|
My buddy bought his very first car, brand new, a couple months ago (age 36) and has been babying it ever since. Today he came out to this:  The person that hit him (thankfully not a hit and run):  The second innocent person behind:  He said that "the culprit apparently can't parallel park and tried to force it in." I can't figure out how they hosed up their own driver's side fender trying to parallel park.  Uthor fucked around with this message at 01:14 on Oct 2, 2016 |
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 07:36 |
|
|
The Locator posted:Cruise Control is my savior on the highway. Out here where the speed limit is 75, I just set it at 80 and cruise. The best part of driving in California: "Trucks OK left lane" "Through traffic left lane" It's something else living in a place where the traffic in the left lane can easily be slower than the right lane since all through traffic is using the left, local the right and since local is often a little faster, people merge right to pass since that is the only option to get around some of the unique travelers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
EightBit posted:These are the goons we share the road with. That said, five out of the seven were on 3+3 lane or larger divided interstate highways with absurd 60 MPH limits. It's not like I'm flying past people, no one except the occasional student driver or geezer is actually following the limit there because 60 MPH on those roads is idiotic. Geoj I think you can back me up on this one, 71 and 480 are full of areas that are marked 60 but have an average free-flowing speed more in the 75+ range. It's not hard to be 20+ over the limit but still not significantly faster than prevailing speed of traffic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 06:30
|
|
|
Ludicro posted:
As much as I despise people like this, at least they're staying out of the overtaking lane with their bullshit. A lot of the problems of dealing with these sorts of drivers can be avoided by having a "no trucks" lane where it is a hell of a lot easier to get past them.  Of course, then you get the type who just sit in the inside lane because "There's never anyone in front of me and I can go my own speed."
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 06:35
|
|
|
wolrah posted:That said, five out of the seven were on 3+3 lane or larger divided interstate highways with absurd 60 MPH limits. It's not like I'm flying past people, no one except the occasional student driver or geezer is actually following the limit there because 60 MPH on those roads is idiotic. Geoj I think you can back me up on this one, 71 and 480 are full of areas that are marked 60 but have an average free-flowing speed more in the 75+ range. It's not hard to be 20+ over the limit but still not significantly faster than prevailing speed of traffic. A section of I-10 west of Phoenix used to be 75mph. It was your typical 2-lane interstate, reasonably maintained, but nothing special. Then they completed a big re-work and the same stretch is now 3 to 5 lanes plus a carpool lane, and beautifully smooth with rubberized asphalt. The speed limit is now 65mph. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 07:51
|
|
|
The Locator posted:A section of I-10 west of Phoenix used to be 75mph. It was your typical 2-lane interstate, reasonably maintained, but nothing special. Then they completed a big re-work and the same stretch is now 3 to 5 lanes plus a carpool lane, and beautifully smooth with rubberized asphalt. The speed limit is now 65mph. Arizona is full of old people. Old people hate speed. Old people vote.  Signed, A Floridian
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 14:42
|
|
|
wolrah posted:To be clear that is just an average. I've only had two pullovers and one ticket in the last six years, over which time I've driven about 100,000 miles. 465 around Indianapolis is marked at 55, but you're a rolling hazard if you do less than 70.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
I'm probably in the minority of younger people here, but I'm fine with 65 mph speed limits (with a 10 over wiggle room). Yeah, going faster is fun and all, but less time to react (especially in deer infested Wisconsin) and more fuel being burned doesn't jive well with me. Plus, a 300 mile trip at 65 mph the entire trip, no stops, takes ~277 minutes, and at 70 mph it takes ~257 minutes. Wow, 20 minutes, such a time save (75 mph is 240 minutes). Going faster is subject to diminishing returns, basically. Ah well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
iospace posted:I'm probably in the minority of younger people here, but I'm fine with 65 mph speed limits (with a 10 over wiggle room). Yeah, going faster is fun and all, but less time to react (especially in deer infested Wisconsin) and more fuel being burned doesn't jive well with me. Going 100+ is where it's at.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
PCOS Bill posted:Going 100+ is where it's at. Nah the wind noise gets painfully loud above 75mph anyway. Not worth it for extended periods.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
Raluek posted:Nah the wind noise gets painfully loud above 75mph anyway. Not worth it for extended periods. No wind noise issues here, maybe check your equipment for issues
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
Drive across mt, texas, wy, etc at 65 and see how you feel. Limits just got bumped up to 80 here and being able to cruise at 85+ saves a lot of time. I will happily pay for the extra fuel.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
I drive around 50k a year, most of it for work at this point. If I do 80 instead of 65, that's 144 hours a year I am not spending in a car. ... what I'm saying is I need to put one of my dashcams in my car for once so you guys get to see the idiotic poo poo I see 2-4 times per commute, and/or need to make my commute shorter. Christ.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
65 and under is fine in urban areas but out in the sticks if you aren't going as fast as conditions allow you're just pissing your life away. Especially in the west where roads can be arrow straight for 20 miles and completely vacant. Though I do slow down a lot in dense forests or once disk hits. Never hit a deer and want to keep it that way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
iospace posted:I'm probably in the minority of younger people here, but I'm fine with 65 mph speed limits (with a 10 over wiggle room). Yeah, going faster is fun and all, but less time to react (especially in deer infested Wisconsin) and more fuel being burned doesn't jive well with me. I-10 & I-8 in Arizona have more than enough time to react to stuff at 75-80mph if you are even pretending to pay attention. Long straight roads with generally very good maintenance and typically excellent driving conditions (if you don't mind hot), it's perfectly safe as long as you don't fall asleep, and since faster speeds means less time behind the wheel, seems like less chance to fall asleep, but that's just me talking out of my rear end based on my own personal driving vs. getting tired experience. My house to San Diego is about 350 miles. At 80mph (75+5 in AZ, or 70+10 in CA, although I usually drop to 75) that's 4h 23m. At 65mph that would be 5h 23m. So yea, I'll keep getting to my destination an hour earlier, thanks. I typically do this drive during the day on a weekday, and it's pretty normale to travel 40 or 50 miles or more at 80mph without passing, or being passed by another car on I-8. The difference in fuel is heavily dependent on the vehicle driven. My car gets about 28.5mpg at 65 and drops to about 27mpg at 80, so 12.28g vs. 12.96g or about $2 worth of gas to save an hour of my time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
iospace posted:I'm probably in the minority of younger people here, but I'm fine with 65 mph speed limits (with a 10 over wiggle room). Yeah, going faster is fun and all, but less time to react (especially in deer infested Wisconsin) and more fuel being burned doesn't jive well with me. Yeah but not everyone is capable of sitting a 4-5 hour car ride straight with no breaks unless you count that crazy astronaut diaper lady
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
Calling it "diminishing returns" is dumb too, since it's a linear relation between speed and time...
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 04:23
|
|
|
For some people, driving is a chore, so their 20 minutes isn't yours to just casually toss aside on a boring activity. I'll be way happier to cruise at or below 65.0 when my car can drive itself and I can read or something instead of staring at asphalt for hours.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 04:26
|
|
|
Javid posted:For some people, driving is a chore, so their 20 minutes isn't yours to just casually toss aside on a boring activity. You have to think, too, police departments aren't going away. they use ticket revenue now to make up huge chunks of their budget. once most people aren't driving, there's going to be a smaller pool of manual motorists to milk.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 04:29
|
|
|
Watermelon Daiquiri posted:Calling it "diminishing returns" is dumb too, since it's a linear relation between speed and time... I guess depending on how one thinks about it. If one thinks "double the speed, half the time", yes, there's no diminishing returns. If one thinks about how much time one saves by going a certain speed faster, yeah, there's diminishing returns. Going from 20 mph to 40 mph cuts one's time in half. Going from 40 mph to 60 mph is the same 20 mph increase, but only reduces one's travel time by 33%. So, each 1 mph increase is a smaller and smaller decrease in travel time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 05:29
|
|
|
Uthor posted:I guess depending on how one thinks about it. If one thinks "double the speed, half the time", yes, there's no diminishing returns. That's probably because 20-40 is doubling speed, whereas 40-60 is not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
Did you guys know if you pick a destination and drive half the remaining distance every day you'll never arrive?!
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
kastein posted:I drive around 50k a year, most of it for work at this point. If I do 80 instead of 65, that's 144 hours a year I am not spending in a car. That's some gross speeding.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
80 ain't nothing anymore. Once Illinois decided to modernize and allowed 65 mph limits, people went nuts and commonly cruise at 85+. I typically set the cruise control at 70 and get passed like I'm standing still. I'm basically relegated to the right lane because now I'm the slow fucker.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 06:13
|
|
|
TNO posted:465 around Indianapolis is marked at 55, but you're a rolling hazard if you do less than 70. ISP doesn't seem to give a poo poo about anything less than 20+ over unless there's an unusual traffic hazard in the area. On 465 I've done 75 past troopers with their radar out and they don't even do the "keep it down" wave.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 08:04
|
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:That's some gross speeding. That's barely keeping up with traffic some places.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 09:31
|
|
|
PCOS Bill posted:That's barely keeping up with traffic some places.  (click the smiley)
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 09:37
|
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:
It would have worked if it were a good joke
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 09:45
|
|
|
Watermelon Daiquiri posted:Calling it "diminishing returns" is dumb too, since it's a linear relation between speed and time... Two things, one, yes, distance is linear. Two, I was talking about time taken to go a fixed distance at a given speed. It's an inverse function. We know speed = distance / time. While yes, distance is linear (distance = speed * time), time however is not (time = distance / speed). So yes, going faster is subject to diminishing returns. For example, say you have 100 miles to go. You go at 25, 50, and 100 mph. It will take you 4, 2, and 1 hours to do that distance. Going from 25 to 50 mph shaves off two hours, but going from 50 to 100 only shaves off another hour. If that's not diminishing returns, I don't know what is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 12:41
|
|
|
It's literally half each time when you double the speed. What are you on about?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 12:46
|
|
|
I thought the joke was that the gross speeding was referring to 144 hours. A dozen dozen hours. Or, a gross. I'm seeing diminishing returns on the quality of discussion vs the number of posts about diminishing returns.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 12:49
|
|
|
You get rapidly diminishing returns on your fuel spent to go faster.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 14:50
|
|
|
You can always buy more gas. You can never get those 20 minutes back. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 14:55
|
|
|
xzzy posted:You can always buy more gas. You can never get those 20 minutes back. But you end up spending those 20 minutes on buying more gas, so it's still wasted 
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
I ran the numbers on fuel burn rate a while back and it worked out to some low single digit number of dollars per hour of my life saved. With what I make as an engineer and how little time I have to spend with my fiancee and work on stuff I want to work on these days, I'll claw back every spare minute I can at that price.Gorilla Salad posted:That's some gross speeding. I completely missed the pun until someone else called it out, well done. That being said, 80 is speed of traffic here. If not faster. I was getting tailgated in the middle lane doing 80 today and people were flying by me on the left doing 85-90.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
Javid posted:For some people, driving is a chore, so their 20 minutes isn't yours to just casually toss aside on a boring activity. I love driving around but the "chore" part comes in around tons of other people who have no idea what they're doing. There are tons of little back roads and paved country roads near me and I love to set my cruise, roll down the windows and drive out around the farm areas or other lesser-populated places where traffic is almost non-existent. At the same time I find it much less of a chore to drive somewhere when I can at least leave early and give myself a few extra minutes - that always leads to fun times with idiots riding my bumper or hauling past me all upset because they're late getting someplace, and usually I'm already doing around 5 over when they blast by. They can get mad all they want, not my problem that they chose to not learn basics about getting their dumb asses out of bed on time or figuring out how to set an alarm  reminds me of the gigantic lazy fatties that complain about "never having time" for getting shopping done, meanwhile they're the ones tooling around the parking lot angry and frustrated for 20 minutes looking for the closest spot possible.
BOOTY-ADE fucked around with this message at 16:15 on Oct 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
Phy posted:I was booting it at 120 km/h through a national park a couple weeks ago, where the limit is 90 and the Mounties hold sway. Oncoming car starts flashing its highbeams at me in the universally understood "cops ahead, slow the gently caress down buddy" manner. So I drop to 95, car stops flashing, and as we get closer, I realize it's got a lightbar... and RCMP decals on the side as we pass... To be fair, if the RCMP pulled over every vehicle speeding through the parks, they would literally never get anything else done. I usually cruise at 100-110 km/h through Banff and Glacier, and especially in Alberta I regularly get passed by people doing 120 km/h or faster.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
iospace posted:For example, say you have 100 miles to go. You go at 25, 50, and 100 mph. It will take you 4, 2, and 1 hours to do that distance. Going from 25 to 50 mph shaves off two hours, but going from 50 to 100 only shaves off another hour. If that's not diminishing returns, I don't know what is. What you have depicted there is exactly a linear relationship. Going 4x as fast will take 1/4 of the time. Going 3x as fast will take 1/3 of the time. Going 2x as fast will take 1/2 of the time. TotalLossBrain fucked around with this message at 17:17 on Oct 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
xzzy posted:80 ain't nothing anymore. Once Illinois decided to modernize and allowed 65 mph limits, people went nuts and commonly cruise at 85+. It's 70 mph south of I-80. I'm getting old and just set my cruise at 75 mph (≈72 mph taking into account my inaccurate speedo) and sit in the right lane with little issues. It's pretty nice cause I used to go 75 mph and stress about passing all the slow fucks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 07:36 |
|
|
This morning crossing with the light in a marked crosswalk across a freeway onramp a dude in a truck making a right onto the ramp ran the red and almost hit me. This is a frequent occurrence for me at this crossing. As he passed I took another step forward and a Lexus SUV behind that guy came flying right after him, like most everyone assuming that there couldn't possibly ever be a pedestrian in the crosswalk. Why would you even bother wasting a second of your life considering that possibility? I shouted and he stabbed the brakes, and then made a really strange facial expression as he floored it again, causing me to stumble backward to avoid getting struck as he blasted past me. Of course the light at the top of the onramp is red so both of these idiots had to immediately come to a stop and wait, but risking my life was worth it, like it is for every idiot goddamn fuckhead that's almost run me over. No one gives a poo poo any more. If either of these two had killed me I have no doubt they would've carried along on their way to wherever they were going. Years of this has convinced me that the average driver/motorcyclist/bicyclist doesn't consider pedestrians to be people, or even alive. We're just trash blowing across the road.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2016 17:16
|
|
