240 hp and WAY more foot-pounds of torgue. If you're up here, he won't flip you the bird (he's too nice for that crap) but you will be looking at his rear bumper. I'm trying to slow him down, but it's tough.

How the hell does a Supercharged V6 only pack in 240hp? We really came a long way in 10 years.

 

[bassplayer142]

This is very true. A speeding person is can be more dangerous to their neighbors then someone who is drinking.

 

[redargon]

how accurate is a gps speed readout compared to the spedometer in a car compared to the actual speed of the car compared to the radar/laser gun that is measuring my speed?

An example I've noticed:When my spedometer says 120km/h, my gps usually says about 115km/h. Which is more accurate to my actual speed?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

how accurate is a gps speed readout compared to the spedometer in a car compared to the actual speed of the car compared to the radar/laser gun that is measuring my speed?

An example I've noticed:When my spedometer says 120km/h, my gps usually says about 115km/h. Which is more accurate to my actual speed?

Relative to the galaxy in Andromeda? 130 km/s.

 

[redargon]

Relative to the galaxy in Andromeda? 130 km/s.

ummmm thanks...

 

[turbo]

How the hell does a Supercharged V6 only pack in 240hp? We really came a long way in 10 years.

Can't say, for sure. Buick is known for smooth, quiet engines and that little push-rod mill is no exception. They might have been able to squeeze more performance out of it if they wanted, at the expense of fuel economy. Anyway, since it is supercharged, there is no lag in torque when you stomp on it, like there would be if it were merely turbocharged, like the Grand Nationals were.

 

[Moonbear]

I have a pet peeve of driving next to other people. I'll accelerate until I'm a good 10-15 car lengths ahead of you and then go the speed limit or match your speed so you never catch up to me. I can't stand being inside the pack of idiot's who are too indecisive to change lanes, slow down for no reason, or do various other stupid driving habbits.

Not driving next to other people isn't a pet peeve, that's proper defensive driving technique. You always want to leave at least a car length or two alongside you so you have room to quickly change lanes if something happens ahead that you can't brake in time for and need to maneuver around.

Which leads to my pet peeve...that slow person you start to pass who decides that's when they'll speed up and pace you so you can't get around them. If they just KEEP doing their slow speed, it's much easier to get around them and leave them alone. When they do that crap of speeding up when you go to pass them (and you know if you then drop back down behind them, they'll slow down again, so you don't want to do that option), that makes me WANT to tailgate them for hours.

 

[CPL.Luke]

I usually flash my brights when I want someone to move over, most people understand that and it is safer than tailgaiting. although I must admit if they ignore it I will push them a little bit to move over, and I try to move over when people want me to.

You know people are talking like lowering the speed limit will always result in increased safety, however hyway hypnosis and the like are equally dangerous. If anyone knows the history of highways in America they initially tried to make them all straight believing this would be safer compared to the German idea of making them elegantly curve (which was done for aesthetic reasons). They quickly discovered that the result was actually an increased accident rate due to drivers falling asleep, or becoming distracted as it wasn't expected that anything would change in the road ahead of them.

thats why most modern highways always seem to be curving, it reduces accidents. The problem with rigid speed limits is that as cars become capable of higher speed (a modern car of moderate means can easily do 90 with the same control that a car 20 years ago could do 75 at) if this trend continues and speed limits aren't ajusted upwards it will cause an increase in accidents.

 

[porums]

That sounds drammatic.

 

[BobG]

I usually flash my brights when I want someone to move over, most people understand that and it is safer than tailgaiting. although I must admit if they ignore it I will push them a little bit to move over, and I try to move over when people want me to.

This works in Europe. I think it's a standard signal, just like using your blinkers to indicate a turn. It's at least very common.

I think more people in the US understand this signal than used to (or, having spent 20 years in the military and even more living in military towns, I just see more American drivers that have lived in Europe), but there's still a lot that wouldn't have a clue why you flashed your brights.

 

[JasonRox]

Can't say, for sure. Buick is known for smooth, quiet engines and that little push-rod mill is no exception. They might have been able to squeeze more performance out of it if they wanted, at the expense of fuel economy. Anyway, since it is supercharged, there is no lag in torque when you stomp on it, like there would be if it were merely turbocharged, like the Grand Nationals were.

Yeah I know, but don't nationally aspirated V6 engines have over 200hp now?

I know the BMW's with I6's have up to like 230hp, and that's just engine.

 

[Alfi]

I can't help thinking that if the Government really wanted people to not drive faster than the maximum posted speeds ( 75 mph or whatever the fastest legal speed is anywhere ) for the pure reason of safety and protection, it would be the simplest thing to have the car manufacturers install a chip to limit the speed before the car is sold. As many of the commercial transports do.
Since they do not, I have to believe they ( police and government ) don't really have any true interest in speed limits as a protection for ourselves or others.

Acceleration ( zero to death in x seconds) is a major selling factor in some cars but they certainly don't tout in their advertisements that these cars have a maximum speed of double or triple the countries maximum speed limits.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I can't help thinking that if the Government really wanted people to not drive faster than the maximum posted speeds ( 75 mph or whatever the fastest legal speed is anywhere ) for the pure reason of safety and protection, it would be the simplest thing to have the car manufacturers install a chip to limit the speed before the car is sold. As do many of the commercial transports do.

It would be dangerous if you could not go faster than the limit too. Sometimes you need to accelerate out of a dangerous situation.

 

[rewebster]

It would be dangerous if you could not go faster than the limit too. Sometimes you need to accelerate out of a dangerous situation .

like...

Bond...James Bond

 

[turbo]

Yeah I know, but don't nationally aspirated V6 engines have over 200hp now?

I know the BMW's with I6's have up to like 230hp, and that's just engine.

I think that the point is that this simple push-rod engine (no OHC, timing chain etc, etc) is bulletproof. Buick was selling them to Jeep back when they were producing V-6 CJ5s in the 1960's, and they put them in all kinds of cars including the Skyhawk (THAT was a fun car to drive) and in their smaller luxury cars, too, as well as their Grand National muscle car. Those engines last a long time and they can produce some serious torque, even using regular unleaded, unlike engines that are so tweaked and high-compression that they must have premium gas. I think that Buick was smart not to try to engineer a brand-new V-6 when they could tweak an existing one with such a track record.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

like...

Bond...James Bond

Like Snyder, Jimmy Snyder. I have a license to drive.

 

[turbo]

Like Snyder, Jimmy Snyder. I have a license to drive.

It's even more important when you're on a bike. Even if you have all your marker lights and headlights on, drivers of cars and trucks pull out in front of you or try to make really stupid moves as if you don't exist. Strong acceleration on-tap is just as valuable as good braking in many situations.

 

[Alfi]

It would be dangerous if you could not go faster than the limit too. Sometimes you need to accelerate out of a dangerous situation.

I do not agree.

Please explain your belief to me.
You can accelerate from 45 to 55 same as ever.
but there is never a need to accelerate beyond the maximum unless you are already part of the problem with being a 'too fast' driver in the first place.

 

[Kurdt]

I do not agree.

Please explain your belief to me.
You can accelerate from 45 to 55 same as ever.
but there is never a need to accelerate beyond the maximum unless you are already part of the problem with being a 'too fast' driver in the first place.

You may have to accelerate out of the way of emergency vehicles. If someone was being particularly reckless with speeding I might imagine having to accelerate out of danger in that situation.

 

[edward]

I do not agree.

Please explain your belief to me.
You can accelerate from 45 to 55 same as ever.
but there is never a need to accelerate beyond the maximum unless you are already part of the problem with being a 'too fast' driver in the first place.

The need for acceleration is a safety factor. Every time I have to access I-10 I am glad I can get up to 80 mph quickly so I can merge into traffic safely. People who get to the point where they need to merge and are only going 60 mph are sitting ducks for the big rigs.

The problem is that a car that can accelerate that fast is also usually capable of going well over 100 mph.

Some vehicles have electronic controls that keep the driver from over revving the engine. A control system for top speed could work the same way. It would still allow quick acceleration up to a set point. But let's face it people won't go for the idea.

 

[LowlyPion]

... it would be the simplest thing to have the car manufacturers install a chip to limit the speed before the car is sold.

I can't imagine any car manufacturer wanting to shoot themselves in the crotch like that. That's the kind of thing people tried with prohibition. Won't work.

At best such a thing as this would be a phased in roll-out because the new car sales represent a small percentage of the current rolling stock on the road. With older cars grandfathered in no one would ever buy a new car - I for instance would refuse and drive clunkers forever - unless the current ones disintegrated and even then they would buy another pre-mandated car.

Then there would be a market in upgrade kits putting old motors or old computers or old chips into new cars. No-limit makeovers. It would be an enforcement nightmare and it would be a law with such widespread violation that it would be a late night comedy bonanza.

Now that I think about it though it sounds like something Bush might think made sense.

 

[brewnog]

I think that the point is that this simple push-rod engine (no OHC, timing chain etc, etc) is bulletproof. Buick was selling them to Jeep back when they were producing V-6 CJ5s in the 1960's, and they put them in all kinds of cars including the Skyhawk (THAT was a fun car to drive) and in their smaller luxury cars, too, as well as their Grand National muscle car. Those engines last a long time and they can produce some serious torque, even using regular unleaded, unlike engines that are so tweaked and high-compression that they must have premium gas. I think that Buick was smart not to try to engineer a brand-new V-6 when they could tweak an existing one with such a track record.

What's the typical life (before rebuild/scrap) for an American built engine such as that Buick these days?

 

[JasonRox]

I think that the point is that this simple push-rod engine (no OHC, timing chain etc, etc) is bulletproof. Buick was selling them to Jeep back when they were producing V-6 CJ5s in the 1960's, and they put them in all kinds of cars including the Skyhawk (THAT was a fun car to drive) and in their smaller luxury cars, too, as well as their Grand National muscle car. Those engines last a long time and they can produce some serious torque, even using regular unleaded, unlike engines that are so tweaked and high-compression that they must have premium gas. I think that Buick was smart not to try to engineer a brand-new V-6 when they could tweak an existing one with such a track record.

You're right. Any engine built by BMW needs to be babied and taken care of.

The engine in my Neon takes a hard beating and same with the transmission, and it's running fine and the mechanic says it's still solid.

 

[turbo]

What's the typical life (before rebuild/scrap) for an American built engine such as that Buick these days?

That engine currently has over 200K miles on it and it purrs. I sold my Skyhawk (same engine, normally-aspirated) to a mechanic and he got over 250K out of it before the body wouldn't pass inspection without some major body-work (salt on the roads in winter is brutal). No engine rebuild - just normal scheduled maintenance.

 

[turbo]

I went to my father's today to help him siphon the gas out of his old Caprice before he junks it, and his mechanic is going over the Buick with a fine-tooth comb. He has already replaced the front right wheel-bearing (we knew about that one, as the previous owner had already bought a replacement and included it in the sale), and he's got some brake-pads on order for the front wheels as well as the 2 serpentine belts that run the alternator, power brakes, power steering, supercharger, etc.

 

[turbo]

You're right. Any engine built by BMW needs to be babied and taken care of.

And it demands to be fed T-bone steak, not hot-dogs. Feeding a high-compression engine regular unleaded can do a lot of damage. Pre-ignition (knock) places strain on engine parts, and the cumulative wear can greatly shorten the life of the engine. I had an old '86 HD Wide Glide with head work by Dave Perewitz (THE east-coast builder), fairly steep street-cams, S&S Super E racing carb and all kinds of performance mods, most of which I did myself, and that bike never got less than Super Premium. I would treat a high-output BMW engine the same way - the best available fuel, frequent oil and filter changes, etc.

 

[Moonbear]

I do not agree.

Please explain your belief to me.
You can accelerate from 45 to 55 same as ever.
but there is never a need to accelerate beyond the maximum unless you are already part of the problem with being a 'too fast' driver in the first place.

You're doing the speed limit, and someone from the opposing side of the road loses control and starts to spin out toward your car...you're better off stomping the gas to get out of the way or at least have them only hit the rear of your car than braking and guaranteeing they hit you right in the side door, likely to cause injuries to you.

I'm guessing that those who think everyone should never have reason to drive faster than the speed limit haven't been driving very long?

 

[JasonRox]

And it demands to be fed T-bone steak, not hot-dogs. Feeding a high-compression engine regular unleaded can do a lot of damage. Pre-ignition (knock) places strain on engine parts, and the cumulative wear can greatly shorten the life of the engine. I had an old '86 HD Wide Glide with head work by Dave Perewitz (THE east-coast builder), fairly steep street-cams, S&S Super E racing carb and all kinds of performance mods, most of which I did myself, and that bike never got less than Super Premium. I would treat a high-output BMW engine the same way - the best available fuel, frequent oil and filter changes, etc.

Yeah, they need steak for sure. They actually don't need that many oil changes. The recommended number of them by BMW is every 15,000 miles.

 

[Hurkyl]

I'm guessing that those who think everyone should never have reason to drive faster than the speed limit haven't been driving very long?

Or are just unimaginative. (IMHO) Too many people look only at the 'average case', and think that's all you need to plan for.

 

[tribdog]

there aren't that many cases where acceleration is going to be safer than braking or steering. Most cars don't have huge acceleration, so the times where you have enough time to accelerate out of danger you probably have enough time to find another solution. The only case I can see where you can accelerate out of danger is when you are driving over a collapsing bridge.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

You're doing the speed limit, and someone from the opposing side of the road loses control and starts to spin out toward your car...you're better off stomping the gas to get out of the way or at least have them only hit the rear of your car than braking and guaranteeing they hit you right in the side door, likely to cause injuries to you.

I'm guessing that those who think everyone should never have reason to drive faster than the speed limit haven't been driving very long?

As someone else already said (I think Cyrus) I don't like having cars right next to me. Its probably safer to speed up to get away from them than slow down and I'd say its safer as well to not drive with a vehicle directly next to you.

Also if someone is tail gating you it's best to speed up a bit to get away from them before getting out of their way. Though I tend to take my foot off the accelerator instead and just stay where I am. Occasionally I break check them but most people don't get it and tend to get mad at you for it.

 

[Hurkyl]

The only case I can see where you can accelerate out of danger is when you are driving over a collapsing bridge.

How about:

. Behind you, someone is swerving back and forth in their lane and being a danger to the people around them. Quickly accelerating gives them room to get out of the dangerous situation.

. You're merging onto a highway from a short on/off ramp. You're up to speed, but the car in the right lane places itself just far enough forward that you can't safely change lanes. (Note that hitting the brakes in such a situation would be incredibly dangerous)

 

[tribdog]

in don't think accelerating in either case is the SAFEST solution. I'll admit it may be the most convienient solution. In the first case pulling onto a side street or onto the shoulder is the right move. accelerating simply postpones the time until you have to deal with the car behind you.
In the second case slowing down and waiting until you can merge, using the shoulder if you have to, is the safest.

 

[redargon]

As anyone got any stats about the number of accidents (would have to be a percentage of cars that use the road to be even) on the German Autobahn (where there is no speed limit) to say, a highway where there is a speed limit?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobahn see subsection: "accident record"

 

[Kurdt]

As anyone got any stats about the number of accidents (would have to be a percentage of cars that use the road to be even) on the German Autobahn (where there is no speed limit) to say, a highway where there is a speed limit?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobahn see subsection: "accident record"

Only certain parts of the Autobahn are not limited.