Go 100 MPH go to Jail?

[nhbubba]

And you used the words "titty juice" together.

[repete513]

Yeah, I don't mean to toot my own awesomeness, but I am fucking boss at the interneting

[Kham]

wow! nice thread. haha... i think im gonna ride again this year. can't wait to hit 100 again. forgot what it feels like. i have been doing 65 in middle lane too and feels like i block traffic. whatsup with that?

[RandyO]

for those that think they may have the cops badge for a bad arrest

http://www.concordmonitor.com/news/1...investigations

[loudbeard]

America fuck yeah

[sdog30]

I'm sorry, but it is physically impossible to ride a bike under 100 on that stretch of route 9 east where it goes to double lanes between Bennington and Wilmington.

Oh that's Vermont? Never mind.

[sdog30]

The pass between Brattleboro and Keene is pretty similar though. Just saying...

[G21forme]

That's the thing Sam, not saying 100 should be the limit but raising fines is bullshit. The original bill was 75 in NH iirc but somehow got dropped to 70. I can't tell how many times I could see a mile ahead and behind and couldn't see any cats on 93.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[RandyO]

but somehow got dropped to 70

not familiar with the engineering design plans of that part of 93, but I know from reviewing other plan sets of divided highway sections that their original design speed was only 70, design of on/off ramps have more to do with the highway's design speed than anything else, the ramps have to be capable of getting traffic up to speed and merging with traffic safely, even with older cars, while it may be safe for most modern vehicles at higher speeds, we share the highway

[e30addict]

not familiar with the engineering design plans of that part of 93, but I know from reviewing other plan sets of divided highway sections that their original design speed was only 70, design of on/off ramps have more to do with the highway's design speed than anything else, the ramps have to be capable of getting traffic up to speed and merging with traffic safely, even with older cars, while it may be safe for most modern vehicles at higher speeds, we share the highway

When are these plans from and define modern? Your average commuter box in the past 20 years times has the power to merge to highway speeds without drama. It's the people who putter along at 30 mph until they suddenly realize the lane went away before they try to merge that are the issue; and you can't design that problem away

I drive a 100hp (when it was new) POS and I'm frequently already at the limit by the end of most ramps without trying hard at all. Hell, I can hit the limit by the end of most ramps, cornering like a granny with a car on the trailer behind me, if I wanted to burn the gas. Not a very powerful truck HP wise either.

[G21forme]

not familiar with the engineering design plans of that part of 93, but I know from reviewing other plan sets of divided highway sections that their original design speed was only 70, design of on/off ramps have more to do with the highway's design speed than anything else, the ramps have to be capable of getting traffic up to speed and merging with traffic safely, even with older cars, while it may be safe for most modern vehicles at higher speeds, we share the highway

The ramps imho are very capable of speeds in excess of 70. Combine that with the lack of congestion and the fact that most people know how to drive north of concord it's very easy to get on and off. There is almost always room to move over to the left to let vehicles on. Unlike the exits in Manchester on Rte 3 that you have to literally stop on the on ramp. Just my humble casual observation.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[Degsy]

for those that think they may have the cops badge for a bad arrest

http://www.concordmonitor.com/news/1...investigations

Yes, reports that someone kidnapped and repeatedly assaulted someone over a 3 day period of time is almost identical to police stopping someone for driving at 5 under the limit.

[RandyO]

think more of an 80,000 lb truck going down the exit ramp to a stop in what may not be perfect weather conditions

as I said most cars today are more than capable of higher speeds, but you share the highway

you also sharing the highway with my 1981 3/4 ton 6 cyl chevy van that can't get out of its own way and a top speed of barely 75 that takes me a half mile to get there

also remember, the highway was designed in the late 50s and built in the 60's

even if the 85% goes faster, they would not raise the speed limit above the original design speed

[RandyO]

Yes, reports that someone kidnapped and repeatedly assaulted someone over a 3 day period of time is almost identical yo police stopping someone for driving at 5 under the limit.

doesn't matter, they only have to have reasonable cause to pull you over, case law is on the side of leo's, if your in the middle lane driving 5 under you are violating "keep right except to pass", as I told you before, you'll likely beat the ticket, but have the badge..... doubtful , even if your the governor of the frickin state

[e30addict]

think more of an 80,000 lb truck going down the exit ramp to a stop in what may not be perfect weather conditions

What about the significantly higher limits out west for the same semi's? Sight lines might be better but that mostly means you'll just see what you're going to hit longer. The physics of stopping 80,000 lbs doesn't change based on location and I'd add the fact that snow in northern AZ is waaaay scarier to drive in then snow around here.

Last time I was in AZ most vehicles out side of the PHX metro stayed right around 80 (5mph over) and the semi's certainly where no different. The only exception being the grade; 35-40 up them and hammer down riding the roller coaster on the way down

Love to hear the opinion from people who drive the heavy stuff for a living.

[RandyO]

What about the significantly higher limits out west for the same semi's? Sight lines might be better but that mostly means you'll just see what you're going to hit longer. The physics of stopping 80,000 lbs doesn't change based on location and I'd add the fact that snow in northern AZ is waaaay scarier to drive in then snow around here.

Last time I was in AZ most vehicles out side of the PHX metro stayed right around 80 (5mph over) and the semi's certainly where no different. The only exception being the grade; 35-40 up them and hammer down riding the roller coaster on the way down

Love to hear the opinion from people who drive the heavy stuff for a living.

their highways were originally designed for that speed

[G21forme]

The 80,000 # vehicle needs to drive accordingly for the conditions present just like any operator. Designed in the 50s built in the 60s knowing the capability and safety of vehicles in 2014. Oh wait that's not right...

Eta Just thought what does a truck exiting have to do with traveling limits?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[G21forme]

In a 70 mph zone taken just now, I don't see 100 as being that fast...

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[RandyO]

In a 70 mph zone taken just now, I don't see 100 as being that fast...

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

until you hit that frost heave a quarter mile ahead

- - - Updated - - -

this is March, in Northern New England, I know better

[PhilB]

And all of you are missing the point of this problem. No one is proposing that the speed limit be raised to 100mph. There is a proposal to really fuck up the lives of anyone caught at over 100mph, regardless of conditions, which is inappropriate, and will harm many people unjustly. There was another proposal to raise the speed limit by 5mph in a couple of areas where people drive faster than that already pretty much all the time, which makes sense, since that is what is already happening without massive mayhem and carnage.

PhilB

[G21forme]

No Phil there are a few of us that get it.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[RandyO]

It's the internet, discussion has morphed

[G21forme]

It's the internet, discussion has morphed

So you are going to tell us how and who the Internet was built for next and how we are misusing it right?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[e30addict]

their highways were originally designed for that speed

Sure about that?

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/programadmin/interstate.cfm

Interstate Design Standards

The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 called for uniform geometric and construction standards for the Interstate System. The standards were developed by the State highway agencies, acting through the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and adopted by the FHWA. The standards are included in the AASHTO publication A Policy on Design Standards -- Interstate System available from the AASHTO web site. Examples of design standards for the Interstate System include full control of access, design speeds of 50 to 70 miles per hour (depending on type of terrain), a minimum of two travel lanes in each direction, 12-foot lane widths, 10-foot right paved shoulder, and 4-foot left paved shoulder. Initially, the design had to be adequate to meet the traffic volumes expected in 1975. Later, the requirement was changed to a more general 20-year design period to allow for evolution of the System.

I also found this fairly interesting regarding different speed limits for heavy trucks:

Some jurisdictions set lower speed limits that are applicable only to large commercial vehicles like heavy trucks and buses. While they are called "truck speed limits", they generally do not apply to light trucks.
Theory

Because trucks, considered as class 7 and 8, are far heavier than other vehicles, they take longer to stop, are less adept at avoiding hazards, and have much more momentum. Therefore, it follows from basic physics that limiting truck speeds could reduce the severity and incidence of truck-related crashes.

However, the research record is mixed. A 1987 study finds that crash involvement significantly increases when trucks drive much slower than passenger vehicles,[52] suggesting that the difference in speed between passenger vehicles and slower trucks could cause crashes that otherwise may not happen. Furthermore, in a review of available research, the Transportation Research Board (part of the United States National Research Council) states "[no] conclusive evidence could be found to support or reject the use of differential speed limits for passenger cars and heavy trucks" (page 11) and "a strong case cannot be made on empirical grounds in support of or in opposition to differential speed limits" (page 109).[53]

Two thirds (67%) of truck/passenger car crashes are the fault of the passenger vehicle.[54]

[e30addict]

And all of you are missing the point of this problem. No one is proposing that the speed limit be raised to 100mph. There is a proposal to really fuck up the lives of anyone caught at over 100mph, regardless of conditions, which is inappropriate, and will harm many people unjustly. There was another proposal to raise the speed limit by 5mph in a couple of areas where people drive faster than that already pretty much all the time, which makes sense, since that is what is already happening without massive mayhem and carnage.

PhilB

Yet the 100mph penalty bill will probably pass while the ones advocating a 5 mph increase are already dead