Your unpopular (non-political, non-offensive) opinions!

[Bitter]

22 minutes ago, WeTuLo707 said:

In my state of Missouri, you get charged according to increments of 5 mph over the limit. For instance, 5 over is a low level ticket, 10 is mid-range, and 15+ is the worst offenders. This is the case in all parts of the road and makes sense when you think about it. If I drive 30 mph in a 25 mph area, it is obviously not as reckless as if I drove 40-50 mph.

 

It all really revolves around braking speed. The higher you go, the longer that it takes you to come to a complete stop. Look up the figures yourself if you don't believe me. I believe that it takes about 0.25-0.5 miles to come to a full stop if you are going 70 MPH. With that in mind, it makes sense for the 5 MPH increment.

 

Having said this, I do agree with you that what the previous commenter listed is arbitrary rules with no scientific or logical basis.

It does not take 1500-2500ft to stop from 70mph, where on earth did you pull that notion from? Most cars and trucks have sub 150ft stopping distances from 60mph, 70mph would only be marginally longer and within error tolerance depending on road surface conditions. My 23yr old Toyota can pull a sub 100ft 60-0 two to three times in a row on ideal road surface and temperature. My 25 year old Mazda with rear drum brakes and no ABS can still haul to a stop in well under 150ft from 60mph. Brakes and brakes force application has only gotten better on newer cars. 120ft is pretty average for the past 20yrs.

Did you get car/light truck confused with semi truck/commercial truck or maybe freight train?????

 

As for speeding it's rarely the sole cause of an accident and I'd reckon to wager that impaired driving and distracted driving is an exponentially higher cause of road fatality and accident than is speeding alone. Remember, most tickets are issued in the left lane but most accidents happen in the right lane Traffic enforcement is never about safety, it's about revenue generation as most people stopped aren't going to be able to go and fight it since they're out of area or too poor to afford to fight it. That's why vehicles that appear to be in poor condition are disproportionly targeted and stopped.

[WeTuLo707]

3 minutes ago, Bitter said:

It does not take 1500-2500ft to stop from 70mph, where on earth did you pull that notion from? Most cars and trucks have sub 150ft stopping distances from 60mph, 70mph would only be marginally longer and within error tolerance depending on road surface conditions. My 23yr old Toyota can pull a sub 100ft 60-0 two to three times in a row on ideal road surface and temperature. My 25 year old Mazda with rear drum brakes and no ABS can still haul to a stop in well under 150ft from 60mph. Brakes and brakes force application has only gotten better on newer cars. 120ft is pretty average for the past 20yrs.

Did you get car/light truck confused with semi truck/commercial truck or maybe freight train?????

I just looked it up and to be fair, I definitely overcompensated a bit.

[Bitter]

Just now, WeTuLo707 said:

I just looked it up and to be fair, I definitely overcompensated a bit.

By a factor of 10 lol

[Godlygamer23]

1 hour ago, 8tg said:

Because the boundary is 55, and the maximum variance a functional speedometer or radar gun would have is about 2mph.

Anything beyond that filters out error.

Why do I deserve a license suspension for going 3MPH over the limit? Why enforce a speed limit so hard? Some of this boils down to how the speed limit was even set in the first place, because many of them are arbitrary. In fact, so arbitrary that even cops break them. 

[Godlygamer23]

1 hour ago, WeTuLo707 said:

In my state of Missouri, you get charged according to increments of 5 mph over the limit. For instance, 5 over is a low level ticket, 10 is mid-range, and 15+ is the worst offenders. This is the case in all parts of the road and makes sense when you think about it. If I drive 30 mph in a 25 mph area, it is obviously not as reckless as if I drove 40-50 mph.

 

It all really revolves around braking speed. The higher you go, the longer that it takes you to come to a complete stop. Look up the figures yourself if you don't believe me. I believe that it takes about 100-300 ft to come to a full stop if you are going 70 MPH depending on the condition of your vehicle. With that in mind, it makes sense for the 5 MPH increment.

 

Having said this, I do agree with you that what the previous commenter listed is arbitrary rules with no scientific or logical basis.

The main point of my comment is that they are very specific values, and humans are bad at judging based on that. When there are defined values in place, whatever they may be, I always push it to see where the upper limit really is and why those specific values were chosen. In many scenarios, it's chosen based on arbitrary rules versus sound reasoning. 

Edited September 7, 2023 by Godlygamer23

[Avocado Diaboli]

27 minutes ago, Godlygamer23 said:

Why do I deserve a license suspension for going 3MPH over the limit? Why enforce a speed limit so hard? Some of this boils down to how the speed limit was even set in the first place, because many of them are arbitrary. In fact, so arbitrary that even cops break them. 

You can play that game endlessly. Why is 3mph over the limit too much? Why is 4mph over the limit too much? Why is 5mph over the limit too much? Why is 10mph over the limit too much? Why is 50mph over the limit too much? And then you can start asking why you can go as fast as your car will allow on certain German highways and what makes the speed limit in general defensible. You will never get a satisfactory answer. The real answer is stop breaking the law at all. The law allows for certain tolerances already. Exceed those and lose the privilege. Driving is a privilege, not a right.

[Agall]

42 minutes ago, Godlygamer23 said:

Why do I deserve a license suspension for going 3MPH over the limit? Why enforce a speed limit so hard? Some of this boils down to how the speed limit was even set in the first place, because many of them are arbitrary. In fact, so arbitrary that even cops break them. 

I fall under the opinion that we should either loosen up speed limits to be 'speed recommendations' or have a two-tiered licensing system that allows some people to drive faster than others. With how low a lot of speed limits are, it just incentivizes people to distract themselves, rather than being an active participant on the road.

 

My rule of thumb is the faster you get from A to B, the less interactions you have with other cars and therefore the less likely you are to get in an accident. People should drive fast within reason, which is generally at/above speed limits in my opinion.

 

The other thing speed limits don't consider is how much vehicle technology has changed, with how much faster cars can stop relative to when those speed limits were passed. But just like other 'safety' laws, no politician is going to stick their neck out to reduce 'safety laws' because they'll just get raked over about how they just want more kids to die, even if increasing speed limits by 10% could solve a host of problems people face on the road.

 

My favorite is I'll get state (redacted) sponsored Spotify ads saying, "people cause traffic, so drive less" as a solution to road issues, genuinely.

[8tg]

1 hour ago, Godlygamer23 said:

Why do I deserve a license suspension for going 3MPH over the limit? Why enforce a speed limit so hard?

It’s a deterrent to enforce slower speeds.

It’s a speed limit, not a speed requirement. Go 53 in a 55.

Much as the above mentioned scale of ticketing works, the more severe the speeding the more severe the consequences should be. A minor ticket translated may just be a week of license suspension, longer for more severe crimes and then something like reckless driving, should remove the fine and enforce jail time.

 

A limit is finite, it’s not a limit + whatever you personally feel is reasonable.

[8tg]

24 minutes ago, Agall said:

My rule of thumb is the faster you get from A to B, the less interactions you have with other cars and therefore the less likely you are to get in an accident.

On a matter of local scale average “speeding” doesn’t save more than seconds at most. Watching people do damn near a 0-60 test run in their car from a stoplight only to end up at the next stop light and wait right alongside me.

It doesn’t have any time advantage worth noting, even on a long distance scale like I used to drive in a truck each week. 2300 miles one way, going 65 instead of 60 is 3 hours of time saved. That’s it.

Shrink down that distance, going 5 over net you almost no time savings.

[Agall]

9 minutes ago, 8tg said:

On a matter of local scale average “speeding” doesn’t save more than seconds at most. Watching people do damn near a 0-60 test run in their car from a stoplight only to end up at the next stop light and wait right alongside me.

It doesn’t have any time advantage worth noting, even on a long distance scale like I used to drive in a truck each week. 2300 miles one way, going 65 instead of 60 is 3 hours of time saved. That’s it.

Shrink down that distance, going 5 over net you almost no time savings.

You're missing an entire aspect, that when going from a-g, each letter being stoplights, that going 5mph faster between b-c which prevents you from hitting the light at c, and therefore reducing the probability of every light after that.

 

The less lights you hit, the lower the probability of hitting the next light. My commute to work has 8 lights, some of a couple of which are over a minute between rotations. It can more than double my commute time if I hit a light early on with the way they're timed.

 

Take this concept and extrapolate it to many vehicles, some of which take enough time at green lights on turns to prevent 1-2 cars from going through. That stacks up over time, sometimes getting bad enough to where people aren't in the left turn lane and in the normal lane, being a safety hazard.

[8tg]

17 minutes ago, Agall said:

You're missing an entire aspect, that when going from a-g, each letter being stoplights, that going 5mph faster between b-c which prevents you from hitting the light at c, and therefore reducing the probability of every light after that.

 

The less lights you hit, the lower the probability of hitting the next light. My commute to work has 8 lights, some of a couple of which are over a minute between rotations. It can more than double my commute time if I hit a light early on with the way they're timed.

 

Take this concept and extrapolate it to many vehicles, some of which take enough time at green lights on turns to prevent 1-2 cars from going through. That stacks up over time, sometimes getting bad enough to where people aren't in the left turn lane and in the normal lane, being a safety hazard.

Your personal situation and your handling and determination of the guidelines and laws does not apply. They apply to all, universally. 
I live on a regular residential street with homes full of a bunch of children who play in their respective yards and in the street. 
Far more commonly than should ever be the case (the ideal number being zero times) has someone just gunned it down this street and hit upwards of 60mph. (As noted by the posted radar sign showing the 25mph speed limit.

I do not give one iota of a fuck about someone’s personal justification for driving 5mph over let alone 35mph over. That is astronomically stupid, self centered and reckless to others around them.

If you came up with some next level mental gymnastics to justify speeding and driving dangerously in general, I think of you in the exact same line as the room temperature iq mongoloid who hit 60mph on my road.

It is a speed limit, you go the limit or less, never over.

[Agall]

3 minutes ago, 8tg said:

Your personal situation and your handling and determination of the guidelines and laws does not apply. They apply to all, universally. 
I live on a regular residential street with homes full of a bunch of children who play in their respective yards and in the street. 
Far more commonly than should ever be the case (the ideal number being zero times) has someone just gunned it down this street and hit upwards of 60mph. (As noted by the posted radar sign showing the 25mph speed limit.

I do not give one iota of a fuck about someone’s personal justification for driving 5mph over let alone 35mph over. That is astronomically stupid, self centered and reckless to others around them.

If you came up with some next level mental gymnastics to justify speeding and driving dangerously in general, I think of you in the exact same line as the room temperature iq mongoloid who hit 60mph on my road.

It is a speed limit, you go the limit or less, never over.

You're entirely basing the premise of what safe is on an arbitrarily decided standard. Yes, someone at some point decided that 50mph on that road is unsafe, potentially because of hills, turns, wideness of the road, potential traffic, if there's industrial vehicles like farming equipment using it, etc.

 

You also lack vision, it's not 'mental gymnastics', it's an entirely logical understanding of traffic and in no way exclusively selfish. It benefits the individual, they get from A-B faster, but also mitigate congestion, which benefits everyone. It doesn't make much conscious thought to understand why traffic happens, especially when stop lights are involved.

 

Less traffic is better for everyone. If there are people who can safely drive at the speed limit and/or reasonably over, those individuals assist in speeding up traffic. If 'beating a light' without running it because you accelerated faster to the speed limit prevents you from being at that light, its one less vehicle that has to slinky its way back to full speed when it goes green. That makes everyone behind them less likely to hit the next light, which all feeds back.

 

Obviously unsafe behavior is unsafe, including any distracted driving while in a residential area, regardless of if they're going 5mph or 25mph. Someone who isn't fully paying attention to the road is a danger, or someone who's not operating at a capacity capable of reacting fast enough at whatever speed they're going.

 

I've lived in various parts of the US in my life, one of the least safe things I've experienced is an incapable and slow driver. They're a far bigger safety hazard than someone who regularly rides that speed limit with the reaction time act and concentration necessary to be a safe driver.

 

Ultimately, my hot take is that speed limits need to be reevaluated and likely increased on most roads. The theory being that if every vehicle traveled a certain percent faster given the technology we have today, we'd at least proportionally if not disproportionately reduce traffic/congestion. Unfortunately, the people who would be doing that would have a wall of hate going their way with your exact narrative, which is based on hyperbole and emotion.

 

I yearn for the days where I'm the lowest reaction and least attentive driver on the road, because the rest are robots.

[itshurleytime]

3 hours ago, Agall said:

Ultimately, my hot take is that speed limits need to be reevaluated and likely increased on most roads. The theory being that if every vehicle traveled a certain percent faster given the technology we have today, we'd at least proportionally if not disproportionately reduce traffic/congestion. Unfortunately, the people who would be doing that would have a wall of hate going their way with your exact narrative, which is based on hyperbole and emotion.

Higher speeds have a positive correlation to the accident rate, as well as the severity per accident. In the US, there are about 1500 excess deaths (and lots more serious injuries) due purely to increased speed limits over the last 25 years, completely undoing the massive increases in vehicle safety.  I live in an area that has 70 mph limits, we used to have 65 mph limits, the prevailing speed is still 5 over, which is now 75 instead of 70.  

Sure, I like saving 10 minutes over the 2 hour drive to visit my parents as much as the next person, and I keep up with the flow of traffic, but it'd be much safer and I probably wouldn't lose all that much satisfaction if the speed limit were back down to 65 (and I had the knowledge that we would have 37k fewer deaths over the next 25 years)

I do think there are opportunities for high speed car travel in the future with improvements in self-driving (or drive assist) - such as dedicated lanes for specific speed assisted driving - you could leave and join convoys along a highway traveling well above normal speeds, but your car would have to communicate with the other cars and with the grid, something like this article from 6 years ago. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/03/self-driving-cars-high-speed-lane-berkeley-california  It's probably going to be a while before self-driving vehicles are ubiquitous, but I think it's definitely viable.  In the meantime, how badly do you really need to save 1 minute on a 15 mile commute?

[Avocado Diaboli]

8 hours ago, Agall said:

You're missing an entire aspect, that when going from a-g, each letter being stoplights, that going 5mph faster between b-c which prevents you from hitting the light at c, and therefore reducing the probability of every light after that.

That notion goes against every urban planner who implements the concept of the green wave. Going faster than the speed limit almost guarantees that you'll be stopping at the next light, because it's calculated to turn green when you'd arrive with the assumed legal maximum speed.

 

7 hours ago, Agall said:

You also lack vision, it's not 'mental gymnastics'

Honestly, you are engaging in mental gymnastics here. You attempt to paint yourself as some kind of world class driver, for one. This is a typical assumption. Everybody believes themselves to be an above average driver. Not to mention that no amount of technological advances will make speeding safer, because your reaction time is still piss-poor, unless you want to relinquish control to full self-driving cars.

 

7 hours ago, Agall said:

I've lived in various parts of the US in my life, one of the least safe things I've experienced is an incapable and slow driver. They're a far bigger safety hazard than someone who regularly rides that speed limit with the reaction time act and concentration necessary to be a safe driver.

This is just patently nonsense. I see this assertion often and it always leaves out one single crucial detail: You assert that the slow driver is less safe because you feel compelled to drive more recklessly to pass them, because you are frustrated. That's the real reason you don't want to spell out, that you have a personality issue that leads you to drive in an unsafe manner when encountering other, slower road users. Not to mention that there's a sizeable contingent of people who habitually drive over the speed limit and consider those who drive exactly the speed limit to be those unsafe, slow drivers. 

 

All I see here from you are weak justifications for why you're breaking the law, for no real reason, nota bene. You're not meaningfully faster at your destination and you're not safer.

[Bitter]

I see that we have a lot of younger people who haven't had much experience with DWB I've only had 2nd hand experience with DWB. Laws are fine, but never are they ever uniformly or fairly applied. Saying every one gets a week suspension isn't fair. A rich person will just have someone else drive them, a poor person will be evicted.

But that's getting a little off topic.

[WildDagwood]

On 9/7/2023 at 5:17 PM, Agall said:

I fall under the opinion that we should either loosen up speed limits to be 'speed recommendations' or have a two-tiered licensing system that allows some people to drive faster than others. With how low a lot of speed limits are, it just incentivizes people to distract themselves, rather than being an active participant on the road.

 

My rule of thumb is the faster you get from A to B, the less interactions you have with other cars and therefore the less likely you are to get in an accident. People should drive fast within reason, which is generally at/above speed limits in my opinion.

 

The other thing speed limits don't consider is how much vehicle technology has changed, with how much faster cars can stop relative to when those speed limits were passed. But just like other 'safety' laws, no politician is going to stick their neck out to reduce 'safety laws' because they'll just get raked over about how they just want more kids to die, even if increasing speed limits by 10% could solve a host of problems people face on the road.

 

My favorite is I'll get state (redacted) sponsored Spotify ads saying, "people cause traffic, so drive less" as a solution to road issues, genuinely.

Having two sets of limits on the same roads is a terrible idea. It would cause way more accidents.

[VirusDumb]

Linux is overrated 

[Stahlmann]

4 hours ago, VirusDumb said:

Linux is overrated 

Overrated for a daily use gaming pc.

There are other areas where Linux is significantly better than Windows or Mac though.

It's all about the right tool for the job.

[Donut417]

Citizens of my city piss and moan that we have nothing. The only business that we attract are warehousing and trucking. We have access to two major freeways, a large airport, rail and we are located 28 miles from Detroit which means access to Canada. So a company came in and wants to build this: 

 

 

Sounds like it will be potentially over 2000 jobs. Offer stuff to do and some new food spots. The areas they are building it was a closed down golf course. But people are pissing and moaning. Because it's not a grocery store in downtown. For refers the Grocery store that was in downtown was closed by the Health Department for selling expired meat. They were selling expired meat because they were not making money. These dumb asses think the city can force a grocery store to go in to downtown. Literally I live just outside downtown, it's like a 5 minute drive to the next town to get to Meijer, Walmart, Aldi's or Menards (they have groceries as well). People dont understand that a business has to make money. 

[Godlygamer23]

Turn signals are effectively useless in the vast majority of scenarios, both from an enforcement perspective, and implementation perspective. 

[wONKEyeYEs]

A rhubarb pie does not require strawberries.

[VirusDumb]

There's no such thing as a curry in traditional Indian cuisine, it's made up by the British exporters in the colonial cuz they couldn't pronounce the real name of the dishes 

[VirusDumb]

Gaming Chairs are overpriced I'd rather just build a new PC for $300

[Jmz_P]

Not every person is stupid, but we are all ignorant. Only ignorance can be cured though.

[wseaton]

On 9/7/2023 at 6:33 PM, Agall said:

 

I've lived in various parts of the US in my life, one of the least safe things I've experienced is an incapable and slow driver. They're a far bigger safety hazard than someone who regularly rides that speed limit with the reaction time act and concentration necessary to be a safe driver.

 

 

Statistics don't hold your side.

 

The biggest increase in traffic accidents is caused by distracted driving coupled with higher speeds. The guy who feels he can drive 20mph over on a busy street because he's entitled to do so is the same guy who rear ends you because he / shes on their damn smart phone during rush hour.

 

Town I live in actually increased their speed limits on many suburban streets from 30mph to 40mph after the fomer speeds limits, which were that way for decades were concluded to be actually too slow. It was pretty radical thinking, but they did extensive traffic analysis and concluded since the average driver was doing 40-45mph anyways and there were no schools it was logical to raise them. Net result has not been an increase in accidents.

 

So, logically speeds  should be based on traffic flow analysis. However, I'm all for residential neighborhoods being able to install their own speed bumps for the idiots who want to drive at 60mph past parked tricycles and wagons. 

 

It's lack of traffic enforcement that drives me nuts. Local PD is seriously under staffed in terms of traffic patrol, and it shows with my daily commute. The guy driving with blacked out windows, tailgating at 25mph over and has no visible license plate is felon on his way to do something bad and needs to be hauled out of his car at gunpoint.If you have a problem with civilization and rules move somewhere whe're there's no running water.